An American Carol Movie Out on Video

[Remphoto]

Just to let you all know that An American Carol is now out on DVD. Picked up a copy at Best Buy and plan to have a movie night to share this with our friends.

We saw it at the theater and it provided a humorous, yet poignant, look at liberalism. The movie was produced by former liberal David Zucker who became conservative following 9/11. He was a producer of Airplane, one of the original spoof comedy movies. He brings back Leslie Nielsen along with Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Dennis Hooper and some other Hollywood conservatives. The movie is a spoof on a Michael Moore lookalike character (played by Chris Farley's brother Kevin) who learns the error of his liberal ways through visits by ghosts (sound familiar?). It spoofs liberal college professors, the ACLU and most everything else the Libs hold near and dear. It is pretty irreverent but makes some excellent points. The mainstream critics disliked the movie, so you know it has to be good.:D

[cajun]

I gotta see that, heard it was great.

[The G]

You guys need to watch "Little Bush" Now thats good :)

[cajun]

I'll bet your library is stocked with Micheal Moore, and Algore movies G.

[Remphoto]

For years, Hollywood has produced a constant stream of anti-conservative, anti-bush, anti-anything normal and good movies. Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and Spike Lee are held in high regard for their pictures despite the over the top, wacky positions they present. Let the conservatives make one that dares step on liberal icons and you would think the sky is falling. It is encouraging to see conservative producers and actors go public with their positions and hopefully we will see more of it in the future.

[The G]

I'll bet your library is stocked with Micheal Moore, and Algore movies G.
I don't have any of their movies.

[MYCAR47562]

ill have to check into that

[Engels]

...hopefully we will see more of it in the future.

Despite it's relatively low budget ($20 million) it was a box-office bomb: less than $7 million in receipts. It also got panned by the critics as being decidedly unfunny. I don't see the hard-nosed Capitalists running Hollywood studios greenlighting too many more such projects.

The film is a parody of Michael Moore. While Moore himself sometimes uses controversial methods in making his films, the subjects they cover: layoffs in the auto industry; gun violence in America; health care; and the War on Terror - are of broad interest to a great many people. You don't have to agree 100% with Moore's positions to find value in them. By way of contrast, a film that attempts to parody (not very well) a single individual is a bit of a one-joke affair.

[MYCAR47562]

Welcome Back Engels Been A While

[The G]

Zuncker won't get the people to the theater or make the money Moore did, because people just aren't interest in this type of spin.

[Remphoto]

Zuncker won't get the people to the theater or make the money Moore did, because people just aren't interest in this type of spin.

Then why is talk radio almost entirely conservative? Why did Air America fail? I think the picture's lack of box office had more to do with promotion (or lack of) and uninformed/biased critics.

[Remphoto]

Despite it's relatively low budget ($20 million) it was a box-office bomb: less than $7 million in receipts. It also got panned by the critics as being decidedly unfunny. I don't see the hard-nosed Capitalists running Hollywood studios greenlighting too many more such projects.

The film is a parody of Michael Moore. While Moore himself sometimes uses controversial methods in making his films, the subjects they cover: layoffs in the auto industry; gun violence in America; health care; and the War on Terror - are of broad interest to a great many people. You don't have to agree 100% with Moore's positions to find value in them. By way of contrast, a film that attempts to parody (not very well) a single individual is a bit of a one-joke affair.


Obviously you did not see the picture or read a fair account of it. It was not a one joke affair focusing on Moore's character. He was only the mechanism to spoof a number of liberal causes. How cannot the ACLU lawyers portrayed as zombies be funny?:) And some of it was actually really sad - like the parody of parents watching their college kids being filled with left-wing garbage by Ward Churchill types of professors. As a college student in the early 1970's this one was so close to true that it evoked bad memories for me. Obviously liberals have little sense of humor or tolerance for alternative opinions, despite their claim to the contrary.

And speaking of Moore's films, what is the box office compared to mainstream films ? Would anyone even bother to attend at all if the mainstream media and the Hollywood award shows didn't promote them so?

[MYCAR47562]

I Have Figured Out The More Award's The Movie Has The Dumber It Is.

[The G]

How about Bruce Willis and his "Die hard movies ?

[MYCAR47562]

What About Them?

[Engels]

How cannot the ACLU lawyers portrayed as zombies be funny?

You mean the part where the Judge (Kelsey Grammer) guns down the ACLU "zombie"? Sorry - doesn't work. If the point was to make fun of the absurdity of the entire legal system, it might. A Zombie, almost by definition, is an unthinking being, incapable of rational reasoning or acting on unselfish principles. The ACLU is almost the exact antithesis of this sort of behavior.

The parody doesn't work because the whole premise of the film: that this Michael More-type character "hates America," is just not true. Moore as a film maker and social activist might have different views on a number of issues than you, me, or many other people. But to summarize him as "hating America" manages to be absurd without actually being humorous.

To be effective as a parody, the portrayal has to have at least an element of truthfulness about it. For example, the George W. Bush character in Harold & Kumar go to Guantanamo Bay is shown as being basically a good-hearted guy - the sort of fellow you'd have a beer (or smoke a joint) with. Even Bush's harshest Washington critics would probably agree with this assesment. And Bush's own personal history with gives at least a little credence to the idea that, in some ways, he might be happier if he did sit down and smoke some weed with a couple of slackers. If the parody had shown him to be inherently evil and vicious - it would cease to be a parody, or even funny.

American Carol isn't funny. Most newspaper and media reviewers found it not funny. Most of the (few) people who saw it in the theater didn't find it funny.

[MYCAR47562]

Moore Doesn't Hate American He Just Hate's Everything It's About

[MYCAR47562]

You Know Why Are We Even Discussing That Waste Of Space? He Gave His Review That's All That Matters

[Remphoto]

You mean the part where the Judge (Kelsey Grammer) guns down the ACLU "zombie"? Sorry - doesn't work. If the point was to make fun of the absurdity of the entire legal system, it might. A Zombie, almost by definition, is an unthinking being, incapable of rational reasoning or acting on unselfish principles. The ACLU is almost the exact antithesis of this sort of behavior.

The parody doesn't work because the whole premise of the film: that this Michael More-type character "hates America," is just not true. Moore as a film maker and social activist might have different views on a number of issues than you, me, or many other people. But to summarize him as "hating America" manages to be absurd without actually being humorous.

To be effective as a parody, the portrayal has to have at least an element of truthfulness about it. For example, the George W. Bush character in Harold & Kumar go to Guantanamo Bay is shown as being basically a good-hearted guy - the sort of fellow you'd have a beer (or smoke a joint) with. Even Bush's harshest Washington critics would probably agree with this assesment. And Bush's own personal history with gives at least a little credence to the idea that, in some ways, he might be happier if he did sit down and smoke some weed with a couple of slackers. If the parody had shown him to be inherently evil and vicious - it would cease to be a parody, or even funny.

American Carol isn't funny. Most newspaper and media reviewers found it not funny. Most of the (few) people who saw it in the theater didn't find it funny.

If you want to argue anecdotal info on who found it funny or not -- ok -- people in theater when I saw it roared with laughter as have people I've shared it with at home. We also have been brought close to tears as to how misguided Libs are on the issues. I disagree totally about your definition of the ACLU, too, the movie got it exactly right --they are incapable of rational thinking. I guess we will agree to disagree about this. And I think MyCar's responses are onpoint.

[The G]

Bob Barr works for the ACLU :)

[The G]

heres one for you :)

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/?hp

[The G]

I found a review on your movie thats not liberal bias. :)


http://americanconservativeparty.org/?q=node/924

[Engels]

I disagree totally about your definition of the ACLU, too, the movie got it exactly right --they are incapable of rational thinking..


What an absurd statement. Just because the ACLU holds beliefs that are different to yours doesn't make them irrational.

That is the whole problem with Conservatives - they aren't interested in having a debate. They simply demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Barack Obama? Oh, he's a "socialist" or "not a real American" - don't bother debating about things like tax or regulation policies. Just call people names.

The ACLU? Sure, they are "zombies" and "irrational" - but don't bother discussing which Constitutional rights of yours they defend.

Michael Moore? Don't discuss why so many Americans don't have, or can't afford, decent health care. No - just whine about how much Michael Moore "hates America" for pointing out some uncomfortable truths.

Don't like the truth about politics or the economy? Sure blame the "elite liberal media" for reporting it.

Living in a fantasy world, where only people who think exactly like you do are worthy of respecting? Now that's irrational.

[MYCAR47562]

What an absurd statement. Just because the ACLU holds beliefs that are different to yours doesn't make them irrational.

That is the whole problem with Conservatives - they aren't interested in having a debate. They simply demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Barack Obama? Oh, he's a "socialist" or "not a real American" - don't bother debating about things like tax or regulation policies. Just call people names.

The ACLU? Sure, they are "zombies" and "irrational" - but don't bother discussing which Constitutional rights of yours they defend.

Michael Moore? Don't discuss why so many Americans don't have, or can't afford, decent health care. No - just whine about how much Michael Moore "hates America" for pointing out some uncomfortable truths.

Don't like the truth about politics or the economy? Sure blame the "elite liberal media" for reporting it.

Living in a fantasy world, where only people who think exactly like you do are worthy of respecting? Now that's irrational.
engels you relize it's your party who wont debate. hell ive from what i have seen liberals are the bigger of the name callers. we respect your opinion you try and jam your down our throughts see the diffenrce

[The G]

come on I don't call too may names

[MYCAR47562]

come on I don't call too may names

no you don't i think besides that dipshit that finally stoped coming here i do it the most on here:eek: but im talking about people who matter not really us

[Remphoto]

What an absurd statement. Just because the ACLU holds beliefs that are different to yours doesn't make them irrational.

That is the whole problem with Conservatives - they aren't interested in having a debate. They simply demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Barack Obama? Oh, he's a "socialist" or "not a real American" - don't bother debating about things like tax or regulation policies. Just call people names.

The ACLU? Sure, they are "zombies" and "irrational" - but don't bother discussing which Constitutional rights of yours they defend.

Michael Moore? Don't discuss why so many Americans don't have, or can't afford, decent health care. No - just whine about how much Michael Moore "hates America" for pointing out some uncomfortable truths.

Don't like the truth about politics or the economy? Sure blame the "elite liberal media" for reporting it.

Living in a fantasy world, where only people who think exactly like you do are worthy of respecting? Now that's irrational.


Thank you Engels, I like my fantasy world very much. We conservatives stand on our core principles and logic, not emotional "feel goodism" and the delusion of helping people by giving them handouts and not requiring them to be accountable for their own actions. It is the America of our Founding Fthers, not the abortion (pun intended) that this country is becoming. We have strayed from the Founders' core tenants and the beliefs in the God that has so blessed us. And I do repect people who have opposing beliefs or would not spend so much time here debating you and G.:)

[The G]

No response to my links :(

[Engels]

We conservatives stand on our core principles and logic

Core principles are all very well. But why do you insist on jamming them in other people's faces?

You talk about "logic" - and yet conservatives seem to be the ones fighting the scientific community (to say nothing of sound education) by trying to get so-called "Intelligent Design" taught in our public schools. You talk about the tenets of the Founding Fathers - and yet you seem to pick and choose which Constitutional Amendments you think are important.

You ascribe a "feel good" delusionalism to the liberal element in our Country, and yet I would say that most liberal policies were those of pragmatism, rather than of emotion. Making sure young adults have access to birth control is pragmatic - preaching "Just say no" and "Abstinence Only" and expecting it to work is delusional (Just ask Bristol Palin about that last one..)

You ascribe a Religiosity to the Founding Fathers of our country that is not borne out by the historical record. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin are all noted for their strong anti Church writings. While it is true that most of the founders would today be described as being of the Christian faith, this is more due to an historical circumstance than anything else. There simply weren't that many Jews or Muslims living in Colonial America. Whatever the case, it should be remembered that the nation was originally settled by people who wished to escape from the hegemony of a Religious majority.

Lastly I would take issue with the idea that the present-day United States is somehow worse politically and socially than it was in its early days. While our nation faces economic, social, and foreign policy challenges; in many respects the citizens of today are the beneficiaries of two hundred plus years of progress. Our Constitution, while notably flawed in its orginal form (slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) has proven both durable enough - and yet adaptable enough - to be today an even better document than when it was first written.

[Remphoto]

No response to my links :(

Give me a chance, I can only handle one Lib at a time.:) As to the links:

The first one was from the NYT so I did not give it much credibility. The bulk of the issues supported by the ACLU are left oriented and the support of conservative issues is proportionally limited. Just do a google search and see the types of causes they are supporting. And speaking of the ACLU, one of my favorite movie scenes is from Blues Brothers where Jake and Elwood run the Nazi marchers off the bridge with the Bluesmobile. Apparently the ACLU or some similar group granted them permission to march in a Jewish area. Now that was a funny scene!:D

The second link regarding the conservative review of An American Carol can be summarized using the reviewers words "....great fun. But could have been done better." I agree with that. There are some things I would have changed, too. But this is the only movie of its type to be turned out by a Hollywood that inundates us with Moore/Stone/Lee propaganda pieces. So I will take what I can get. And personally I found it entertaining. YMMV.

[Remphoto]

Core principles are all very well. But why do you insist on jamming them in other people's faces?

You talk about "logic" - and yet conservatives seem to be the ones fighting the scientific community (to say nothing of sound education) by trying to get so-called "Intelligent Design" taught in our public schools. You talk about the tenets of the Founding Fathers - and yet you seem to pick and choose which Constitutional Amendments you think are important.

You ascribe a "feel good" delusionalism to the liberal element in our Country, and yet I would say that most liberal policies were those of pragmatism, rather than of emotion. Making sure young adults have access to birth control is pragmatic - preaching "Just say no" and "Abstinence Only" and expecting it to work is delusional (Just ask Bristol Palin about that last one..)

You ascribe a Religiosity to the Founding Fathers of our country that is not borne out by the historical record. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin are all noted for their strong anti Church writings. While it is true that most of the founders would today be described as being of the Christian faith, this is more due to an historical circumstance than anything else. There simply weren't that many Jews or Muslims living in Colonial America. Whatever the case, it should be remembered that the nation was originally settled by people who wished to escape from the hegemony of a Religious majority.

Lastly I would take issue with the idea that the present-day United States is somehow worse politically and socially than it was in its early days. While our nation faces economic, social, and foreign policy challenges; in many respects the citizens of today are the beneficiaries of two hundred plus years of progress. Our Constitution, while notably flawed in its orginal form (slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) has proven both durable enough - and yet adaptable enough - to be today an even better document than when it was first written.

Funny how the mere mention of "abortion" or "God" brings out the long- knives from Liberals. Seems to threaten the very underpinnings of their belief in situational ethics and disregard for anything absolute.

[MYCAR47562]

G The First Link Is The Only Link Ive Seen Where They Help Anybody But Criminals So I Dunno Probally Just Patting Them Selfs On The Back


As Far As The Other One Sounds Like A Scrodge Who Didn't Get To Talk To The People He Wanted But I Dunno Never Saw The Movie

[The G]

Not everything they do is bad as some might think. :)

[Engels]

Seems to threaten the very underpinnings of their belief in situational ethics and disregard for anything absolute.


Huh?

This may come as a huge shock to you, but many, many liberal people have a strong Christian or other faith.

But we believe that religion is private matter: best left to the individual and family. We believe very strongly that the Government has no place forcing or even "encouraging" anyone to adopt any one particular set of beliefs. So, yes, while we may personally appreciate Nativity scenes at Christmas time (for one example) - we don't want to see them in front of Government buildings or in public schools. And we care enough about the feelings of our Jewish, Muslim, and atheist neighbors to stand up for that principal. On the other hand - we can and do fight most vigorously for our rights, and those of people of all beliefs, to practice and observe their faith in their homes, Churches, Temples, Mosques, etc.

That is the sort of principal that the ACLU stands for. A group that you derisively declare to be incapable of rational thought.

Why so-called "Conservatives" have such a hard time understanding this is beyond me. But the fact that they seem to think a brain-dead "comedy" like American Carol is funny gives me a pretty good clue.

[MYCAR47562]

So We Should Suffer Because They Don't Believe Like We Do/ I Thought Everything Was Majority Rule? I Guess Everything But Rights

[Engels]

So We Should Suffer Because They Don't Believe Like We Do

Which totally proves my point.

You are "suffering" because you can't put a Nativity scene in front of the Public Library or hang the Ten Commandments in the County Courthouse? Poor little you - how do you live with the pain?

You are, of course, free to the Nativity scene in front of your house, your business, or your place of worship. You are free to believe and practice any religion that you want to. And the ACLU will go to Court to protect your right to do any of those things, as well as your right to protest against the Government or anything else you want to.

[The G]

Thats it in a nut shell.

[MYCAR47562]

yep i see your point who gives a shit about what the majority wants. as far as athiest go why should they care isn't it there choice not to believe anything why should we be forced to not have any representation of our beliefs out there. the christian faith says to preach openly and to everybody.

[Engels]

yep i see your point who gives a shit about what the majority wants..

We pay a tremendous amount of attention to what the majority wants. We have regular elections to choose officials who make laws and administer the Government.

But just because the "majority" wants something, doesn't mean they should automatically get it - especially when it comes to mixing religion with the Government. One of the main purposes of our Constitution and system of Government is precisely to protect the rights of minorities from potentially oppressive majorities.

What happens when you have religous minorities calling the shots in Governments? Answer: You get a sectarian civil war. The sort of shit that went on in Kashmir and Sri Lanka, in Rwanda and Northern Ireland.

The Founding Fathers of the United States (those guys whose opinion on "bearing arms" you think is so important) had a lot of experience with a system of Government with an official state religion. They didn't like it. So they went to the trouble of putting an Amendment to the Constitution just so we didn't have the same problems here.

[Remphoto]

We pay a tremendous amount of attention to what the majority wants. We have regular elections to choose officials who make laws and administer the Government.

But just because the "majority" wants something, doesn't mean they should automatically get it - especially when it comes to mixing religion with the Government. One of the main purposes of our Constitution and system of Government is precisely to protect the rights of minorities from potentially oppressive majorities.

What happens when you have religous minorities calling the shots in Governments? Answer: You get a sectarian civil war. The sort of shit that went on in Kashmir and Sri Lanka, in Rwanda and Northern Ireland.

The Founding Fathers of the United States (those guys whose opinion on "bearing arms" you think is so important) had a lot of experience with a system of Government with an official state religion. They didn't like it. So they went to the trouble of putting an Amendment to the Constitution just so we didn't have the same problems here.


Libs have replaced the original concept of "separation of church AND state" with "separation of church FROM state". You folks are so busy tip toeing around not wanting to offend minority religions that you are offending the founding Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this country was founded. For 200 years it was acceptable to put "God" onto courthouses, currency, etc., now you and your "rational" ACLU brothers are trying to change it. This follows all the other changes that are being advocated by the Libs such as weakening 1st amendment regarding the "fairness" doctrine, weakening the 2nd amendment and recasting the 14th amendment to include something that was never contemplated and would have appalled our Founding Fathers -- abortion. If you want to amend the constitution, then do so instead of using the Supreme Court as a way to make it into some kind of "living document" -- a situational ethics position if ever there was one.

[Remphoto]

yep i see your point who gives a shit about what the majority wants. as far as athiest go why should they care isn't it there choice not to believe anything why should we be forced to not have any representation of our beliefs out there. the christian faith says to preach openly and to everybody.

Amen. :)

[Engels]

You folks are so busy tip toeing around not wanting to offend minority religions that you are offending the founding Judeo-Christian ethic upon which this country was founded. .

If you asked Geo. Washington or Ben Franklin about "Judeo Christian ethic" - they'd look at you like you'd lost your mind. As I've pointed out, twice now, the Founders of our country, while nominally Christian, certainly DID NOT WANT ANY RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT. Got that? Don't believe me, then do some research on the topic.

Secondly, the words "Church and State" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Its hardly worth arguing and the difference between "AND" and "FROM" in this context. Liberals and the ACLU will fight to protect your right to practice your religion within the state.

Never mind about "us liberals" tiptoeing about. How you you so-called Christians taking a page out of the Good Book, and following the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) and start Loving thy Neighbor (be he Christian, Buddhist, Jew, or Sikh) as Yourself?

[cajun]

You must be be real book smart, Engels. but your common sense leaves a lot to be desired. The christians don't care about anyone else's relidgen, we don't care if your an athiest. But we do get tired of the libs and other religions stepping on our rights. Christmas is treated like a disease now, everybody makes a big damn deal out of a christmas play in school,or a prayer at graduation,but yet they will go out of their way to put a prayer room in an airport for a muslim, or turn the damn toilets around in a prison cell, heaven forbid you face mecca when you sit on the toilet. The local goverments contribute money to build muslim schools, let them give some to a baptist school and watch the aclu scream like a banshee. This is our country and the christians are treated like second class citizens.

[Remphoto]

If you asked Geo. Washington or Ben Franklin about "Judeo Christian ethic" - they'd look at you like you'd lost your mind. As I've pointed out, twice now, the Founders of our country, while nominally Christian, certainly DID NOT WANT ANY RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT. Got that? Don't believe me, then do some research on the topic.

Secondly, the words "Church and State" appear nowhere in the Constitution. Its hardly worth arguing and the difference between "AND" and "FROM" in this context. Liberals and the ACLU will fight to protect your right to practice your religion within the state.

Never mind about "us liberals" tiptoeing about. How you you so-called Christians taking a page out of the Good Book, and following the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) and start Loving thy Neighbor (be he Christian, Buddhist, Jew, or Sikh) as Yourself?


Two minutes on Google turned up info on 4 mentions of God in Declaration of Independence and reference to Christianity in Constitution as follows:

"The Constitution declares, in words just above George Washington's signature, that the proceedings were "done ... in the Year of our Lord," which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ. Also, Sunday is set aside as a day of rest for the president in Article 1, Section 7. This particular day of rest singles out Christianity because the seventh day is the day that God rested after creating the Earth."

Also, there is that messy little matter of such long established statements as "in God We Trust" and the "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I never said that the Constitution mentioned separation of Church and State, but Libs like to quote it and rub it in our face.

Don't know where you came up with idea that Christians don't love our neighbors; it is a cornerstone of the faith. Because not wanting to compromise our Christian principles has nothing to do with love. Look at all the hospitals and charitable work done by Christians. And BTW look at how little your guys like BO and Joe Biden gave to charity compared to the tithe many Christians practice.

Good grief, I feel like I'm debating Phil Donohue, Bill Moyers, and Keith Oberman all at the same time.

[Engels]

put a prayer room in an airport for a muslim.

Kindly let me know of the location of any prayer room at any public airport, or other Government facility, anywhere within the United States that is exclusively for the use of Muslims.

Christmas is treated like a disease? Really? I must have been mistaken about the number of festivals, religious services, blow-out sales, primetime TV shows, news stories, etc. that I encountered in the last month. Then again, December 25th was a day off from work - so I guess it is like being sick in at least one respect.

What "rights", as a Christian, do you feel are being "stepped on"?

[cajun]

I have a DVD you need to see,Remphoto. Newt Gringrich and his wife did it in Washington, It's called rediscovering God in America. They take you on a trip through Washington and show you what the founders intended. There are references to God everywhere. The Ten Commandmennts carved in the supreme court building, In God we trust and others all over the place.Yes our fore fathers were believers and our country was founded on judeo christian values. Go to Newts web site and get that DVD, it's something to pass around when your done.

[Remphoto]

I have a DVD you need to see,Remphoto. Newt Gringrich and his wife did it in Washington, It's called rediscovering God in America. They take you on a trip through Washington and show you what the founders intended. There are references to God everywhere. The Ten Commandmennts carved in the supreme court building, In God we trust and others all over the place.Yes our fore fathers were believers and our country was founded on judeo christian values. Go to Newts web site and get that DVD, it's something to pass around when your done.

Thanks, Cajun, I'll check that out. And BTW, I did a quick Google search and found lots of references to Minnesota Airport being pressured to do a prayer room for the Muslims. Many European airports have already caved to the pressures. Apparently the Muslims won't share a common prayer room with other religions.

[cajun]

Your not that nieve, you know what i,m talkin about. We must say happy holidays instead of merry christmas, we don,t want to offend a non christian. I thougt i done said this, We can,t say a prayer at graduation, the libs are bitchin now because they have a chaplan start the Senates day with a prayer. You know exactly what i'm talkin about.

[cajun]

Engels, if you would listen to something besides that liberal crap you might know what was going on in this world.

[Engels]

We must say happy holidays instead of merry christmas.

What?

I probably said "Merry Christmas" about a thousand times in the past month.

And, as far as I know, the ACLU couldn't care less.

Regarding the prayer room at Minneapolis airport: Some Muslim clerics have asked for a prayer and meditation room at the airport. And I'll guarantee you that if the airport does set aside a room that it won't be reserved solely for the use of Muslim travellers. It will simply be a space where anyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, can go in and spend some time out of the public eye.

But you really need to look at why those Muslims had to ask for such a space. The answer: A group of six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis because they had knelt on prayer mats in the airport and prayed.

They weren't planning on hijacking airplanes or commiting any acts of terrorism. They simply wanted to pray. And for that, a bunch of intolerant (presumably Christian) bigots freaked out and demanded they be removed from an airplane.

Sorry if standing up for the rights of everyone to practice their religion makes you so scared.

[Remphoto]

What?

I probably said "Merry Christmas" about a thousand times in the past month.

And, as far as I know, the ACLU couldn't care less.

Regarding the prayer room at Minneapolis airport: Some Muslim clerics have asked for a prayer and meditation room at the airport. And I'll guarantee you that if the airport does set aside a room that it won't be reserved solely for the use of Muslim travellers. It will simply be a space where anyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, can go in and spend some time out of the public eye.

But you really need to look at why those Muslims had to ask for such a space. The answer: A group of six Muslim clerics were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis because they had knelt on prayer mats in the airport and prayed.

They weren't planning on hijacking airplanes or commiting any acts of terrorism. They simply wanted to pray. And for that, a bunch of intolerant (presumably Christian) bigots freaked out and demanded they be removed from an airplane.

Sorry if standing up for the rights of everyone to practice their religion makes you so scared.

That's a big leap in "reason" on your part to say "presumably Christian" and speaks volumes about your biases. I think you protest too much -- what happened to you to create such anger toward Christians?

People were afraid and why not? Where is the Muslim American voice speaking out against the terrorists? And what of the group of Muslims a few years ago which deliberately freaked out a bunch of passengers on a plane just to provoke an incident? You think we are living in some kind of non-reality -but Cajun is correct, you are the one that needs to get with what is really going on in this world.

[cajun]

You should have read the rest of the story,Engles, they got on the plane talkin about bombs and alla and they all wanted seat belt extentions, do you fly? do you have any idea what a belt extension is? well let me tell you what it is, it's a piece of belt with a large buckle on it that could be used as a weapon. these guys were not big men and they did not need the extentions, thats why people got suspisious. Your as bad as "G" only get half the story, then of course it must have been them racists christians.

[The G]

Now what have I got to do with this ????

[MYCAR47562]

g that was a complament he said you would read the whole story

wow presumptions going on pretty hard come there.