Another Anti-War Film Bombs At Box Office

[red states rule]

The much hyped "Lions and Lambs", directed by Robert Redford is bombing at the box office

Here we are told how a majority of Americans are oposed to the war - why are people ignoring this film

Opening week was a snooze for this film

LIONS FOR LAMBS United Artists

2,215 Theaters

$2,150,000

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1923880/posts

[retiredman]

Redford did not make the movie to be a box office smash.

He knows full well that most folks would rather see a mindless comedy movie about an animated bee or about Santa's brother Fred than they would a movie that required them to think.

[red states rule]

Redford did not make the movie to be a box office smash.

He knows full well that most folks would rather see a mindless comedy movie about an animated bee or about Santa's brother Fred than they would a movie that required them to think.

Oh yea, he spends millions to lose millions

It is another attempt to smear the war, the troops, and the President that is blowing up in the kook lefts face

[retiredman]

Oh yea, he spends millions to lose millions

It is another attempt to smear the war, the troops, and the President that is blowing up in the kook lefts face


he won't lose any money on that movie.

he might not make tons, but he certainly won't lose a penny.

and have you SEEN his ranch at Sundance? He doesn't need to make a ton of money at this point in his life!!!

[red states rule]

he won't lose any money on that movie.

he might not make tons, but he certainly won't lose a penny.

and have you SEEN his ranch at Sundance? He doesn't need to make a ton of money at this point in his life!!!

given his opening week numbers - it does not look good

as well as all the glowing coverage from the liberal media - it is a dud

[April15]

You don't make a movie about a tragedy while the majority of your potential audience is living that tragedy. Then there are those like me who can't or haven't the reserve funds to afford to go to the movies.

[retiredman]

given his opening week numbers - it does not look good

as well as all the glowing coverage from the liberal media - it is a dud


like I said, he won't lose millions...he won't lose a penny.

you are just being typically flatulent.

[red states rule]

You don't make a movie about a tragedy while the majority of your potential audience is living that tragedy. Then there are those like me who can't or haven't the reserve funds to afford to go to the movies.

ever heard of Bargain Matinee

[retiredman]

looks to me like the movie is holding 4th at the box office while being in 2/3's the theaters of the top three.

[red states rule]

looks to me like the movie is holding 4th at the box office while being in 2/3's the theaters of the top three.

2,215 Theaters

$2,150,000


It is doing as well as Al's Inconcenient bomb

[retiredman]

2,215 Theaters

$2,150,000


It is doing as well as Al's Inconcenient bomb

like I said...it is in fourth place while being in 2/3rds as many theaters as the three movies in front of it.

It was never aimed at the mindless nerds (like you, apparently) who like to laugh at Fred Claus....

and Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar. Bee Movie, probably won't.

[red states rule]

like I said...it is in fourth place while being in 2/3rds as many theaters as the three movies in front of it.

Yes, it is a bomb

Not only this hit piece fil, but others as well

Box office bust: Americans antiwar and anti-antiwar

By JONAH GOLDBERG

We've all heard the stories, many true, some apocryphal, of soldiers returning home from Vietnam only to be disrespected and shunned by an ungrateful nation. How many were called war criminals or spat upon is as controversial as it is unknowable. But there's one thing we know our troops never experienced. We never filled the movie theaters during wartime with films calling them war criminals, rapists and, figuratively, spitting on them or on their mission.

Not so today. Hollywood has been churning out antiwar movies at a blistering pace of late, with more to come. We've already had Rendition, a tendentious, plodding assault on the war on terror, seemingly as-told-to by the ACLU, starring Reese Witherspoon, Peter Sarsgaard, Meryl Streep and Jake Gyllenhaal. There's the meandering In the Valley of Elah, written and directed by Paul Haggis, about a family dealing with a cover-up of their soldier-son's death in an unnecessary war. The Kingdom, more exciting than most, deals with an FBI team's attempt to investigate a terrorist attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia. Its antiwar credentials come from suggesting that the sworn lawmen (and women) investigating the slaughter of families playing softball are no better than the murderers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5290900.html

[Hagbard Celine]

Oh yea, he spends millions to lose millions

It is another attempt to smear the war, the troops, and the President that is blowing up in the kook lefts face

It'll do well abroad. Like the prototype conservative you are, you seem to have forgotten that there is a world outside our borders. How mundanely typical.

[red states rule]

It'll do well abroad. Like the prototype conservative you are, you seem to have forgotten that there is a world outside our borders. How mundanely typical.

Hey, if the folks are so opposed to the war and Pres Bush, the lines to see this movie should stretch around the block :lol:

[retiredman]

op-eds from others.... another typical offering from RSR!:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Hey, if the folks are so opposed to the war and Pres Bush, the lines to see this movie should stretch around the block :lol:


not when Bee Movie and Fred Claus are playing! Most folks have the critical eye of you, RSR...they don't want to be challenged to think at the theaters...they want to be made to laugh.

[red states rule]

op-eds from others.... another typical offering from RSR!:laugh2:

Yes, MM hates to see facts showing other anti war movies are tanking faster then the Dem Congress's poll numbers :lol:

[darin]

op-eds from others.... another typical offering from RSR!:laugh2:

Redford's movie is an op/ed, too.

[retiredman]

Redford's movie is an op/ed, too.


of COURSE it is! and Bee Movie is not...and neither is Fred Claus... and neither is American Gangster.

Most people do not go to movies to see an op-ed piece. Most go to laugh. Do you honestly think that Robert Redford doesn't KNOW that????

[red states rule]

of COURSE it is! and Bee Movie is not...and neither is Fred Claus... and neither is American Gangster.

Most people do not go to movies to see an op-ed piece. Most go to laugh. Do you honestly think that Robert Redford doesn't KNOW that????

with an all star lineup - and glowing press coverage before it was released

it is still bombing

[April15]

ever heard of Bargain Matinee
No!

[red states rule]

No!

try it

the ticket prices are much lower

or call Reid and Pelosi and have a Federal investagation into the high movie ticklet prices

[April15]

try it

the ticket prices are much lower

or call Reid and Pelosi and have a Federal investagation into the high movie ticklet pricesI don't go to movies for many reasons. I surly won't start to see a movie of what I'm living through.

[red states rule]

I don't go to movies for many reasons. I surly won't start to see a movie of what I'm living through.

Given the money it is making, you will not have to worry about crowds if you do go see it :lol:

[April15]

Given the money it is making, you will not have to worry about crowds if you do go see it :lol:Crowds are not my concern. I don't care for movies today.

[retiredman]

with an all star lineup - and glowing press coverage before it was released

it is still bombing

and the reason you think it is not a box office hit is primarily because of its subject matter and theme?

Could it be that the script was too wordy, or that Redford's attempts at tying three stories together in one movie was not successful?

Could it be that it is not a comedy?

[red states rule]

Crowds are not my concern. I don't care for movies today.

It seems alot of people agree with you - at least on this US military hit piece

[Hagbard Celine]

Hey, if the folks are so opposed to the war and Pres Bush, the lines to see this movie should stretch around the block :lol:

And if a bear takes a sh*t it'll stink. Got a point or are you blowing hot air as usual?

[red states rule]

And if a bear takes a sh*t it'll stink. Got a point or are you blowing hot air as usual?

Just proving what a bunch of liers libs are - along with the liberal media

Everything you clowns say about Iraq is being proven wrong

[retiredman]

Everything you clowns say about Iraq is being proven wrong

like

No WMD's??

like

no alliance with AQ?

:laugh2:

[red states rule]

like

No WMD's??

like

no alliance with AQ?

:laugh2:

Clinton and the Dems said he had them

Saddam did have links to AQ

[retiredman]

Clinton and the Dems said he had them

Saddam did have links to AQ

some dems thought he had them.... I certainly was not one of them.

and Saddam had "link", perhaps, but no connection....no cooperation....no alliance...

the US and the USSR had LINKS throughout the cold war.

Saddam was not allied with AQ in any way....Cheney and Bush misled America about that.

[red states rule]

some dems thought he had them.... I certainly was not one of them.

and Saddam had "link", perhaps, but no connection....no cooperation....no alliance...

the US and the USSR had LINKS throughout the cold war.

Saddam was not allied with AQ in any way....Cheney and Bush misled America about that.

No Dems SAID HE HAD THEM

There were many links between Saddam, his secret police and AQ

[retiredman]

There were many links between Saddam, his secret police and AQ

not true. no alliance....no cooperation....no assistance.... they were natural enemies, not allies.

[red states rule]

not true. no alliance....no cooperation....no assistance.... they were natural enemies, not allies.

* Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."

But the Bush administration said little about Salman Pak as it demonstrated links between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to administration sources, some detainees who provided credible evidence of other links between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in terrorism and WMD, insist they have no knowledge of Salman Pak. Khodada, the Iraqi army captain, also professed ignorance of whether the trainees were members of al Qaeda. "Nobody came and told us, 'This is al Qaeda people,'" he explained, "but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained."

* On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government and has not been heard from since.

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an Abu Sayyaf leader who planned the attack bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him.

* No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.

Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?pg=2

[retiredman]

all that crap has long been refuted. did you read the senate intelligence committee report?

[red states rule]

all that crap has long been refuted. did you read the senate intelligence committee report?

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS LEARNED SINCE THE WAR
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRITICS, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, have alluded to new "evidence" they say confirms Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship before the war. They have not shared that evidence.

Even as the critics withhold the basis for their allegations, evidence on the other side is piling up. Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, notably attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. In some cases, say national security officials, Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq. There is some reporting, unconfirmed at this point, that the recent bombing of the U.N. headquarters was the result of a joint operation between Baathists and Ansar al-Islam.

And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.

For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.

Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."

I emailed Potter, a Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Star, about his findings last month. He was circumspect about the meaning of the document. "So did we find the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg? Did bin Laden and Saddam agree to disagree and that was the end of it? I still don't know." Still, he wrote, "I have no doubt that what we found is the real thing. We plucked it out of a building that had been J-DAMed and was three-quarters gone. Beyond the pale to think that the CIA or someone else planted false evidence in such a dangerous location, where only lunatics would bother to tread. And then to cover over the incriminating name Osama bin Laden with Liquid Paper, so that only the most stubborn and dogged of translators would fluke into spotting it?"

Four days after that memo was written, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a famous fatwa about the plight of Iraq. Published that day in al Quds al-Arabi, it reads in part:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. . . . The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million . . . despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

The Americans, bin Laden says, are working on behalf of Israel.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Bin Laden urges his followers to act. "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." It was around this time, U.S. officials say, that Hussein paid the $300,000 to bin Laden's deputy, Zawahiri.


ACCORDING TO U.S. officials, soldiers in Iraq have discovered additional documentary evidence like the memo Potter found. This despite the fact that there is no team on the ground assigned to track down these contacts--no equivalent to the Iraq Survey Group looking for evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Interviews with detained senior Iraqi intelligence officials are rounding out the picture.

The Bush administration has thus far chosen to keep the results of its postwar findings to itself; much of the information presented here comes from public sources. The administration, spooked by the media feeding frenzy surrounding yellowcake from Niger, is exercising extreme caution in rolling out the growing evidence of collaboration between al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. As the critics continue their assault on a prewar "pattern of deception," the administration remains silent.

This impulse is understandable. It is also dangerous. Some administration officials argue privately that the case for linkage is so devastating that when they eventually unveil it, the critics will be embarrassed and their arguments will collapse. But to rely on this assumption is to run a terrible risk. Already, the absence of linkage is the conventional wisdom in many quarters. Once "everybody knows" that Saddam and bin Laden had nothing to do with each other, it becomes extremely difficult for any release of information by the U.S. government to change people's minds.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?pg=2

[retiredman]

yet another cut and paste from the weekly standard.

how droll!:lol:

[red states rule]

yet another cut and paste from the weekly standard.

how droll!:lol:

Facts that blow your wrinkled ass out of the water are always a good post

[theHawk]

all that crap has long been refuted. did you read the senate intelligence committee report?

You're begining to sound like a parrot. All while you keep ignoring your beloved Dems who also said Saddam had WMD. Clinton certainly did. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

You're begining to sound like a parrot. All while you keep ignoring your beloved Dems who also said Saddam had WMD. Clinton certainly did. :laugh2:

MM will say Clinton did not say he had them beyond a shadow of a doubt

[Hagbard Celine]

Historians will write that Bush invaded Iraq in order to seize wmds and that when we arrived, none were ever found. Then they'll write that there was no plan to secure the country after the invasion so the completely foreseeable happened: The two Islamic sects split and fought a civil war. Then they'll write that Al-Qaeda moved-in, where it hadn't been before, set up shop and produced more terrorists making the world an even less safe place than before 9/11. Then they'll write that the the "six-month war" Cheney talked about in 2003 would eventually turn into a permanent US presence in the region. :dunno: History will settle this ridiculous "argument" and eventually ya'll's denial about this war will become even more laughable than it is now.:dance:

[red states rule]

Historians will write that Bush invaded Iraq in order to seize wmds and that when we arrived, none were ever found. Then they'll write that there was no plan to secure the country after the invasion so the completely foreseeable happened: The two Islamic sects split and fought a civil war. Then they'll write that Al-Qaeda moved-in, where it hadn't been before, set up shop and produced more terrorists making the world an even less safe place than before 9/11. Then they'll write that the the "six-month war" Cheney talked about in 2003 would eventually turn into a permanent US presence in the region. :dunno: History will settle this ridiculous "argument" and eventually ya'll's denial about this war will become even more laughable than it is now.:dance:

That may be the lead story at CNN - but in the real world it will be written Pres Bush liberated a nation while the Democrats fought tooth and nail for surrender to the terrorists

[Yurt]

Redford did not make the movie to be a box office smash.

He knows full well that most folks would rather see a mindless comedy movie about an animated bee or about Santa's brother Fred than they would a movie that required them to think.

yet you were all giddy about F/911. hippocritt

[Yurt]

It'll do well abroad. Like the prototype conservative you are, you seem to have forgotten that there is a world outside our borders. How mundanely typical.

proof? please inform the audience exactly what movies that bomb here do well abroad. and don't be selective. don't forget to include the mass numbers of "b" movies.....:poke:

[retiredman]

You're begining to sound like a parrot. All while you keep ignoring your beloved Dems who also said Saddam had WMD. Clinton certainly did.

I am not ignoring anything. I have absolutely no doubt that many politicians in DC thought that Saddam had WMD's.... I have no doubt that he ONCE hade WMD's.... I just doubted the fact that he had stockpiles of horrific WMD's that could, in fact, massively destroy anything. I doubted that he had the ability to use them against US even if he did, and I certainly doubted the stories that suggested that a secular baathist who ran a secular dictatorship would EVER give WMD's - even if he DID have them - to wahabbist extremists whose strategic vision included the destruction of his sweet deal nation-state.

and...ta da... all of MY doubts were realized.

[retiredman]

yet you were all giddy about F/911. hippocritt


giddy? I thought it was a remarkably well done movie. It was certainly not a box office smash. I certainly never expected the crowd that goes to movies and makes them smashes to ever be interested in it and, for the most part, they weren't.

[Yurt]

giddy? I thought it was a remarkably well done movie. It was certainly not a box office smash. I certainly never expected the crowd that goes to movies and makes them smashes to ever be interested in it and, for the most part, they weren't.

Your rational here is completely opposite. You know full well that Flies made close to a hundred million dollars and you touted this as "success" and how many people are "yearning" for the truth.

http://www.bigboysports.de/htmlkat/sportimport2007/verkleinerte%20Bilder/Felt_Pedal_Platform_CNC.JPG

[retiredman]

the degree to which F911 drew standard movie goers away from their standard comedy fare is certainly indicative of the underlying dissatisfaction of the populace to the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, F911 was hardly a box office "smash". It was an indie film house documentary.

[Yurt]

the degree to which F911 drew standard movie goers away from their standard comedy fare is certainly indicative of the underlying dissatisfaction of the populace to the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, F911 was hardly a box office "smash". It was an indie film house documentary.

:lol:

you are so funny. yet you defend this film because "he didn't care about making money" as if this shows the populace is really interested. don't forget, your response was to RSR's claim that the "bomb" is a direct result of the anti war movement's unpopularity.

a smash? get over yourself. something makes a 100 million dollars and you are now defining that as "not" a hollyweird smash. LOL. the effing movie made, what, 20 times its cost, and more than probably 70% of what regular "movies" NOT documentaries make and yet that is a "smash" to you.

you crack me up. its like mice to a cheese trap with you.

[retiredman]

:lol:

you are so funny. yet you defend this film because "he didn't care about making money" as if this shows the populace is really interested. don't forget, your response was to RSR's claim that the "bomb" is a direct result of the anti war movement's unpopularity.

a smash? get over yourself. something makes a 100 million dollars and you are now defining that as "not" a hollyweird smash. LOL. the effing movie made, what, 20 times its cost, and more than probably 70% of what regular "movies" NOT documentaries make and yet that is a "smash" to you.

you crack me up. its like mice to a cheese trap with you.

I LIKED F911. I have not seen the redford film...I doubt I will. It has gotten poor reviews. The reviews indicate that the script is too wordy and that redford has failed in his attempt to pull off a triptych. I am suggesting that redford's film is doing OK, and it will certainly not lose money, but it is not a box office smash because the only films that are box office smashes play to the masses who like lite breezy bullshit, for the most part. I fail to see how you have "trapped" me with anything...but if it gets you an erection, you can claim victory all you like. I am merely pointing out that the redford movie is not a smash NOT because the public is gungho for Bush's war in Iraq, but because it is not well done - according to the critics I have read.

[actsnoblemartin]

Why does the media focus only on a few instances of troop misbehavior, and not the rampant misbehavior of islamic terrorists?


op-eds from others.... another typical offering from RSR!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Why does the media focus only on a few instances of troop misbehavior, and not the rampant misbehavior of islamic terrorists?

Because that is how the liberal media actually views our troops. Go to any anti war/pro terrorist rally - you will see many anti US military signs

[retiredman]

Because that is how the liberal media actually views our troops. Go to any anti war/pro terrorist rally - you will see many anti US military signs

RSR..I am curious... have YOU ever been to one of those rallies?

[red states rule]

RSR..I am curious... have YOU ever been to one of those rallies?

I have watched them on CSPAN. No anchor. Live and no spin

I have heard the nuts, seen the signs, and noticed the small crowds compared to what the head kooks said would show up

[Yurt]

I LIKED F911. I have not seen the redford film...I doubt I will. It has gotten poor reviews. The reviews indicate that the script is too wordy and that redford has failed in his attempt to pull off a triptych. I am suggesting that redford's film is doing OK, and it will certainly not lose money, but it is not a box office smash because the only films that are box office smashes play to the masses who like lite breezy bullshit, for the most part. I fail to see how you have "trapped" me with anything...but if it gets you an erection, you can claim victory all you like. I am merely pointing out that the redford movie is not a smash NOT because the public is gungho for Bush's war in Iraq, but because it is not well done - according to the critics I have read.

BTW, do not ever PM. I have requested this before but you blatently ignore my request. Know this, I will never read one of your PMs again. Everything you said last night SHOULD have been said on the board. Stop being a spineless coward. Better, yet, give me permission to post that PM on this thread.

[retiredman]

I have watched them on CSPAN. No anchor. Live and no spin

I have heard the nuts, seen the signs, and noticed the small crowds compared to what the head kooks said would show up

so...the answer to my question is: no

I didn't think so.

[Yurt]

so...the answer to my question is: no

I didn't think so.


No need to state the obvious

[retiredman]

BTW, do not ever PM. I have requested this before but you blatently ignore my request. Know this, I will never read one of your PMs again. Everything you said last night SHOULD have been said on the board. Stop being a spineless coward. Better, yet, give me permission to post that PM on this thread.


last night, I sent you a PM that said:

I do not know what your indentity is on whatever other board we may have met.... I do not know why you feel compelled to play gotcha games with me. I really feel no similar compulsion to play such games with you. Is it possible that we might - together - find a more civil tone while dealing with one another, or is that out of the question?

attempting to reach a place where we could be more civil was not being a spineless coward. I am really sorry that you feel that way....but fuck you, in any case. :lol:

[Kathianne]

PM's should not be on the board.

[Yurt]

PM's should not be on the board.

unless permission is granted. my point is, i do not want him to ever PM again and what he said should be on the board, so no harm here Kath.

[Yurt]

last night, I sent you a PM that said:

I do not know what your indentity is on whatever other board we may have met.... I do not know why you feel compelled to play gotcha games with me. I really feel no similar compulsion to play such games with you. Is it possible that we might - together - find a more civil tone while dealing with one another, or is that out of the question?

attempting to reach a place where we could be more civil was not being a spineless coward. I am really sorry that you feel that way....but fuck you, in any case. :lol:


My identity? LOL. I belong to 3 boards, this, a muslim one and Faith Freedom or whatever it is called. I don't know you from any boards, however, you are so transparent that I called you out so well, that you told yourself, damn, he must know me. Wrong. You are just that simple and transparent. Period. You have to feel pretty stupid now.

And telling me to "fuck you," how civil of you o' open mindedness himself. If that is the best you have, cancel your ISP and stick to practicing insults in front of the mirror.

loser

[retiredman]

My identity? LOL. I belong to 3 boards, this, a muslim one and Faith Freedom or whatever it is called. I don't know you from any boards, however, you are so transparent that I called you out so well, that you told yourself, damn, he must know me. Wrong. You are just that simple and transparent. Period. You have to feel pretty stupid now.

And telling me to "fuck you," how civil of you o' open mindedness himself. If that is the best you have, cancel your ISP and stick to practicing insults in front of the mirror.

loser

You asked me to post the text of my PM...I did so.

so now our communication is all public.

any other requests, or are you going to be content to do stupid little gotcha posts like the previous one?

[Yurt]

You asked me to post the text of my PM...I did so.

so now our communication is all public.

any other requests, or are you going to be content to do stupid little gotcha posts like the previous one?

:cuckoo:

so i gotcha ya? you're a weirdo. but, like having you on the board. thanks for making it public. but dude, what are you talking about here. i publically answered your post, which i wanted too, thank you for making it public.

are you well?

[retiredman]

I just retired from my second career for my second pension...I couldn't be better!

[Yurt]

I just retired from my second career for my second pension...I couldn't be better!

You're not on a couch, you're on a board....

[retiredman]

You're not on a couch, you're on a board....

I never ever planned to spend my retirement on a couch. Either I will be creating in the kitchen, singing in the choir, shooting at the flagstick, making a small slam with less than 30 high card points, drinking old scotch, or expressing my opinion here and elsewhere... or I will be cooling to ambient.

[Yurt]

I never ever planned to spend my retirement on a couch. Either I will be creating in the kitchen, singing in the choir, shooting at the flagstick, making a small slam with less than 30 high card points, drinking old scotch, or expressing my opinion here and elsewhere... or I will be cooling to ambient.

:laugh2:

biotch, that was good

[red states rule]

The moonbat left has fallen on their ass once again. While Dems in Dc are trying to screw the troops over war funding; the Hollywood libs smear them and portray them as cold blooded killers

Will John Murtha be sitting in the front row?

Hollywood produces anti-war bombsposted at 6:36 pm on November 9, 2007 by Bryan


Redacted, a flop. Lions and Lambs, flop. In the Valley of Elah, flop.
People don’t go to theaters to sit through two hours of diatribes and propaganda on their leisure time. They’re not going to spend money on it. Now we have the proof.
Almost without exception, however, the crop of movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.
“Rendition,” a drama starring Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal about the CIA’s policy of outsourcing interrogation of terror suspects, has taken just under 10 million dollars at the box office, a disastrous return.
Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis’s latest film “In the Valley of Elah,” about a father investigating the death of his son in Iraq, earned favorable reviews but less than seven million dollars following its release in September.
Even the action-packed “The Kingdom,” starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, fell well below its 70 million budget with around 47 million dollars in ticket sales.
People are giving Hollywood pretty clear message on these message films: Do not want. We told them so.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/09/hollywood-produces-anti-war-bombs/

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

You don't make a movie about a tragedy while the majority of your potential audience is living that tragedy. Then there are those like me who can't or haven't the reserve funds to afford to go to the movies. :poke:Well maybe if you got off your lazy ass and got a job you could afford to go see a liberal propaganda movie like this piece of crap from a has been actor like Redford

[red states rule]

:poke:Well maybe if you got off your lazy ass and got a job you could afford to go see a liberal propaganda movie like this piece of crap from a has been actor like Redford

and leave the comfort of liberalism and the nanny state?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

and leave the comfort of liberalism and the nanny state?Good point :coffee: