W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?

I wonder what the talking Anne dolls says when you tie it to a big branch stuck in the ground, piling kindling around it, and then set the whole thing on fire?

Suffer not a witch to live. That has a nice republican feel about it.

0 Replies

Does he perhaps fondle it?

Cav: Lovey and i went to The Whistling Oyster on the weekend, with her M & P. She tells me they have half-priced appetizers for "happy hour." We plan to go there next time i'm in town, as i will arrive at Pearson at about 4:00, and she gets off work at 4:30. If it falls out as it did last time, i'll breeze through Douane--there were so few of us, we each had an agent to ourselves--and then hop on the bus for the Kipling Station. I can be at the Spadina TTC station before five, if all works out. If you're not busy on the afternoon of March 25, maybe we can get together to go check out those appetizers (she had oysters rockyerfeller, and i had the meat pot stickers--both very good).

0 Replies

It amazes me that Howard Stern is under serious fire for making dick and fart jokes and Ann Coulter is untouched by censorship for the crap she spouts.

0 Replies

Sounds good to me Set, just have to confirm availibilty for March 25. Waiting on calls as usual. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Why, I wonder, doesn't she have a show on FOX? I bet she'd love to. Though I suspect her schtick would wear thin pretty fast...

Pretty close D', the actual reason is that even those of us on the right can only deal with Ann in small doses. Those of us who love her, understand that you can never tell what will set her off and in which direction she will attack. It's kind of like having a rabid schitzophrenic pit bull with a bad case of gastritis guarding your backyard, you know for sure that no one that enters your backyard is going to escape unharmed, you just are never sure from moment to moment what ELSE she is going to do.

0 Replies

Yeah, I hear ya. I was looking at cheese ravioli earlier, and considering a ravioli bake or something, but Chinese sounds much more tasty at this point.

0 Replies

It amazes me that Howard Stern is under serious fire for making dick and fart jokes and Ann Coulter is untouched by censorship for the crap she spouts.

Good point cavfancier. Howard is much less offensive, and we get to see better looking women too.

They want to FIX the airwaves, but leave Coulter and her ilk free to spread their hatred.

Just one more little proof that something is seriously amiss in this country. What I wonder is,.....how much proof are Americans going to need before they figure out some Americans aren't very American at all, and rather disdainful of the rest of us?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

It amazes me that Howard Stern is under serious fire for making dick and fart jokes and Ann Coulter is untouched by censorship for the crap she spouts.

The First Amendment applies to both Conservatives as well as Liberals.

And I bought my niece an Ann Coulter doll last Christmas and I understand from my sister that the Ann doll spends most of her time among my niece's Barbies trying to start a Malibu Republicans Association. Very Happy

0 Replies

I'd be interested in a link to the part of the scriptures describe the beating with more words than "he was scourged." Gibson himself admitted he extrapolated these scenes (taking up the majority of the movie) from Emmerich and other perhaps more defining historical sources. The sources are weak and in contention, BTW. Just the fact that Crucifixion spikes were small and driven through the wrists is enough for me. His historical revisionism ran rampant through "Breaveheart" including the blue face paint. This film is no better and perhaps no worse than any action adventure, violent thriller. It doesn't delivery on the spiritual level other than bringing out the crying towels for many believers. It's manipulative to the point of making anyone susceptable to the "Madame X" school of tear-jerkers that I was embarassed for Gibson.

0 Replies

Reminds me of Addams Family Values, at the finale of which, the vilainesse admits that she burned her parents in their home as they slept, because they got her a Malibu Barbie instead of a Ballerina Barbie. You know, she looked a lot like Annie.

Say, wait a minute . . .

0 Replies

Didn't Ann Coulter write a book on politics? Who is she?

Fetuses aren't the same as babies. They are more like parasites until they get a bit older.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I'd be interested in a link to the part of the scriptures describe the beating with more words than "he was scourged." Gibson himself admitted he extrapolated these scenes (taking up the majority of the movie) from Emmerich and other perhaps more defining historical sources. The sources are weak an in contention, BTW. Just the fact that Crucifixion spikes were small and driven through the wrists is enough for me. His historical revisionism ran rampant through "Breaveheart" including the blue face paint. This film is no better an perhaps no worse than any action adventure, violent thriller. It doesn't delivery on the spiritual level other than bringing out the crying towels for many believers. It's manipulative to the point of making anyone susceptable to the "Madame X" school of tear-jerkers that I was embarassed for Gibson.

they would have been driven through the wrists - the palms cannot support the weight of a body.

0 Replies

Heh heh, that was funny Fedral, but just currently, I think I have to disagree with you that the first amendment is applied equally to conservatives and liberals, at this moment.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Heh heh, that was funny Fedral, but just currently, I think I have to disagree with you that the first amendment is applied equally to conservatives and liberals, at this moment.

I wasn't saying it was cav, only that it is supposed to.

I used to listen to Howard Stern back in the early '80s when he was on 66AM NBC in New York and was listening the day they canceled his show. Although I am not the Stern fan I once was, I do find some of his antics very funny. Clear Channel here in Orlando was one of the markets that canceled Stern and I wrote a letter to the local station manager in protest.

I think the First Amendment is labeled number one for a REASON. Our Founding Fathers were not stupid, they realized that information and free speech and the free exchange of ideas are the foundation on which this country's freedoms are built.

Just my 2 cents (pre tax)

0 Replies

Well, on that point, regarding that the 1st amendment should apply to all but isn't these days, I agree. Jeez, I wish I could remember what politician was on Howard Stern today (I'm Canadian, and not well-versed on names in American politics), but he did say something interesting. He said that while Reagan will be remembered as 'the great communicator', GWB will be remembered as 'the great silencer.'

0 Replies

I find Stern now, as I did then, unlistenable, but that's just my 2 cents. I suspect he's losing out mostly because of the consolidation of radio ownership.

I don't think its censorship, though. You can be fired from any job from writing or saying something that the owner doesn't like. It's censorship when the gov't tells you not to write or speak...

0 Replies

You're absolutely on target there, Fedral. The authors of the Constitution in writing the First Amendment went clear back to the ancient Egyptians who despite the construction of their government encouraged the free exchange of ideas. They didn't even prosecute citizens for speaking out against what the Pharoah dictated. It just didn't provide for a way to replace him -- that was left up to the hierarchy itself to take care of it by poisoning his food or hoping he would die of old age (although they had the disadvantage of having him often replaced by someone worse). That method is still with us in the world, hopefully never in the U.S.A. :wink: Very Happy

One other thing about ancient Egypt -- they had no slaves.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

I find Stern now, as I did then, unlistenable, but that's just my 2 cents. I suspect he's losing out mostly because of the consolidation of radio ownership.

I don't think its censorship, though. You can be fired from any job from writing or saying something that the owner doesn't like. It's censorship when the gov't tells you not to write or speak...

Yes D', but when the government uses the bludgeon of 'fines' and 'penalties' against the parent company to coerce the company to rid themselves of the individual costing them the money, that is the Government all but forcing the company to comply with their wishes.

0 Replies

Ties between Clear Channel and the Bush admistration are well-documented. Only after Stern turned against Bush was he pulled. Many ex-Clear Channel employees have since come forward to tell similar stories about firings over anti-govt., anti-big business, or anti-war statements. Please....this is government involvement, not a simple corporate decision. The FCC is debating delaying any fines to Stern until after the election. Not only that, suddenly, Colin Powell's son, who heads up the FCC is reconsidering the proposed "three strikes and you're out" bill, as it just might step on first amendment rights. There is no way anyone can call the Clear Channel involvement with Stern apolitical.

0 Replies

Points well taken, fedral and cav. The situation is more complicated than I suggested in my brief post re censorship. Censorship can be subtler...

0 Replies

W.W.J.K.: Who Would Jesus Kill?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know