Trying to ban this movie --- OMG !!!
They are trying to ban Gone With the Wind ---
Already getting success on Dukes of Hazzard ---
What happened to the will of the people ???
The will of the people is suffering a severe mental handicap. All that work to create a free society, right out the *beep* window...
shareHas anyone tried to ban this movie? Seriously?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Has anyone tried to ban this movie? Seriously?
Has anyone tried to ban THIS movie? seriously
and you can easily buy the Dukes of Hazzard on DVD
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
I can't see where they have tried to ban it, although the editing of the movie certainly takes away from the message.
As far as buying the Dukes of Hazzard on DVD, that isn't the point. The point is, there was no racism in the show - just the flag. I can understand if the show specifically promoted racism and slavery as being good in this day and age, but it doesn't. There is no reason to not show it on regular TV, other than PC pansies get their panties in a twist over what they think the Confederate Flag means.
So no one's tried to ban this movie then?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. Just because Google doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Remember, schools have banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & To Kill A Mockingbird because of the "proper" use of the 'N-word', regardless of the fact that such books show the ignorance of bigotry & racism.
So typical Con logic
Blazing Saddles isn't banned, no one has suggested banning it, I can't even produce any examples of anyone trying to ban it, but they might ban it in someone's imagination therefore Liberals suck
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Typical libtard "logic." Thinks that if it doesn't exist on Google it doesn't exist at all.
By your "logic", my dad never worked on the space program in the 1960's because I can't find examples of it on Google. Never mind where he worked, all of the documentation he brought home, the behind the scenes information he told us, the FBI screenings, etc.
but they might ban it in someone's imagination therefore Liberals suck
I didn't mention Google. You did.
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles. No link has been provided. You'd think attempting to ban a film would cause some fuss. But apparently either a) no one particularly cares or b) no such attempt is happening
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to (I don't) suggests b)
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
I didn't mention Google. You did.
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles.
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you can buy the two books I mentioned, or get them from the library, or download them doesn't mean people haven't banned them. Again, your analogy is invalid.
You REALLY want to prove your point, but you really can't. History didn't start in 1998. There could have been people trying to ban the movie in the 1970's.
Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970's, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned - and yet I remember how it caused an uproar and groups were trying to get it banned.
You REALLY want to prove your point, but you really can't.
No. But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
And if you're not saying that they're trying to ban it, then what are you saying?
If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
But the fact that no-one bothered to record this shows that they didn't do very well and weren't significant enough to bother about.
Really? I just looked this show up on Wikipedia and found this..
I have no need to prove my point.
Why? Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google?
Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
But, if you Google 'TV Show Soap Banned' you won't find any reference to it on the results.
Again, by your "logic" it didn't happen.
And if you're not saying that they're trying to ban it, then what are you saying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made my point quite clear - sorry if you are too stupid to understand it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, water is wet. Now, for some breaking news, you don't know WTF you are saying, because no one has said it WAS banned. So, yet again, your analogy is invalid. Sheesh!!!
And I didn't say it wasn't there. I said if you Googled it, there results didn't show anything - as in the list of links on the first page made no mention of it. I didn't say you couldn't find it if you didn't look. Hell, it is all over the place on just the board for Soap on this site.
No, I think that something that makes people angry enough to post threads saying 'Liberals suck" should be something that is actually happening.
All of which is mentioned in the article I linked to.
Check out this.
In order to make a point, you actually have to make a point. Not just waffle vague generalities and then accuse people of being stupid.
And you don't know what an analogy is.
You seem to be saying that we should be angry because someone somewhere at sometime said a film should be banned
no-one bothered to make any record of this
Or I don't know what you actually are saying.
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
The OP is obviously a troll, and you got your panties in a twist and fell for it
My point about stuff happening even though it isn't on Google is perfectly valid - you just don't like it.
And you are still wrong and trying to move the goal posts. No one has said it was banned. If it was banned, you couldn't get another copy.
Again, just because YOU think it should be recorded on the internet doesn't mean that it was. You could fill the internet with things that aren't on the internet - but now I've just overwhelmed your little mind with that.
But then I forget that this is the internet where facts are less important than 'like totally respecting my opinion man'
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google. Only yesterday I stubbed my toe and this hasn't turned up on Google. I just happen to think that something as major as calling for the ban of a classic film might cause a bit of a ripple somewhere.
People have said other people are trying to ban it.
I think that Cons are retards because they want to ban The Shawshank Redemption. I mean, I can't provide any proof of this, but just because I can't, doesn't mean it's not happening. Know what I'm saying?
And yet you've been obtuse about it. This is the first time you've acknowledged that not all facts are on the internet - probably because I backed you in to a corner where you can't squirm out of it.
Not upset, just hate obtuse, pretentious douche bags such as yourself.
Yes, let's recap:
You
Has anyone tried to ban this movie? Seriously?
I can't see where they have tried to ban it,
So no one's tried to ban this movie then?(No, you weren't being obtuse at all, were you?)
I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. Just because Google doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
So typical Con logic(No, you weren't being a douche-bag going for an insult when someone is having a discussion that isn't fully in line with your "thinking.")
Thinks that if it doesn't exist on Google it doesn't exist at all.
I didn't mention Google. You did.(Nope, not pretentious at all there.)
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles. No link has been provided. You'd think attempting to ban a film would cause some fuss.
I also provided a sound reason why there might not be a link to a source - it may pre-date Google/the internet.Your point was quashed here but you couldn't accept it.
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.Let's just hold on to this one a little while....
I was stating a fact. If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google? Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
My point about stuff happening even though it isn't on Google is perfectly valid - you just don't like it.
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google.
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
You -
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google.
Wait a minute! What was that you said earlier? You -
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
So, are you stupid, a hypocrite or both?
Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google? Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
You -
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
Again you display your ignorance since I clearly did NOT say it had been banned.
I also provided a sound reason why there might not be a link to a source - it may pre-date Google/the internet.
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
Your point was quashed here but you couldn't accept it.
You must REALLY love the abuse, because you keep coming back for more.
Look you moron, YOU are the one who keeps saying two different things. You keep saying a movie was banned, then try to prove it wasn't, when no one has said it was banned. Are you really that stupid? (Yes)
Well done on stripping out the bit where you said "Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970s, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned" - so the show getting banned was something you brought up
I never said that Blazing Saddles was banned. The OP said Libs tried to ban it. All I've ever asked for is any evidence that someone somewhere is trying to ban it. I'd just like to see any evidence at all that is in fact happening. Anything? Anywhere?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
I'm bored with you. I answered your question and you went for the insult. I make comments which you are purposely obtuse to. I prove something and you move the goal posts.
Someone who is as big of a p&ssy as you who can't have a discussion without starting insults and who cannot stick to one narrative isn't worth as much as a pile of pig feces.
Buh-bye!
No you didn't answer my question. You made a fatuous assertion and a demonstrably wrong comment and when called out on this got defensive and started hurling insults
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
No you didn't answer my question.
Has anyone tried to ban THIS movie? seriously
I can't see where they have tried to ban it
So no one's tried to ban this movie then?
I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned,
So typical Con logic
So as I keep saying - no one has any evidence whatsoever of this film being banned or anyone even attempting to ban it other than your vague assertion that someone maybe did but no-one bothered to record it?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Fuqk you, you fuqking retard. I just showed your questions and my answers. There was nothing vague about my answers; you are just trying to make them vague to make yourself feel big.
You asked twice, I gave two direct answers, and then you started in on the insults.
You really are retarded if you don't get that, and I'm done with you if you don't get.
Yes you did. You made a vague suggestion that someone somewhere might have complained but it wasn't recorded (which would hardly be a cause for calling Liberals scum
And then went on to use the fact that there was no record of people complaining about Soap as proof of this - even though it took me a second to find a record of people complaining about Soap on the Internet
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Yes you did.
which would hardly be a cause for calling Liberals scum
And then went on to use the fact that there was no record of people complaining about Soap as proof of this - even though it took me a second to find a record of people complaining about Soap on the Internet
You know, you'd have saved yourself a lot of aggravation at the beginning if you'd have said 'yes I agree with you - there's no evidence of anyone trying to ban Blazing Saddles therefore it's wrong to call Liberals scum'
Instead you went round the park trying to prove that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and if you search on a particular search string you don't find information about a particular show on the first page of results therefore I'm wrong.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
You asked a question, and I gave a direct answer. I won't apologize for you being a retard and not understanding that.
I'm wrong
You're cute when you're angry. You know that
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
You're a retard all of the time. Everyone knew that even before you started to 'tard this thread up.
shareYou're a retard all of the time. Everyone knew that even before you started to 'tard this thread up.
shareGlad I'm so famous and made such an impression on you. Or did you discover this through your amazing Google skills?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Hey, let me know when you are going to insult me so I can think of a reply. 👍
shareWhy would I insult you? We've bonded now.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Again, showing how stupid you are since you insulted me almost from the get-go.
sharenah! That was affectionate banter!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
THE only tard here is YOU.
You started a thread by LYING. Didn't even try to prove anything but some lameazzed line like "It was before google therefore..." blah blah blah.
Google can find anything that has been put on the site and that includes news articles going back a hundred years,
So just admit it, you are an idiot. Plain and simple
Oh and admit you lied.
They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety
Hey, sh!t for breath libtard. I didn't start the thread, so you are already showing how stupid YOU are.
Admit it, you are a moron, plain and simple!
Just,have you and cuffy nothing better to do with your time than continue this lame-ass back and forth?. The OP is ab obvious teabagger moron troll, and both of you jumped on the bait. Nobody has tried to ban the film. The OP is a liar.
shareI have better things to do, but when someone like cuffy has to be a jack off and start posting stupid sh!t, I enjoy showing everyone how stupid they are.
shareAnd yet all you managed to do was show you can't do a simple Internet search
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
No, I EASILY managed to show that you are an ignorant jack off who is purposely obtuse to the replies given.
shareYour replies seemed to be 1) I couldn't find something on the first page of Google therefore it's not on the Internet 2) just because the greatest repository of knowledge ever in the history of human civilisation doesn't have mention of something that would have been a national scandal doesn't mean it didn't happen.
So are we playing again? Oh goody!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Your retardedness is that you asked a question, I answered it. You asked it again, so I answered it again. Then you started with the insults.
It only took you a couple of posts to show everyone what kind of feces eater you were. 👍
I asked a question
You evaded it.
I asked the question again.
You evaded it again
My question was 'is there any evidence at all that this movie has been banned'
Your answer boiled down to 'no there isn't but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened"
And back to you
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Just to refresh the retard's memory:
You - "Has anyone tried to ban this movie?"
Me - "I can't see where they have tried to ban it"
You - "So no one's tried to ban this movie then? "
Me - "I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned, "
You - "So typical Con logic"
Asked and answered twice, then you started with the insults.
I usually have fun beating up on internet retards like you, but I'm starting to get bored with it.
Was it the 'typical' the 'con' or the 'logic' bit that made you cry?
Happy to change it to 'atypical liberal illogic' if you want?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
One thing is for sure, the OP was 100% correct with the title for this thread.
So you've finally found the mythical proof that liberals banned this film
My congratulations sir - this must be like Indiana Jones finding the lost Ark
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Hmm. Good one. No. I mean it really.
Ok then. Until you come up with anything of significance I'm outta here.
Okay cool. It was fun this and I'll miss you
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
Holy shmit, justanicknamed got OWNED! And he kept coming back for more. Someone needs to learn the saying, "Better to let people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it". Or in this case type it out, which he did over and over again. Classic!
shareWow. Another jack off heard from.
shareAnd yet another tremendous response to boot. Looking at your past responses is impressive, especially the more recent ones I can't wait to see your comeback. What name(s) will you call me? It's the waiting that's the hardest part.
share
share2 year old thread from a defunct forum, but justanicknamed is one of the most moronic asshats I have ever seen on or offline. He is almost as bad a flat earthers.
It is disconcerting that someone like that, not only exists, but takes themselves seriously and thinks they are somehow intellectually superior. Dunning-Kruger effect I suppose.
Ha ha marka99-1. You don't get called a retard. He doesn't love you as much as he loves me!
No gumbo for you
Ha ha marka99-1. You don't get called a retard. He doesn't love you as much as he loves me!
Just keep being that old man yelling at a cloud.
shareYep, did the very same with me; avoided question, made fatuous assertions, and demonstrably wrong comments, was called out, got defensive and started hurling personal attacks.
How this person thinks anyone will take this modus operandi seriously utterly boggles the mind.
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
Justanicknamed doesn't like research or facts. You should see him on the Roman Polanski board.
shareWow you sure make the rounds on IMDb, with every post even more inane than the last.
shareExcept that the flag is racist.
The flag represents the country called the Confederate States of America, who based their nation on... well, in the words of one of the founders, who served as its Vice-President... ?Our new government is founded? upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth?? Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, Savannah, Georgia, 1861.
"The subsequent PR sanitization efforts to redefine what the CSA, its flag and the reason it went to war with the North is called the "heritage not hate" effort, and it was known to be claptrap even back then.
"Famed Confederate partisan leader Colonel John S. Mosby was equally forthright. ?I?ve always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about,? he wrote a former comrade in 1894. ?I?ve never heard of any other cause than slavery.?
"Mosby, [South Carolina politician Robert Barnwell] Rhett, [Confederate President] Davis, [Vice President Alexander] Stephens, and other Confederates had no difficulty conceding what their descendants go to enormous lengths to deny: that the raison d?être of the Confederacy was the defense of slavery."
This is the history, in the very words of the leaders themselves.
You think the US Civil War was fought because of slavery, don't you?
shareWell, that's what the leaders themselves said.
Here's a couple of notes from my Evernote -
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s90/nl/10185073/9ab22ce9-b61a-4c25-a3c0-ef54b19c9b7f?title=How%20people%20convince%20themselves%20that%20the%20Confederate%20flag%20represents%20freedom%2C%20not%20slavery%20-%20The%20Washington%20Post
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s90/nl/10185073/2d33315f-c2c3-4458-bbb8-5cbd8c47e9e7?title=What%20This%20Cruel%20War%20Was%20Over and these articles have plenty of links to additional documentation.
After the war, there was an effort to sanitize the language (developing dog-whistle terminology including heritage, states' rights, liberty, freedom, etc...), but the original leaders, as you'll have read from the above, were not having it; for them, "slavery was the only reason they'd ever known."
So, yeah, the terms people use today to deflect from slavery as the primary (if not single) reason for secession and formation of the Confederate States of America, and over which they fought the North, are terms they came up with deliberately, a strategy the original leaders never embraced, because they felt their cause was God-ordained, right, and on which they should neither be ashamed nor certainly try to hide. In fact, CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens said, very plainly,
"Our new government is founded… upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…”Alexander Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, Savannah, Georgia, 1861
That doesn't answer my question. Do you think the Civil war was fought because of slavery?
shareYes, I do.
Because those who founded the CSA and fought the North said that's why they did.
Why do you ask? Did you buy into the sanitation, or do you agree with those who seceeded/fought as to why they did?
Yes, I do.
The name-calling, what is this, high school?
I answered your question, but you couldn't answer mine - nonetheless, the answer is clear: you believe the stuff that documented historical records demonstrate to be made up claptrap.
I'm not stupid, but you're clearly too immature, raw, emotional and uninterested in facts and truth to engage a rational, intellectual conversation.
The name-calling, what is this, high school?
I'll bet most people following this thread will be able to deduce who's what, based on the tone of our respective posts and contrasting capability to man up, answer questions asked or recognize when statements we made are BS or not without throwing hissy-fits and name-calling temper-tantrums.
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
You are a simple minded, low-information dolt who only sees part of the picture and "thinks" they are intelligent.
Until you learn why the US Civil War was fought there is no reason to have any discussion with you.
Your IMDb posts reveal you to have zero credibility to make any such summations about my or anyone's intelligence, or contribute in good faith to rational, respectful discussion.
You are dismissed.
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
Again, if you are so stupid that you "think" the US Civil War was fought because of slavery, then you are too ignorant to have a discussion with.
Goodbye, child.
This is a wonderful thread to read. 😎
share"A US cable channel just banned the Dukes of Hazzard reruns because of the Confederate Flag on the General Lee's Roof."
I read somewhere that they were going to digitally replace it with one of those "COEXIST" posters.
I'm surprised they would want to ban it. Its the most liberal movie I've seen in a long time. Its hugely promoting black rights while making fun of whites and trying to make them look bad.
No one ever claimed liberals to be intelligent. They focus upon the word and not the message.
shareI'll tell you what's funny about that. An NFL executive said that Trump may be good for the NFL. Know why? He said that America under Obama was too intellectual, cared too much about facts and truth, paid a lot of attention to the concussion issue and ratings fell. The people who voted for Trump, this executive argues, aren't intellectual, aren't interested in truth or facts; they're raw, emotional, and should that be great for ratings.
So, there are some people out there who do indeed consider "liberals" (Dems, lefties) to be "intelligent" ("intellectual", interested in truth/facts).
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
It's funny how the liberals whined about the "poor, unintelligent white people" who voted for Trump, but don't say anything about the "poor, unintelligent black people" who voted for 0bama.
One argument at a time.
You said "no one ever..."
I showed that someone had.
Man up and concede this first. Then we'll move forward.
Crickets. Just like people told me about justanicknamed.
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
Again, if you are so stupid that you "think" the US Civil War was fought because of slavery, then you are too ignorant to have a discussion with.
Goodbye, child.
Given that Trump got about the same share of the vote as McCain and less than either Bush or Romney, how does his election increase the audience for football?
shareGood question!
It's not my argument, so I am only speculating to answer on behalf of that football executive.
But my suggestion is that, IF there is some correlation between the president's demeanor and that of the tone of the national discourse, the presumption may be that Obama was a cool customer, intellectual type who resonated with one kind of demographic, while Trump is celebrated for being, um, candid, shooting from the hip, and demonstrating a pattern of fact-indifference and other such traits that resonate with a particular demographic.
One thing I have recognized, there is a general disdain for "intellectuals" amongst Conservatives. It's almost itself become a dog-whistle term for Dems/lefties. Among the hallmarks of intellectuals is a sensitivity that conservatives dismiss as "political correctness"; whereas Trump, who seems to have no internal restrain, is celebrated for blurting out whatever's on his mind, like a child, with an "eff your feelings, my right to free speech is more important than your feelings" kind of brashness. (Curiously, doing so is validating MY feelings and imposing my expression of my feelings over that of yours, which is part of the conundrum of what freedom of speech entails for people on opposite sides of an issue...but I digress...).
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
I'm surprised as well - that's why I keep searching for proof that this is actually happening rather than in someone's imagination.
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac
I wouldn’t say it’s making fun of whites, it’s making fun of racists. And it’s not a “liberal” movie, hell liberals are the ones trying to get it banned for some reason despite the fact that it’s promoting the exact same message they claim to be all for.
shareIt's called apathy, and frankly, we've had too much in this country these days.
shareThe leftists' claim that conservatives are less educated and don't believe in science is ironic, because progressive ideas concerning, for example, gender and climate change, are pseudo-scientific and reveal that their proponents really have no clue what science is and how it's conducted. They are driven by ideology and emotion, and science has little or nothing to do with it, in spite of their self-satisfied boasting.
shareIt's sad, huh? Too many left-leaning liberals go to college these days to "follow their dreams" and end up with useless degrees in crap areas, and yet they have the gall to tell people who really HAVE studied science and facts that they don't know anything?
I don't consider today's "Progressives" to be progressive at all. In fact, I call them "Regressives." When they aren't acting like spoiled, delusional children; they do their best to sow division, drag America back to the Civil War era in terms of cultural divides, and project all their faults on Conservatives.
The "anti-science" argument is mostly directed at Christians and people who don't follow the "Climate Change" religion. While it is true that many Christians are Creationists, there are many scientists out there that are Christians and yet are perfectly happy with what there is to learn about science, and they don't let "junk science" the media keeps ramming down our throats ruin their ability to learn the truth of this planet.
interesting
shareSorry you're afraid.
No one is trying to ban anything. Especially liberals. If a couple of jackasses have made a fuss, they are no different than the jackasses that are trying to get rid of something else.
This movie is beloved by liberals. Anything you see about "banning" is lies.
The movie will stand. Don't worry about it. My grandma was the most liberal person you ever met. She was born before women even had the right to vote. She was a member of the League of Women Voters. She was in the DAR but she wasn't a fan of it. She was a progressive her whole life. She never voted for anyone that wasn't a liberal. She fought for civil rights until she died at 100.
She loved the Dukes of Hazzard. We used to watch it every day when I was a kid. She had no quarrel with a TV show. It's just a show. If anyone is pissy about a show, ignore them. They'll go away.
It's OK, I'm OK, you're OK. We're all OK.
It might be time rethink this post after the last few weeks. People are on a censorship rampage. They (I’ll let you decide which side of the political spectrum they’re on) will ban this film in a second if they can find a way.
I’m looking everywhere to find a copy of this classic film on blu ray, but it’s sold out at all of the retailers, and it’s selling on Amazon for for like $84 unless you buy the foreign editions.
Dukes of Hazard has gotten completely buried and taken off of television.
People are banning and censoring things left and right because it’s now considered “offensive” to spineless morons who think the world revolves around their “feelings”.
If anyone finds a link to purchase a US copy of Blazing Saddles on blu ray for a decent price please post the link here for me. Thank you. I’ll continue to look myself.
They are too stupid to realize this movie was poking fun at racism and its absurdity.
shareYes, leftists suck.
share