Discussion:
The Bush Death Movie....Would You Go?
(too old to reply)
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-12 01:09:09 UTC
Permalink
So would you?

In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.

TMT


Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer

A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.

"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.

"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."

Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.

"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.

"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."

The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.

The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.

"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."

The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.

"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.

Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.

The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.

The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.

The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.

"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."

___

On the Net:

http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
BibsBro
2006-09-12 01:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.

Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.


BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
Fred Oinka
2006-09-12 01:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
BibsBro
Much as I hate to agree with a right winger, BB is right about it being
a very fucked up thing to do. There has been enough killing of
Americans.
BibsBro
2006-09-12 01:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
BibsBro
Much as I hate to agree with a right winger, BB is right about it being
a very fucked up thing to do. There has been enough killing of
Americans.
Thanks Fred, I respect you.

BibsBro
Gene
2006-09-12 03:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a
creepy thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this
way no matter how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of
decency.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a
warm reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which
centers on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The
audience applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a
Bush supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will
cause people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about
them," Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our
judicial system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't
believe "Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an
assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so
this is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It
includes interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI
officials, White House aides, journalists and anti-war activists,
along with suspects and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range
told the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us
all in the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by
the filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the
president and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect
was a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic,
the screenplay with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective
documentary with a fictional president, it would have undermined and
undercut that central idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
What a laugh.

Don't worry it won't play in America. No democrats or liberals wants Bush
dead. If he dies it will be one of your rightwing fanatics that do it.
Not one Democrat wants to look at that bastards face on any coinage or
bills or have a monument built to the lying piece of shit.
--
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
Jefferson

"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-12 04:21:29 UTC
Permalink
"If he dies it will be one of your rightwing fanatics that do it. "

That thought occurred to me also.

TMT
Post by Gene
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a
creepy thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this
way no matter how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of
decency.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a
warm reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which
centers on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The
audience applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a
Bush supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will
cause people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about
them," Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our
judicial system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't
believe "Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an
assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so
this is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It
includes interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI
officials, White House aides, journalists and anti-war activists,
along with suspects and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range
told the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us
all in the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by
the filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the
president and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect
was a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic,
the screenplay with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective
documentary with a fictional president, it would have undermined and
undercut that central idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
What a laugh.
Don't worry it won't play in America. No democrats or liberals wants Bush
dead. If he dies it will be one of your rightwing fanatics that do it.
Not one Democrat wants to look at that bastards face on any coinage or
bills or have a monument built to the lying piece of shit.
--
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas
Jefferson
"History is earmarked by the successes of liberals and mistakes of
conservatives." - ETG, CW4 USA Retired
john fernbach
2006-09-12 03:59:17 UTC
Permalink
BibsBro - Thank for for a good, sane post.

I'm an extreme left wing Democrat, or at any rate not a Republican, but
I've always thought Americans were supposed to get rid of bad leaders
through elections.

Or in some cases, as in the Civil Rights Movement when Martlin Luther
King was leading it, through non-violent direct action ...
"pettitioning for the peaceful redress of grievances."

But we're NOT supposed to practice "democracy" through gunfire, through
assassination.

This fantasy of shooting leaders who don't like is one we've learned
from too many mindless cowboy movies and cop shows. Too many mindless
"Swords and Sorcery" games, too.

Civilization is when Billy the Kid and Jesse James and Wyatt Earp all
leave town, die, or retire, and when Spiderman and the X-man and the
Incredible Hulk DO NOT replace them.

Civilization and democracy ocurr when the Mayor and the City Council,
and maybe the Teacher's Union and the Chamber of Commerce and the
churches and the freethinking newspaper editor, start to run old
Tombstone or Dodge City. Or wherever it is.
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-12 04:38:15 UTC
Permalink
"But we're NOT supposed to practice "democracy" through gunfire,
through
assassination. "

You are correct...if people play by the rules.

We are also not supposed to invade countries without cause, jail their
leaders without just cause, torture hundreds of people, kill tens of
thousands of their citizens, refuse to leave when it is proven that we
were wrong and shove "democracy" down people's throats.

That is...if you play by the rules.

If you stop and consider the subject, George W. Bush Jr. will be a
marked man for as long as he lives considering the long memory of the
Arabic people.

I personally would not want to shake hands with the man for fear of
being hit by a bullet meant for him. Those who go to his public
gatherings are fools for putting themselves and their families in
danger.

TMT
Post by john fernbach
BibsBro - Thank for for a good, sane post.
I'm an extreme left wing Democrat, or at any rate not a Republican, but
I've always thought Americans were supposed to get rid of bad leaders
through elections.
Or in some cases, as in the Civil Rights Movement when Martlin Luther
King was leading it, through non-violent direct action ...
"pettitioning for the peaceful redress of grievances."
But we're NOT supposed to practice "democracy" through gunfire, through
assassination.
This fantasy of shooting leaders who don't like is one we've learned
from too many mindless cowboy movies and cop shows. Too many mindless
"Swords and Sorcery" games, too.
Civilization is when Billy the Kid and Jesse James and Wyatt Earp all
leave town, die, or retire, and when Spiderman and the X-man and the
Incredible Hulk DO NOT replace them.
Civilization and democracy ocurr when the Mayor and the City Council,
and maybe the Teacher's Union and the Chamber of Commerce and the
churches and the freethinking newspaper editor, start to run old
Tombstone or Dodge City. Or wherever it is.
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
BibsBro
2006-09-14 21:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Thanks John, I wanted to see Clinton in jail, but I wouldn't want to see him
assasinated.

BibsBro
Post by john fernbach
BibsBro - Thank for for a good, sane post.
I'm an extreme left wing Democrat, or at any rate not a Republican, but
I've always thought Americans were supposed to get rid of bad leaders
through elections.
Or in some cases, as in the Civil Rights Movement when Martlin Luther
King was leading it, through non-violent direct action ...
"pettitioning for the peaceful redress of grievances."
But we're NOT supposed to practice "democracy" through gunfire, through
assassination.
This fantasy of shooting leaders who don't like is one we've learned
from too many mindless cowboy movies and cop shows. Too many mindless
"Swords and Sorcery" games, too.
Civilization is when Billy the Kid and Jesse James and Wyatt Earp all
leave town, die, or retire, and when Spiderman and the X-man and the
Incredible Hulk DO NOT replace them.
Civilization and democracy ocurr when the Mayor and the City Council,
and maybe the Teacher's Union and the Chamber of Commerce and the
churches and the freethinking newspaper editor, start to run old
Tombstone or Dodge City. Or wherever it is.
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
Roedy Green
2006-09-12 06:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.

Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.

However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
Lawrence Glickman
2006-09-12 07:51:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:22:25 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.
Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.
However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
Years ago, I saw something called the "Zapruder film," which was an
amateur 8mm film ( no videotape at the time ? ) of the John F Kennedy
assassination. It was horror to watch, but you couldn't help but
watch. And then the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, same thing.

I don't exactly remember when videotape made its debut. I must have
been busy doing something else...like going to school. No TV at
school.

It was sickening. Once you have seen it, you can _never_ forget it.
I always admired JFK. Even though in retrospect, I can see he made a
few mistakes here and there, he was overall an admirable President
IMO. It was painful to watch him die. It felt like losing a family
member.

Then, watching a criminal executed, this is not the same thing. You
are happy to see a scumbag like Tookie Williams bite the dust.

So the idea is, just killing alone isn't the thing. What that victim
does or doesn't mean to you personally is the thing, IMO.

Lg
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-12 23:44:28 UTC
Permalink
"You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam. "

This brings up an interesting point....by changing the character being
shot, does this make the film more viewable?

Instead of Bush, then Saddam, Osama Bin Forgotten or for those who did
not like the previous Administration, Clinton....

A human life is a human life.

And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"

TMT
Post by Roedy Green
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.
Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.
However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
BibsBro
2006-09-13 01:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
"You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam. "
How is Bush a much greater villain than Saddam?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
This brings up an interesting point....by changing the character being
shot, does this make the film more viewable?
Instead of Bush, then Saddam, Osama Bin Forgotten or for those who did
not like the previous Administration, Clinton....
Did we ever make a movie about Clinton's assasination? Did Republicans ever
throw parties while watching JFK's head exploding on videotape? I thought
the Kennedy's were justified in being angry about JFK's autopsy pictures
being released.

There is a reason why movies never use an actual person as a character in a
movie being murdered. It is a cruel and creepy thing to do. The hate filled
Left has crossed that line. It may very well backfire in your faces.


BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
A human life is a human life.
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
TMT
Post by Roedy Green
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.
Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.
However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
Zigler
2006-09-13 05:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
"You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam. "
How is Bush a much greater villain than Saddam?
Mainly because he is still running free...
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
This brings up an interesting point....by changing the character being
shot, does this make the film more viewable?
Instead of Bush, then Saddam, Osama Bin Forgotten or for those who did
not like the previous Administration, Clinton....
Did we ever make a movie about Clinton's assasination? Did Republicans ever
throw parties while watching JFK's head exploding on videotape? I thought
the Kennedy's were justified in being angry about JFK's autopsy pictures
being released.
There is a reason why movies never use an actual person as a character in a
movie being murdered. It is a cruel and creepy thing to do. The hate filled
Left has crossed that line. It may very well backfire in your faces.
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
A human life is a human life.
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
TMT
Post by Roedy Green
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.
Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.
However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 07:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
"You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam. "
How is Bush a much greater villain than Saddam?
Saddam was looking out for Iraq's interests. Bush was too...

Swill
Gunner
2006-09-14 16:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
"You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam. "
How is Bush a much greater villain than Saddam?
Saddam was looking out for Iraq's interests. Bush was too...
Swill
Fascinating how you manage to spin. Saddam was looking out for Saddams
interest.

Or the 300.000 dead kurds are somehow to Iraqs interest? Didnt Hitler
say something similar?

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 07:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Did we ever make a movie about Clinton's assasination?
Only because nobody thought of it.
Post by BibsBro
Did Republicans ever
throw parties while watching JFK's head exploding on videotape? I thought
the Kennedy's were justified in being angry about JFK's autopsy pictures
being released.
There is a reason why movies never use an actual person as a character in a
movie being murdered. It is a cruel and creepy thing to do.
The news is cruel and creepy?
Post by BibsBro
. The hate filled
Left has crossed that line. It may very well backfire in your faces.
Swill
Gunner
2006-09-14 16:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by BibsBro
Did we ever make a movie about Clinton's assasination?
Only because nobody thought of it.
Really? ROFLMAO!!!!
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by BibsBro
Did Republicans ever
throw parties while watching JFK's head exploding on videotape? I thought
the Kennedy's were justified in being angry about JFK's autopsy pictures
being released.
There is a reason why movies never use an actual person as a character in a
movie being murdered. It is a cruel and creepy thing to do.
The news is cruel and creepy?
Post by BibsBro
. The hate filled
Left has crossed that line. It may very well backfire in your faces.
Swill
Indeed it will.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
n***@gmail.com
2006-09-23 01:21:48 UTC
Permalink
checked out your website. Great job of showing the other side of the
story. It was clear in the Canadian press the way Palestinian deaths
were treated as less significant than Israeli deaths, and that the
rockets fired into Israel were the big news despite the extent of the
mismatching of fire power. You have helped to begin to shed some light
on some things that I wanted answers to.

Marc
Post by Roedy Green
Post by BibsBro
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You would have no compunction about viewing a movie about the
assassination of Saddam. So perhaps you can see why non-Americans
would so enjoy see the fictional destruction of a much greater villain
than Saddam.
Emotionally, I would be in 7th heaven to hear of Bush's assassination.
I hope it would be filmed so I could relish it over and over, the way
Americans relished the destruction of the world trade buildings. I
would love to see his brains splashing about in slow mo. He killed and
tortured far more people than Saddam.
However, rationally it would be a terrible thing. The destruction of
the sock puppet would be the blood sacrifice to wipe clean the sins of
Republicans. He would be sanctified. It would be an excuse for
martial law and the final end of the American democratic experiment.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
Maxwell Edison
2006-09-12 13:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
You know, life *is* like a box of chocolates, you never know what your
going to get.
--
"The borders of darkness shall be won by the smugglers of light." - not
quite Peter Rowan
bob
2006-09-12 13:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Why would they be disgusted? It's just a movie.
Post by BibsBro
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
So you've seen it?
Post by BibsBro
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
S***@flashlight.net
2006-09-19 01:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No. Sick movie. Patriotic Americans will be disgusted.
Using actually people as characters who are killed in a movie is a creepy
thing to do. I wouldn't wish to see any Democrats treated this way no matter
how much I dislike them. This movie has no sense of decency.
It's not designed for patriotic Americans or devout Muslims.
Nor is it designed as a training aid. It is designed to appeal to
the immature, disaffected and alienated wherever they may be.
A lot of time and money went into the production. Now, who
would go to that trouble?

Make no mistake, every hit on that site will be logged and every
download traced.
Post by BibsBro
BibsBro
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
NoMo
2006-09-12 01:21:19 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No, I would not go see it--and not because I am a Bush supporter, but
because I find it distasteful to fit the story around a currently living
president (I realize that the director's decision was based on a desire to
increase its "authenticity").

It's just my preference; if others want to see it, that's up to them..
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
It's theatrical release would be a "test of that right," not how many people
might attend a viewing.

Has it found a distributor ?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
Möbius Pretzel
2006-09-12 01:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
The Bush snuff film has inspired me to learn
how to run a loop on my media player.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
BibsBro
2006-09-12 01:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Möbius Pretzel
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
The Bush snuff film has inspired me to learn
how to run a loop on my media player.
...as you jack off on Bin Ladin's autographed picture.
Möbius Pretzel
2006-09-12 01:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Möbius Pretzel
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
The Bush snuff film has inspired me to learn
how to run a loop on my media player.
...as you jack off on Bin Ladin's autographed picture.
As you jack-off on pictures of BL's bosses. Bush & Cheney.
Christopher Helms
2006-09-12 10:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
That was my understanding-that the film was about the way we use
legitimate crises as blank checks and milk them for all they're worth.
In the America I live in, however, there would never be a "radical
turn" in the investigation of Chimps assassination. The immediate,
unchallenged, unquestioned conclusion would be "Al Queda did it" or
"Iran did it." There would be a big, publicised, much lauded,
bullshit-packed "Official" report on his death that would be widely
embraced and never challenged in any way except by "tinfoil hat wearing
conspiracy theorists." There could be a thousand witnesses
contradicting the official story, photographic evidence contradicting
it, people swearing in court to things that would contradict the
official story, a million impossible, unprecedented things required to
make the official story work and the official story would still stand
in unquestioned majesty, taking its rightful place among the landscape
of urban legends that is the American psyche.
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-12 23:36:51 UTC
Permalink
I alway recall the Oklahoma City bombing.....and the immediate thought
that "the Arabs did it"....and the latter realization that it was one
of our home town boys.

If and when a Presidental assassination does occur, the suspects will
be many and varied which will include more than those of Arabic
descent.

It has been mentioned that ultraright wing groups are not happy with
this Administration and I recall that abortion clinics are bombed and
doctors shot in good conscience by those who could be your next door
neighbors.

TMT
Post by Christopher Helms
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
That was my understanding-that the film was about the way we use
legitimate crises as blank checks and milk them for all they're worth.
In the America I live in, however, there would never be a "radical
turn" in the investigation of Chimps assassination. The immediate,
unchallenged, unquestioned conclusion would be "Al Queda did it" or
"Iran did it." There would be a big, publicised, much lauded,
bullshit-packed "Official" report on his death that would be widely
embraced and never challenged in any way except by "tinfoil hat wearing
conspiracy theorists." There could be a thousand witnesses
contradicting the official story, photographic evidence contradicting
it, people swearing in court to things that would contradict the
official story, a million impossible, unprecedented things required to
make the official story work and the official story would still stand
in unquestioned majesty, taking its rightful place among the landscape
of urban legends that is the American psyche.
BibsBro
2006-09-13 01:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
I alway recall the Oklahoma City bombing.....and the immediate thought
that "the Arabs did it"....and the latter realization that it was one
of our home town boys.
If and when a Presidental assassination does occur, the suspects will
be many and varied which will include more than those of Arabic
descent.
It has been mentioned that ultraright wing groups are not happy with
this Administration and I recall that abortion clinics are bombed and
doctors shot in good conscience by those who could be your next door
neighbors.
TMT
Crying about abortion clinics? You previously replied to me:

"A human life is a human life."

And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"

TMT

FlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflopFlipflop
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-13 03:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Go whine to someone else....my point that some like to pick and choose
their ethics when it suits them is valid.

Especially for conservative born again Republican hypocrites......

The original Flip Floppers.

TMT
Terryc
2006-09-13 05:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
Gunner
2006-09-13 05:58:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.

Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.

Big difference.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Zigler
2006-09-13 14:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Post by Gunner
Big difference.
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Jeff McCann
2006-09-13 15:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Sorry, but "Kill" is merely a mis-translation to English. "Murder" is more
accurate. Try Googling the phrase and looking at some of the more credible
Bible study sites.

Jeff
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-13 15:53:43 UTC
Permalink
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."

LOL....there are credible Bible sites?

Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.

Arguing sematics is the refuge of ethical hypocrites.

A snuff flick is offensive whether its victum is Saddam, Osama Bin
Forgotten or Clinton as it would be if it is about Bush.

To think otherwise indicates a lack of ethics.

TMT
Post by Terryc
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a
parasite.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Sorry, but "Kill" is merely a mis-translation to English. "Murder" is more
accurate. Try Googling the phrase and looking at some of the more credible
Bible study sites.
Jeff
Dion
2006-09-13 15:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
I believe the difference lies not in the word but rather in the reason for
the act... SELF DEFENSE IS THE KEY!
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-13 16:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Same result...someone is dead.

The whole point of the comandment is to NOT cause loss of
life....whether yours or someone else.

Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.

So people take the easy way out...what else is new?

Notice how when conservatives get fustrated they want to carpet
bomb...aka as the easy way out?

TMT
Post by Dion
Post by Too_Many_Tools
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
I believe the difference lies not in the word but rather in the reason for
the act... SELF DEFENSE IS THE KEY!
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Gunner
2006-09-13 16:31:44 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Sep 2006 09:20:05 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.
Some times it can, other times its impossible.

So..how would you have stopped one of those airliners hell bent on
ramming the WTC?

Be specific.

Lets say you had 15 minutes warning.

Ill be waiting for you to back up your claim.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Dion
2006-09-13 17:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Same result...someone is dead.
The whole point of the comandment is to NOT cause loss of
life....whether yours or someone else.
There are two exceptions I know of. The death penalty for criminals and self
defense. Naturally the 34 day war Israel had with Lebanon last month was not
a case of self defense. It was heinous murder, plain and simple. In ancient
times certain criteria had to be meet in order for a killing to be deemed
*self defense*. If I can find a cite in the near future, I'll post it.

I'm against the death penalty. How a supossed Christain nation keeps
executing criminals shows the hypocacy of *Christain America*.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.
Cost??? I guess if you're talking self defense at a national level. Wars of
late are always preventable and unwarranted. When the U.S. starts a war it's
to feed its' corporate interests. Remember, in America, Capitalism is
superior to Democracy. They put *In God We Trust* on our money for good
reason... Money is our salvation. My orginal point about self defense was
more geared at a one on one senario of self defense. I notice you disagree
that it is acceptable. We disagree.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So people take the easy way out...what else is new?
Notice how when conservatives get fustrated they want to carpet
bomb...aka as the easy way out?
They are killers without morals.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Post by Too_Many_Tools
TMT
Post by Dion
Post by Too_Many_Tools
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
I believe the difference lies not in the word but rather in the reason for
the act... SELF DEFENSE IS THE KEY!
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Gunner
2006-09-14 03:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Same result...someone is dead.
The whole point of the comandment is to NOT cause loss of
life....whether yours or someone else.
There are two exceptions I know of. The death penalty for criminals and self
defense. Naturally the 34 day war Israel had with Lebanon last month was not
a case of self defense. It was heinous murder, plain and simple. In ancient
times certain criteria had to be meet in order for a killing to be deemed
*self defense*. If I can find a cite in the near future, I'll post it.
They were defending themselves against Hamas. Pretty good reason for
self defense too.
Post by Dion
I'm against the death penalty. How a supossed Christain nation keeps
executing criminals shows the hypocacy of *Christain America*.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.
Cost??? I guess if you're talking self defense at a national level. Wars of
late are always preventable and unwarranted. When the U.S. starts a war it's
to feed its' corporate interests. Remember, in America, Capitalism is
superior to Democracy. They put *In God We Trust* on our money for good
reason... Money is our salvation. My orginal point about self defense was
more geared at a one on one senario of self defense. I notice you disagree
that it is acceptable. We disagree.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So people take the easy way out...what else is new?
Notice how when conservatives get fustrated they want to carpet
bomb...aka as the easy way out?
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..

And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.

snicker...

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Dion
2006-09-14 13:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Same result...someone is dead.
The whole point of the comandment is to NOT cause loss of
life....whether yours or someone else.
There are two exceptions I know of. The death penalty for criminals and self
defense. Naturally the 34 day war Israel had with Lebanon last month was not
a case of self defense. It was heinous murder, plain and simple. In ancient
times certain criteria had to be meet in order for a killing to be deemed
*self defense*. If I can find a cite in the near future, I'll post it.
They were defending themselves against Hamas. Pretty good reason for
self defense too.
Carving out a nation, where a nation was not is bound to cause problems.
Israel has decided to kill. The cycle continues but I'll be god-damned, if
I'll agree that Israel is using self-defense. They are killers backed by the
world's largest military power, The USA. Too bad you weren't born into a
Muslem family in Palastine. Then you'd be wrapped in another flag crying
about the evil Israelis. Your views are basic. Basic can be a good thing as
long as you are moral. Don't accept the killing by one side over the other.
Get out from under the bed. See the real world by taking off the blinders
put on you by US corporate media.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
I'm against the death penalty. How a supossed Christain nation keeps
executing criminals shows the hypocacy of *Christain America*.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.
Cost??? I guess if you're talking self defense at a national level. Wars of
late are always preventable and unwarranted. When the U.S. starts a war it's
to feed its' corporate interests. Remember, in America, Capitalism is
superior to Democracy. They put *In God We Trust* on our money for good
reason... Money is our salvation. My orginal point about self defense was
more geared at a one on one senario of self defense. I notice you disagree
that it is acceptable. We disagree.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So people take the easy way out...what else is new?
Notice how when conservatives get fustrated they want to carpet
bomb...aka as the easy way out?
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace. IOW,
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the quagmire
we have in Iraq.

Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they do.
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized religion.
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for you
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Gunner
2006-09-14 15:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
I'll be god-damned
More than likely.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
2006-09-14 15:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace. IOW,
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the quagmire
we have in Iraq.
So you are admitting that the Democrats are Sucessful killers without
morals.
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Post by Dion
Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they do.
As I stand here, looking back at the past 50 yrs...Id have to strongly
disagree.
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized religion.
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for you
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Please be specific. I understand that the various crusades killed a
few million here and there over the centuries, but even Pol Pot,
another Leftist, did far worse than that.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Dion
2006-09-14 16:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace. IOW,
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the quagmire
we have in Iraq.
So you are admitting that the Democrats are Sucessful killers without
morals.
I'm admitting America is a corporately controled country that uses it's
military for profit.
Post by Gunner
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Glad I could help.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they do.
As I stand here, looking back at the past 50 yrs...Id have to strongly
disagree.
I agree that history is important. And from history we should learn. Now,
let's keep focused on the here and now. TODAY! Ask why we're in Iraq killing
(oh, and there are big religious overtones in Iraq, if you didn't already
know it)
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized religion.
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for you
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Please be specific. I understand that the various crusades killed a
few million here and there over the centuries, but even Pol Pot,
another Leftist, did far worse than that.
Gunner
Hitler and his Christian Right (yes, most of Hitler's soldiers were
Christian) killed 8 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others. Cortez
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Aztecs using religion to justify the
genocide. Huguenot Wars aka French Wars of Religion (1562-98) took between
200,000 - 400,000 lives. The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) saw
3,000,000-8,000,000 killed because Christians couldn't get along with each
other. There are others but I'm not your history teacher, I'm here to help
you find morals. I'm here to ask you to use empathy before you act against
others.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Gunner
2006-09-15 07:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace.
IOW,
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the
quagmire
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
we have in Iraq.
So you are admitting that the Democrats are Sucessful killers without
morals.
I'm admitting America is a corporately controled country that uses it's
military for profit.
Post by Gunner
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Glad I could help.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they do.
As I stand here, looking back at the past 50 yrs...Id have to strongly
disagree.
I agree that history is important. And from history we should learn. Now,
let's keep focused on the here and now. TODAY! Ask why we're in Iraq killing
(oh, and there are big religious overtones in Iraq, if you didn't already
know it)
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized religion.
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for
you
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Please be specific. I understand that the various crusades killed a
few million here and there over the centuries, but even Pol Pot,
another Leftist, did far worse than that.
Gunner
Hitler and his Christian Right (yes, most of Hitler's soldiers were
Christian) killed 8 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others. Cortez
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Aztecs using religion to justify the
genocide. Huguenot Wars aka French Wars of Religion (1562-98) took between
200,000 - 400,000 lives. The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) saw
3,000,000-8,000,000 killed because Christians couldn't get along with each
other. There are others but I'm not your history teacher, I'm here to help
you find morals. I'm here to ask you to use empathy before you act against
others.
Hummmm....lets see..looks to be somewhat less than 12,000,000, being
charitable to you, and spread out over 500 yrs.

Now put that up against the 1750,000,000 the Leftists killed in the last
90 yrs....

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Dion
2006-09-15 12:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace.
IOW,
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the
quagmire
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
we have in Iraq.
So you are admitting that the Democrats are Sucessful killers without
morals.
I'm admitting America is a corporately controled country that uses it's
military for profit.
Post by Gunner
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Glad I could help.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they do.
As I stand here, looking back at the past 50 yrs...Id have to strongly
disagree.
I agree that history is important. And from history we should learn. Now,
let's keep focused on the here and now. TODAY! Ask why we're in Iraq killing
(oh, and there are big religious overtones in Iraq, if you didn't already
know it)
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized religion.
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for
you
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Please be specific. I understand that the various crusades killed a
few million here and there over the centuries, but even Pol Pot,
another Leftist, did far worse than that.
Gunner
Hitler and his Christian Right (yes, most of Hitler's soldiers were
Christian) killed 8 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others. Cortez
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Aztecs using religion to justify the
genocide. Huguenot Wars aka French Wars of Religion (1562-98) took between
200,000 - 400,000 lives. The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) saw
3,000,000-8,000,000 killed because Christians couldn't get along with each
other. There are others but I'm not your history teacher, I'm here to help
you find morals. I'm here to ask you to use empathy before you act against
others.
Hummmm....lets see..looks to be somewhat less than 12,000,000, being
charitable to you, and spread out over 500 yrs.
Now put that up against the 1750,000,000 the Leftists killed in the last
90 yrs....
Gunner
*Leftist* includes a cornucopia of people and their philosophy is varied by
many degrees. That you put PolPot as a leftist and insinuate he's of the
same cloth as the American Left shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You should get out of the house and meet America.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Gunner
2006-09-15 15:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Hummmm....lets see..looks to be somewhat less than 12,000,000, being
charitable to you, and spread out over 500 yrs.
Now put that up against the 1750,000,000 the Leftists killed in the last
90 yrs....
Gunner
*Leftist* includes a cornucopia of people and their philosophy is varied by
many degrees. That you put PolPot as a leftist and insinuate he's of the
same cloth as the American Left shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You should get out of the house and meet America.
--
Dion
Your denials are fascinating. The only difference between Pol Pot and
the American Left, is a matter of degree. They are of the same material.
In fact..if American citizens were not heavily armed...the differences
between Pol Pot and the US Left would be minor.

But thanks for trying to obfuscate.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-16 04:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
*Leftist* includes a cornucopia of people and their philosophy is varied by
many degrees. That you put PolPot as a leftist and insinuate he's of the
same cloth as the American Left shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You should get out of the house and meet America.
Not to mention he was helped to power by a Republican administration.

Swill
S***@flashlight.net
2006-09-19 01:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
They are killers without morals.
So..about that airwar in Bosnia again....
Seems like Democraps are killers without morals..
The biggest point about Bosnia is that today their is standing peace.
IOW,
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
after the killing the results were positive. It's nothing like the
quagmire
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
we have in Iraq.
So you are admitting that the Democrats are Sucessful killers without
morals.
I'm admitting America is a corporately controled country that uses it's
military for profit.
Post by Gunner
Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Glad I could help.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Republicunts are our worst enemy. Nobody can fuck America like they
do.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
As I stand here, looking back at the past 50 yrs...Id have to strongly
disagree.
I agree that history is important. And from history we should learn. Now,
let's keep focused on the here and now. TODAY! Ask why we're in Iraq
killing
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
(oh, and there are big religious overtones in Iraq, if you didn't already
know it)
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
And then again..the Far Left Fringe Kooks managed to kill about
150,000,000 in the last century. Seems they are mass killers without
morals.
If you want to find the biggest killers, look toward organized
religion.
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
Nobody can kill like those that believe God is on their side. Time for
you
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
to look at the here and now and leave the twisted history to fiction
readers.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
Please be specific. I understand that the various crusades killed a
few million here and there over the centuries, but even Pol Pot,
another Leftist, did far worse than that.
Gunner
Hitler and his Christian Right (yes, most of Hitler's soldiers were
Christian) killed 8 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of others.
Cortez
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Aztecs using religion to justify the
genocide. Huguenot Wars aka French Wars of Religion (1562-98) took
between
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
200,000 - 400,000 lives. The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) saw
3,000,000-8,000,000 killed because Christians couldn't get along with
each
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
other. There are others but I'm not your history teacher, I'm here to
help
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
you find morals. I'm here to ask you to use empathy before you act
against
Post by Gunner
Post by Dion
others.
Hummmm....lets see..looks to be somewhat less than 12,000,000, being
charitable to you, and spread out over 500 yrs.
Now put that up against the 1750,000,000 the Leftists killed in the last
90 yrs....
Gunner
*Leftist* includes a cornucopia of people and their philosophy is varied by
many degrees. That you put PolPot as a leftist and insinuate he's of the
same cloth as the American Left shows how out of touch with reality you are.
You should get out of the house and meet America.
Then let's use a word you'll relate to, 'socialist'. The socialists
Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot managed to cause to be wipe out
over a hundred million people in a short of time. Like you they
despised religion and targeted the religious as well as others. And
there've been many other lessor knowns.

Yes, they were each socialists, of the totalitarian stripe.

The King and Queen of Spain wanted gold and silver. Religion was a
transparent pretext. The Popes wanted power, and gold. The
Spanish Inquisition got out of hand and spread throughout Europe
because it was an effective way for locals to destroy their neighbors,
usually for money or land.

At the root of most conflict is found greed and ego. Religion serves
primarily as a convenient network and rationalization.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dion
2006-09-19 12:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Then let's use a word you'll relate to, 'socialist'. The socialists
Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot managed to cause to be wipe out
over a hundred million people in a short of time. Like you they
despised religion and targeted the religious as well as others. And
there've been many other lessor knowns.
Yes, they were each socialists, of the totalitarian stripe.
Then call them *totalitarian*. At some point these people you cite as
*socialists*, went in a direction other than *socialist*. Today, we consider
Hitler a fascist. Mao a communist. The other killers you mention also
represent a philosophy other than *socialist*. A wolf in sheep's clothing is
still a wolf.
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
S***@flashlight.net
2006-09-22 21:04:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Then let's use a word you'll relate to, 'socialist'. The socialists
Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot managed to cause to be wipe out
over a hundred million people in a short of time. Like you they
despised religion and targeted the religious as well as others. And
there've been many other lessor knowns.
Yes, they were each socialists, of the totalitarian stripe.
Then call them *totalitarian*. At some point these people you cite as
*socialists*, went in a direction other than *socialist*. Today, we consider
Hitler a fascist. Mao a communist. The other killers you mention also
represent a philosophy other than *socialist*. A wolf in sheep's clothing is
still a wolf.
My mistake. I tried using totalitarian as a modifier. It really
doesn't work.

Going under the presumption that words mean things, definitions
cannot be altered short of causing confusion...and
defeating accuracy. We should stick with proper definitions.

A theocracy is totalitarian, total control of mind, body and spirit.
That's the best example. The Taliban was totalitarian. This should
also be differentiated from authoritarianism which is a generic
exercise of control short of total. Anarchism is opposite
totalitarianism.

Can a form of socialism be totalitarian? Close to it but once it
is total, I think including other types is moot. Hitler and Stalin
were close but each did allow some degree of freedom, of privacy.

As for popular notions of fascism and communism...

Communism is the Marxist utopia, the theoretical culmination of
inspired cultural revolutions, a natural end result to socialism and
capitalism. Mao's China was a Marxist inspired revolution. Viet
Nam tried a similar path. There has not been a true Communism.

Fascism seems to be the main point of confusion these days. I prefer
not to waste a perfectly good descriptor by confining it to
Hitler's regime.

My reading of fascism is associated with nationalism, centralized
control of private enterprise through the corporation, and
executive or individual control of a state that claims superiority to
the individual and extols militarism as a major virtue. Corporatism
is a vital element because it finds so many breeding grounds in
the world of capitalism.

Call Hitler a fascist. That's accurate, but his fascism was based on
national socialism. That was after all the NAZI movement. Hitler's
regime was fascist and socialist. Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics was also a fascistic brand of socialism. We shouldn't
forget the path that both took to oblivion was socialism.

Mussolini was the classic fascist because he tried to resurrect the
Roman Empire and model himself on the dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dion
2006-09-22 22:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Dion
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Then let's use a word you'll relate to, 'socialist'. The socialists
Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot managed to cause to be wipe out
over a hundred million people in a short of time. Like you they
despised religion and targeted the religious as well as others. And
there've been many other lessor knowns.
Yes, they were each socialists, of the totalitarian stripe.
Then call them *totalitarian*. At some point these people you cite as
*socialists*, went in a direction other than *socialist*. Today, we consider
Hitler a fascist. Mao a communist. The other killers you mention also
represent a philosophy other than *socialist*. A wolf in sheep's clothing is
still a wolf.
My mistake. I tried using totalitarian as a modifier. It really
doesn't work.
Going under the presumption that words mean things, definitions
cannot be altered short of causing confusion...and
defeating accuracy. We should stick with proper definitions.
A theocracy is totalitarian, total control of mind, body and spirit.
That's the best example. The Taliban was totalitarian. This should
also be differentiated from authoritarianism which is a generic
exercise of control short of total. Anarchism is opposite
totalitarianism.
Can a form of socialism be totalitarian? Close to it but once it
is total, I think including other types is moot. Hitler and Stalin
were close but each did allow some degree of freedom, of privacy.
As for popular notions of fascism and communism...
Communism is the Marxist utopia, the theoretical culmination of
inspired cultural revolutions, a natural end result to socialism and
capitalism. Mao's China was a Marxist inspired revolution. Viet
Nam tried a similar path. There has not been a true Communism.
Fascism seems to be the main point of confusion these days. I prefer
not to waste a perfectly good descriptor by confining it to
Hitler's regime.
My reading of fascism is associated with nationalism, centralized
control of private enterprise through the corporation, and
executive or individual control of a state that claims superiority to
the individual and extols militarism as a major virtue. Corporatism
is a vital element because it finds so many breeding grounds in
the world of capitalism.
Call Hitler a fascist. That's accurate, but his fascism was based on
national socialism. That was after all the NAZI movement. Hitler's
regime was fascist and socialist. Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics was also a fascistic brand of socialism. We shouldn't
forget the path that both took to oblivion was socialism.
Mussolini was the classic fascist because he tried to resurrect the
Roman Empire and model himself on the dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar.
To what end do you tell me all this?
--
Dion
PEACE - Back by popular demand
S***@flashlight.net
2006-09-23 00:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dion
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Dion
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Then let's use a word you'll relate to, 'socialist'. The socialists
Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot managed to cause to be wipe out
over a hundred million people in a short of time. Like you they
despised religion and targeted the religious as well as others. And
there've been many other lessor knowns.
Yes, they were each socialists, of the totalitarian stripe.
Then call them *totalitarian*. At some point these people you cite as
*socialists*, went in a direction other than *socialist*. Today, we consider
Hitler a fascist. Mao a communist. The other killers you mention also
represent a philosophy other than *socialist*. A wolf in sheep's clothing is
still a wolf.
My mistake. I tried using totalitarian as a modifier. It really
doesn't work.
Going under the presumption that words mean things, definitions
cannot be altered short of causing confusion...and
defeating accuracy. We should stick with proper definitions.
A theocracy is totalitarian, total control of mind, body and spirit.
That's the best example. The Taliban was totalitarian. This should
also be differentiated from authoritarianism which is a generic
exercise of control short of total. Anarchism is opposite
totalitarianism.
Can a form of socialism be totalitarian? Close to it but once it
is total, I think including other types is moot. Hitler and Stalin
were close but each did allow some degree of freedom, of privacy.
As for popular notions of fascism and communism...
Communism is the Marxist utopia, the theoretical culmination of
inspired cultural revolutions, a natural end result to socialism and
capitalism. Mao's China was a Marxist inspired revolution. Viet
Nam tried a similar path. There has not been a true Communism.
Fascism seems to be the main point of confusion these days. I prefer
not to waste a perfectly good descriptor by confining it to
Hitler's regime.
My reading of fascism is associated with nationalism, centralized
control of private enterprise through the corporation, and
executive or individual control of a state that claims superiority to
the individual and extols militarism as a major virtue. Corporatism
is a vital element because it finds so many breeding grounds in
the world of capitalism.
Call Hitler a fascist. That's accurate, but his fascism was based on
national socialism. That was after all the NAZI movement. Hitler's
regime was fascist and socialist. Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics was also a fascistic brand of socialism. We shouldn't
forget the path that both took to oblivion was socialism.
Mussolini was the classic fascist because he tried to resurrect the
Roman Empire and model himself on the dictator, Gaius Julius Caesar.
To what end do you tell me all this?
Sorry about that. I don't know how this came to be addressed to you.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Terryc
2006-09-14 01:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Same result...someone is dead.
The whole point of the comandment is to NOT cause loss of
life....whether yours or someone else.
Self defense can be administered without loss of life...it just costs
more and is harder to do.
Which means you are denying some people "self defense".

When young I figured I had a good chance of putting someone down and
dealing with the occassional person that didn't go down quickly.
As I age, I realise my only chance for self defence is a single chance
of getting a feel rounds into them and I had better make sure that they
don't get up again.
Gunner
2006-09-13 16:29:11 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Sep 2006 08:53:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
No. In one case..an animal, plant, criminal or enemy soldier dies.

In the other, an innocent dies.

Your denial is fascinating. Talk about symatics...

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Too_Many_Tools
2006-09-13 20:28:10 UTC
Permalink
So Gunner, by your definition when an innocent dies it is murder.

So when a innocent civilian dies, is that murder?

If so, we have many American soldiers to bring to justice.

TMT
Post by Gunner
On 13 Sep 2006 08:53:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
No. In one case..an animal, plant, criminal or enemy soldier dies.
In the other, an innocent dies.
Your denial is fascinating. Talk about symatics...
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
2006-09-14 03:45:04 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Sep 2006 13:28:10 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So Gunner, by your definition when an innocent dies it is murder.
Innocent what?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So when a innocent civilian dies, is that murder?
No, if it was not intentional, its an accident.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
If so, we have many American soldiers to bring to justice.
TMT
Really? Tell you what. Ill loan you a gun and some handcuffs and you
go right ahead and bring em to justice.

Put your ID inside your left boot.

Gunner
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Gunner
On 13 Sep 2006 08:53:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
No. In one case..an animal, plant, criminal or enemy soldier dies.
In the other, an innocent dies.
Your denial is fascinating. Talk about symatics...
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Jeff McCann
2006-09-13 16:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
In the context of literary translation there are.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
But the circumstances, justification and morality arte not the same.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Arguing sematics is the refuge of ethical hypocrites.
Dodging the issue is yet another attempt to seek refuge from one's own
error. Semantics isn't the issue; translation of ancient language texts to
English without a loss or change in meaning is.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
A snuff flick is offensive whether its victum is Saddam, Osama Bin
Forgotten or Clinton as it would be if it is about Bush.
They say the average American child sees thousands of murders on TV and the
movies before age eighteen.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
To think otherwise indicates a lack of ethics.
To think that murder and justifiable homicide are the same thing indicates a
lack of ethics.

Jeff
Post by Too_Many_Tools
TMT
Post by Terryc
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a
parasite.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Sorry, but "Kill" is merely a mis-translation to English. "Murder" is more
accurate. Try Googling the phrase and looking at some of the more credible
Bible study sites.
Jeff
Terryc
2006-09-14 01:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
A snuff flick is offensive whether its victum is Saddam, Osama Bin
Forgotten or Clinton as it would be if it is about Bush.
To think otherwise indicates a lack of ethics.
rubbish 2/3 deseve to die
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 08:17:51 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Sep 2006 08:53:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
But the intent is not.

Swill
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 08:24:31 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Sep 2006 08:53:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
My personal favorite is http://www.biblegateway.com/ but here's a
couple more.
http://www.bible.com/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://unbound.biola.edu/

Swill
Zigler
2006-09-14 14:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
".....and looking at some of the more credible Bible study sites."
LOL....there are credible Bible sites?
Kill...Murder...the end result is the same.
Arguing sematics is the refuge of ethical hypocrites.
The semantic difference is essentially in the legal definition, and
thus is all but arbitrary, since that definition alone has changed and
evolved over the millenia.

But trying to convey logic or a less-constricted, broader perspective
to a fundamentalist is like trying to convince the Taliban man that
he's a deplorable mysoginist.

Good luck.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
A snuff flick is offensive whether its victum is Saddam, Osama Bin
Forgotten or Clinton as it would be if it is about Bush.
To think otherwise indicates a lack of ethics.
TMT
Post by Terryc
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a
parasite.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Sorry, but "Kill" is merely a mis-translation to English. "Murder" is more
accurate. Try Googling the phrase and looking at some of the more credible
Bible study sites.
Jeff
Zigler
2006-09-14 14:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terryc
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a
parasite.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Sorry, but "Kill" is merely a mis-translation to English. "Murder" is more
accurate. Try Googling the phrase and looking at some of the more credible
Bible study sites.
Most of the Bible is a mistranslation or a misinterpretation. The rest
is conveniently ignored by the arrogant, hypocritical, self-righteous
neo-Pharisee fake-religious Christians of today.

Put another way, if you need a bunch of ancient, cryptic scribblings
left in caves by eccentric and often radical Jews thousands of years
ago to tell you what to think today and what is right and how to
connect with something as present and personal as spirituality, then
I'm afraid you have much bigger fish to fry (and loaves to bake).
Post by Terryc
Jeff
Gunner
2006-09-13 15:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Liberals hold all sorts of delusional beliefs.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.

Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Big difference.
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Terryc
2006-09-14 01:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.
naah, I'm not jewish.
All religion seeks to control the sheep for their own purposes.
Zigler
2006-09-14 14:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:31 +1000, Terryc
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
And there Folks..is the vision of the Liberal. In all its unashamed
glory.
Oh, so I am not the liberal all the blinded-Bush-loving fools have been
calling me? I don't say anything like the above.
Liberals hold all sorts of delusional beliefs.
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.
Ah, so millions of bibles all across the world are riddled with error.
Shocking. Why no recall? I have seen many versions of the bible. None
carry the translation to which you refer, correct or not. Is this yet
another massive failure of the Christian Worldly Power Stucture?

And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.

Amazing how this shit survives the millenia, still killing minds and
bodies all across the globe....
Post by Gunner
Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Big difference.
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
2006-09-14 15:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
So why DID you turn to Goth culture?

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Jeff McCann
2006-09-14 15:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
Perhaps it was A Father.

Jeff
Zigler
2006-09-15 14:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
Perhaps it was A Father.
No... actually it was the "born again" Catholic youth minister...

But don't shed any tears for me. She was hot. I was 22. Good times.

Perhaps you care to read my bibliography. Your "instincts" are little
more than a joke.
Post by Jeff McCann
Jeff
Zigler
2006-09-15 14:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
So why DID you turn to Goth culture?
My God, you've gone totally delusional.... did you comprehend one word
I wrote, rather than ascribe your own ludicrous interpretation?

The only thing resembling hate that I dipslayed was directed at
poisonous ideology, which I am to surmise you love.

Sickening.
Post by Gunner
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
2006-09-15 15:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
And why ask a rabi? He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
So why DID you turn to Goth culture?
My God, you've gone totally delusional.... did you comprehend one word
I wrote, rather than ascribe your own ludicrous interpretation?
The only thing resembling hate that I dipslayed was directed at
poisonous ideology, which I am to surmise you love.
Sickening.
So your da did bugger you.

Sorry to hear that.

Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Joe
2006-09-17 17:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Fascinating amount of hate you display. Must have had a absolutely
miserable childhood. Did your brother rape you or perhaps your father?
So why DID you turn to Goth culture?
Gunner
Freud would have a field day with Gunner's constant projection of his
inner being onto others.
pyotr filipivich
2006-09-14 22:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.
Ah, so millions of bibles all across the world are riddled with error.
Shocking. Why no recall? I have seen many versions of the bible. None
carry the translation to which you refer, correct or not. Is this yet
another massive failure of the Christian Worldly Power Stucture?
And why ask a rabi?
Hmmm, it might have something to do with knowledge on the subject of
the Hebrew language.
Of course there is the historical reasons, but you seem to be a
walking, posting example of someone who knows no history, only the proper
Position On History.
Post by Zigler
He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Amazing how this shit survives the millenia, still killing minds and
bodies all across the globe....
Sheesh. another one so dumb they had to burn down the schoolhouse to
get him out of the third grade.


toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-15 06:54:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:27:46 GMT, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Zigler
He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Amazing how this shit survives the millenia, still killing minds and
bodies all across the globe....
Sheesh. another one so dumb they had to burn down the schoolhouse to
get him out of the third grade.
They shoulda burned down the church instead.

Swill
Zigler
2006-09-15 14:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.
Ah, so millions of bibles all across the world are riddled with error.
Shocking. Why no recall? I have seen many versions of the bible. None
carry the translation to which you refer, correct or not. Is this yet
another massive failure of the Christian Worldly Power Stucture?
And why ask a rabi?
Hmmm, it might have something to do with knowledge on the subject of
the Hebrew language.
Of course there is the historical reasons, but you seem to be a
walking, posting example of someone who knows no history, only the proper
Position On History.
Post by Zigler
He is a Jew, not a Christian, and thus is not good
enough. Only Christians are right about their foolish mythology. No one
else. Ever.
Amazing how this shit survives the millenia, still killing minds and
bodies all across the globe....
Sheesh. another one so dumb they had to burn down the schoolhouse to
get him out of the third grade.
Another mindless religious drone who never leaves the house?
Post by pyotr filipivich
toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".
pyotr filipivich
2006-09-14 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Ah..yes it does. Ask any rabi about the differences in the terms
ratsah and harag.
Oy bubbe, is there ever a difference!

Fascinating study, in and of itself. (I don't want to give away the
ending. :-) )
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 08:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.

Sixth Commandment. Exodus 20:13
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&version=31
There's a drop down that allows you to check the translation in dozens
of versions. Everything I checked except KJV and it's derivatives
translate it as "murder". One more reason to not use the King James
Version as scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
!The passage conventionally considered to include the commandments in
chapter 20 of the book of Exodus contains more than ten imperative
statements (while Jewish law sees each as representing a separate
commandment), totaling 14 or 15 in all.

Nonetheless, the Bible itself assigns the count of "10". The Hebrew
phrase ?aseret had'varim - translated as the 10 words, statements or
things Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4.

Religious groups have divided the commandments in different ways.

For instance, Catholics and Lutherans see the first six verses as part
of the same command prohibiting the worship of pagan gods. Protestants
(except Lutherans) separate all six verses into two different commands
(one being "no other gods" and the other being "no graven images").
The initial reference to Egyptian bondage is important enough to Jews
that it forms a separate commandment. Catholics and Lutherans separate
the two kinds of coveting (namely, of goods and of the flesh), while
Protestants (but not Lutherans) and Jews group them together."

Swill
Zigler
2006-09-14 14:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)

Can't wait for this one....

Get your hopskotch boards ready, folks...
Jeff McCann
2006-09-14 14:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)
I see that your claims of knowledge about Christianity are false, or you'd
already know the answer. Your hatred and contempt for Christianity is
self-evident, so debating these issues with you would be pointless. But
here's a hint: Things changed quite a bit after Crist died on the Cross.

Jeff
Post by Zigler
Can't wait for this one....
Get your hopskotch boards ready, folks...
Dion
2006-09-14 15:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Things changed quite a bit after Crist died on the Cross.
Do tell.
Zigler
2006-09-15 14:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Zigler
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)
I see that your claims of knowledge about Christianity are false, or you'd
already know the answer. Your hatred and contempt for Christianity is
self-evident, so debating these issues with you would be pointless. But
here's a hint: Things changed quite a bit after Crist died on the Cross.
LOOOOONEY TUNES.....

Sorry, I know your "answer" and have for a long time. It kills me how
you fundamentalists think your man-made, hodge-podge "reasoning" is so
hard for others to grasp. Well, for anyone who was exposed to this
garbage for as long as I was, it becomes utterly predictable and
formulaic. I just refuse to acknowledge the lies and poisonous
mythology of stupid, weak and arrogant people over the centuries.

Besides, I'm glad "God" changed "his mind" about slavery.... whew...
funny how morality changes over time. Talk about your moral reletivism,
basen on mythology, none-the-less. Priceless.

You delusional religious fanatics are so transparent. It's nice that
something gives you a reason to live and feel OK about waking up in the
morning, but having been a religious addict as early as the age of
EIGHT, and having left no stone unturned in my personal search for
truth, self and meaning, your attempts at "awakening" me make about as
much sense as the drunkard trying to pull the wool over his AA
sponsor's eyes. It's a no-go.
Post by Jeff McCann
Jeff
Post by Zigler
Can't wait for this one....
Get your hopskotch boards ready, folks...
Jeff McCann
2006-09-15 14:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Zigler
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)
I see that your claims of knowledge about Christianity are false, or you'd
already know the answer. Your hatred and contempt for Christianity is
self-evident, so debating these issues with you would be pointless. But
here's a hint: Things changed quite a bit after Crist died on the Cross.
LOOOOONEY TUNES.....
Sorry, I know your "answer" and have for a long time. It kills me how
you fundamentalists think your man-made, hodge-podge "reasoning" is so
hard for others to grasp. Well, for anyone who was exposed to this
garbage for as long as I was, it becomes utterly predictable and
formulaic. I just refuse to acknowledge the lies and poisonous
mythology of stupid, weak and arrogant people over the centuries.
I'm not willing to debate your anti-Christian bias and ignorance, despite
your claims otherwise. I respect your right to have confused and
misinformed opinions. But I will correct you on one point, where you leaped
to an erroneous assumption. I am no fundamentalist. I stand foursquare for
separation of Church and State, against all but personal prayer in schools,
against so-called "Intelligent Design," for women in the ministry, etc.
Post by Zigler
Besides, I'm glad "God" changed "his mind" about slavery.... whew...
funny how morality changes over time. Talk about your moral reletivism,
basen on mythology, none-the-less. Priceless.
You delusional religious fanatics are so transparent. It's nice that
something gives you a reason to live and feel OK about waking up in the
morning, but having been a religious addict as early as the age of
EIGHT, and having left no stone unturned in my personal search for
truth, self and meaning, your attempts at "awakening" me make about as
much sense as the drunkard trying to pull the wool over his AA
sponsor's eyes. It's a no-go.
Man, are you paranoid about religion, or what? What the heck makes you
think I was making any attempt at "awakening" you to anything, especially
when I indicated that I was unwilling to do so, i.e., "debating these issues
with you would be pointless"? Dude, I'm happy to let you continue your
"personal search for truth, self and meaning" in your life all on your own,
with my best wishes. You've got your panties all atwist merely because you
were corrected about literary translation into English of a single word, but
that was enough to launch you into a hyperbolic screed against Christianity
and Christians. That tells me you've got some sort of personal problem, but
that's none of my business.

Jeff
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-15 05:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)
Can't wait for this one....
Get your hopskotch boards ready, folks...
Scripture not only allows the slave trade, it allows slave capture. It
also contains a number of instructions intended to make sure they were
treated well. Bible contains a lot of stuff. What is still relevant
today?

Swill
Zigler
2006-09-15 15:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by g***@comcast.net
Post by Zigler
Post by Gunner
Btw..the commandment dosent say Though Shalt Not Kill..it says Thou
shalt not Murder.
Umm... first. NO, it does not.
Yes, it does.
OUTSTANDING! Now that your ego has a momentary, artificial boost, tell
us all about how the very same text allows us to buy slaves from other
countries.... (hint: Leviticus)
Can't wait for this one....
Get your hopskotch boards ready, folks...
Scripture not only allows the slave trade, it allows slave capture. It
also contains a number of instructions intended to make sure they were
treated well. Bible contains a lot of stuff. What is still relevant
today?
To me, relevence isn't even the issue. It is the expropriation of
knowledge and wisdom. That is, putting external influences (such as the
cryptic, and yes, largely irrelevant scriblings of ancient Jews) above
your own deepest experiences, reasoning, and, if you will, divine
wisdom.

One concept that outlines the grave difference between delusional
religious fundamentalists and more open, rational, self-actualized and
often spiritual people is the notion of intellectual heteronomy versus
intellectual autonomy. It's basically egg-head-speak for people who
blindly follow external influences rather than develop a real inner
sense of who they are, what it all means, and what their place is in
the universe.

It's a fricken wonder "God" ever gave us minds at all, if all we need
to do is blindly follow the irrelevant mytholgies of ancient and
distant cultures, many times rewritten, besides, never once stopping to
question anything. Positively shocking. Without intellectual heteronomy
and the freedom to question, Hitler would never have "succeeded" in any
way near how he did. Radical Islamic extremism would not be possible.
And we would not be surrounded by arrogant, exclusivist religious
drones who have arrived at their state of blind-following and the
abscense of critical thinking through avenues of despair, mostly. GW
Bush? Classic case in point: a man who's drunken, wasted life was
pursuing a downward trajectory at an alarming rate. Transfer the
addiction to the imaginary Jebus, and voila! No more hangovers.
Post by g***@comcast.net
Swill
BibsBro
2006-09-14 00:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terryc
Post by BibsBro
"A human life is a human life."
And then there is that little commandment "Thou shalt not kill"
An abortion doesn't kill a human. Until a foetus is born, it is a parasite.
A human is created at conception. You were once a fetus. Every human must go
thru nine months in the womb.
A fetus is as human as a child or adult.

BibsBro
Terryc
2006-09-14 04:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
A human is created at conception. You were once a fetus. Every human must go
thru nine months in the womb.
A fetus is as human as a child or adult.
So why did I have to wait 18 years to be able to vote?

Oh wait, it was 21 years but they wanted to draft us for vietnam, so
they made it 21 years.

Oh, do you believe in welfare hand outs?
Just checking if your are consistent in your believes about all parasites/
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-14 08:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
A human is created at conception.
Um, no.

Leviticus 17:
11) For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to
you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood
that makes atonement for one's life.

14) because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I
have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any
creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who
eats it must be cut off."

When a human egg is fertilized, it takes 18 days to develop a
circulatory system. Only then is it infused with blood. Clearly
then, life begins on the 18th day after conception.

Swill
Bush War is for GOP Profit
2006-09-23 01:02:41 UTC
Permalink
"The Bush Death Movie....Would You Go? - YEAH, OVER & OVER"

lmao!

yeah count me in! maybe we can get a weekly group rate, charter a few
busses and load 'em up with a some kegs and women!
Non-demopublican Voter
2006-09-12 01:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Sure thing. After all, many USians attitude toward the
other citizens of the world is "kill-em-all". So this
film sounds very apropriate. It will be villified out
of USian theaters, but it'll show up on bittorrent if
it hasn't already.
e***@netpath.net
2006-09-12 01:53:17 UTC
Permalink
I can't see this movie succeeding in much of America. It would be a
cult classic - in some highly-atypical places, though. I could see it
attracting sellout crowds for weeks in "college towns," in a few core
urban Blue Nation areas like Manhattan and Boston, and in some
all-black big cities where the population long has been very radical
(like Detroit). But I just don't see much market for it elsewhere at
theaters.
Its best market hope? The video store.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Joe S.
2006-09-12 01:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
So would you?
No, I won't go see it.



I'll wait until it's out on DVD then rent it.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
In a country that brags about the right of free speech, this movie
should prove to be an interesting test of that right.
TMT
Bush 'Death' drama aired at Toronto fest By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie
Writer
A sellout crowd at the Toronto International Film Festival gave a warm
reception to the British TV movie "Death of a President," which centers
on a fictionalized assassination of George W. Bush. The audience
applauded at the end and several more times during a
question-and-answer session with the filmmakers.
"I really liked it. It seemed very real. It was hard to believe the
people were acting. I found myself mesmerized," said Linda Walsh, a
real-estate broker from Mill Valley, Calif., who said she is not a Bush
supporter.
"I'm always hoping when anything like this comes out that it will cause
people that perhaps haven't thought about things to think about them,"
Walsh said. "About the war, about the Patriot Act, about our judicial
system."
Director Gabriel Range told the crowd afterward that he doesn't believe
"Death of a President" would incite anyone to attempt an assassination.
"I think the film makes it clear it would really be a horrific event.
There have been plenty of fictional films about assassinations, so this
is not the first in that sense," said Range, noting that Michael
Douglas' recent Secret Service thriller "The Sentinel" opens with
footage of the attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life.
"I really don't think that anyone would get the idea of assassinating
Bush from this film."
The film, which premiered Sunday night at the festival, is slated to
run Oct. 9 on More4, the digital offshoot of Britain's Channel 4
network. The movie chronicles the sniper shooting of Bush on Oct. 19,
2007, during a trip to Chicago for a speech on the economy. It includes
interviews with actors playing Secret Service and FBI officials, White
House aides, journalists and anti-war activists, along with suspects
and their relatives.
The film plays out like whodunit on a grand scale, tracing the twists
and turns of the investigation against the backdrop of the continuing
Iraq war, an expansion of the Patriot Act to give federal authorities
greater powers of surveillance, and other fallout from the Sept. 11
attacks.
"It is using the lens of the future to look at the present," Range told
the premiere audience. "It is about issues that have affected us all in
the last five years. It is a film about America today."
The filmmakers were at the Toronto festival looking for U.S.
distributors.
"Death of a President" blends archival footage of Bush interspersed
with fierce anti-war protests and other fictional scenes crafted by the
filmmakers. Actors posing as administration officials and Secret
Service agents were digitally grafted into some images of the president
and his entourage.
Bush is struck by two bullets fired by a sniper from a 20th story
window as the president is shaking hands with people outside a hotel
after his speech. The president dies after surgery at a hospital, and
Vice President Dick Cheney is sworn in.
The rest of the film tracks events over the following months as a
Syrian man is put on trial, with the investigation recalling the John
F. Kennedy assassination as authorities debate whether the suspect was
a lone gunman or part of an al-Qaeda conspiracy.
The investigation and the officials behind it come under scrutiny
themselves as the case takes a radical turn.
The filmmakers said they chose to use Bush rather than substitute a
fictitious president to heighten the authenticity.
"The central conceit of the film was that it is a drama, but told in
the style of what we hope is a fairly authentic, classic, retrospective
documentary," said producer Simon Finch, who co-wrote the screenplay
with Range. "Clearly, if we had told a retrospective documentary with a
fictional president, it would have undermined and undercut that central
idea."
___
http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest
Zigler
2006-09-12 03:02:52 UTC
Permalink
After much deliberation, I decided that I'd rather see the fucker rot
in prison for life, in real life, than see him wasted in a fictional
movie.

Oh, well, you can't always get what you want.

As for the movie, it would probably have to have a few more redeeming
qualities to get me to see it; I can live out my hate evil/hate Bush
fantasies when I fall asleep at night. And how refreshed I have
awakened after giving the dirty, lying, crazy little bastard a sound
thrashing....
BibsBro
2006-09-12 03:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigler
After much deliberation, I decided that I'd rather see the fucker rot
in prison for life, in real life, than see him wasted in a fictional
movie.
Oh, well, you can't always get what you want.
As for the movie, it would probably have to have a few more redeeming
qualities to get me to see it; I can live out my hate evil/hate Bush
fantasies when I fall asleep at night. And how refreshed I have
awakened after giving the dirty, lying, crazy little bastard a sound
thrashing....
A sound thrashing under the blankets! Jack-off lieberal!
john fernbach
2006-09-12 03:48:18 UTC
Permalink
As a democratic socialist - NOT a liberal -- I'd like to ask what's the
damned point of (a) publicly fantasizing about Bush being killed or (b)
going home quietly and indulging in dreams of hatred and revenge
towards the guy.

What does either of these activities change? The first is borderline
illegal; the second is ineffective. Isn't there something else that
Bush opponents need to be doing instead?

I used to be so filled with hatred towards Ronald Reagan - who deserved
it, God knows, or would have deserved it, if Alzheimer's wasn't already
frying his brains out -- that I'd grind my teeth in rage at the guy
until my teeth hurt.

Net result: Ronnie got reelected, the dumb, lying, charming and
popular bastard. While I did permanent damage to my own teeth. I would
have been better off following Jesus's advice in the Sermon on the
Mount: forgive your enemy, even pray for the asshole, because if you
don't forgive you're only screwing up your own head.

George Bush has been a disaster for this country - bringing us a
soaring national debt, endangered civil liberties, a major torture
scandal, at least one catastrophic war that so far is helping the
Islamist terrorists instead of hurting them, plus a screwed-up tax
system, plus the Hurricane Katrina fuck-up, plus total inaction on
global climate change, plus a "No Child Left Behind Act" that ... uh
... leaves children behind.

Marx once wrote that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy,
the second as farce - and it would be nice to say that Bush is just a
farce, but he isn't. He's a tragedy for this country; he's awful. B
but the solution ISN'T to shoot the guy. Or even more stupidly, to
wallow in the fantasy of shooting him but then not doing it.

The solution is to DEFEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER, just for
starters. And then to PERMANENTLY DISCREDIT BUSH'S IDEAS with the
American people, so we never fall for this idiotic cowboy mentality
again.

And then, maybe, to put pressure the newly elected Democrats [AKA "the
Lesser Evil" -- hey, better than the "Greater Evil," right?] until they
either impeach George, or actually take some intelligent actions on
important national issues, or both.

If this play catalyzes your anger so that you're actually motivated to
act, and if your action helps to defeat George's reputation, discredit
George's ideas and end the total control of the US government exercised
by George's political party - then fine.

If not, if you see the performance and it just gives you a pleasurable
feeling of righteous indignation, there's not much point in the play,
is there? Better you should spend the money on the Democratic Party,
or if you can't stand them, on your favorite political PAC or pressure
group that will help defeat the Bush agenda..
Post by BibsBro
Post by Zigler
After much deliberation, I decided that I'd rather see the fucker rot
in prison for life, in real life, than see him wasted in a fictional
movie.
Oh, well, you can't always get what you want.
As for the movie, it would probably have to have a few more redeeming
qualities to get me to see it; I can live out my hate evil/hate Bush
fantasies when I fall asleep at night. And how refreshed I have
awakened after giving the dirty, lying, crazy little bastard a sound
thrashing....
A sound thrashing under the blankets! Jack-off lieberal!
miles
2006-09-12 03:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by john fernbach
The solution is to DEFEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER, just for
starters.
Trouble is the Dems do not have a solution to any of the issues to which
they take up with Bush or the Reps. Not one. They are against
everything and for nothing. How am I supposed to vote for someone that
stands for nothing? I already kow they don't like Bush. It is time for
the Dems to stop telling us what they are against and start telling us
what they are for.
Dion
2006-09-12 13:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by john fernbach
The solution is to DEFEAT THE REPUBLICANS IN NOVEMBER, just for
starters.
Trouble is the Dems do not have a solution to any of the issues to which
they take up with Bush or the Reps. Not one. They are against
everything and for nothing. How am I supposed to vote for someone that
stands for nothing? I already kow they don't like Bush. It is time for
the Dems to stop telling us what they are against and start telling us
what they are for.
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/real_security/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/economic_growth/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/affordable_health_care/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/secure_retirement/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/civil_rights/
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/election_reform/
Zigler
2006-09-12 14:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by BibsBro
Post by Zigler
After much deliberation, I decided that I'd rather see the fucker rot
in prison for life, in real life, than see him wasted in a fictional
movie.
Oh, well, you can't always get what you want.
As for the movie, it would probably have to have a few more redeeming
qualities to get me to see it; I can live out my hate evil/hate Bush
fantasies when I fall asleep at night. And how refreshed I have
awakened after giving the dirty, lying, crazy little bastard a sound
thrashing....
A sound thrashing under the blankets! Jack-off lieberal!
Wow. A fucking idiotic equal to Hor Fuckruckerton.

Shocking.

My world no longer makes sense.

Now back to your delusional love affair with the most hated
motherfuckers in American history.
Brian Henderson
2006-09-14 16:09:31 UTC
Permalink
I'd go only if it was real. Too bad it isn't.
Nick Hull
2006-09-14 21:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
I'd go only if it was real. Too bad it isn't.
I'd only go if they waxed the VP FIRST ;)
--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/
g***@comcast.net
2006-09-15 06:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Brian Henderson
I'd go only if it was real. Too bad it isn't.
I'd only go if they waxed the VP FIRST ;)
Whilst pontificating to roomie about a Bush impeachment, he sez to me,
"Gawd, no! Then Satan himself would be President!"

Swill
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...