Yup, it's gonna be a LONG 4 years....

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:31 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiont ... 95841.html

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go purchase liquor, condoms, and multiple copies of this years Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit issue before they're pulled from the shelves...

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:37 pm

If it'll piss off the religious right, I'll go see this movie. And buy it on DVD.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:39 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:If it'll piss off the religious right, I'll go see this movie. And buy it on DVD.

Twice.

gellar

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:52 pm

"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:57 pm

This is just plain scary....

"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.

If anyone doesn't know who Joseph Mengele is he was a Nazi doctor who preformed medical experiments on Jewish prisoners at Aushwitz. His favorite activity was that of picking who died and who lived as the men, women and children got off of the trains. Left or right, he was the one who decided. Left and you lived, right and you went to the Gas Chambers. They called him the Angel of Death.

And they place him with Alfred Kinsey who from what I know never killed anyone. Just shows you how out of touch some of those religious groups are.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:58 pm

SuperHiro wrote:
"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.

Don't you remember those old news reports from WWII in which the allies stumbled upon Mengele's secret lab...only to find lingerie, french ticklers, and guide books to a better orgasm strewn all over the place?

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:01 pm

CSL wrote:This is just plain scary....

"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.
If anyone doesn't know who Joseph Mengele is he was a Nazi doctor who preformed medical experiments on Jewish prisoners at Aushwitz. His favorite activity was that of picking who died and who lived as the men, women and children got off of the trains. Left or right, he was the one who decided. Left and you lived, right and you went to the Gas Chambers. They called him the Angel of Death.

And they place him with Alfred Kinsey who from what I know never killed anyone. Just shows you how out of touch some of those religious groups are.

Well, CSL, what's worse?
Genocide or sex?
I mean really, aren't they both evil? One is the targeted killing of an entire ethnic group, the other a filthy, filthy act of love and humanity. Which is better?

Al · Post by Al » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:03 pm

"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.

I think he has superseded Sgt. Maj. Dickerson as being a man in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Our nation simply cannot continue as we know it if we allow out-of-control lawmakers and radical judges -- working at the whims of society -- to alter the moral foundations of America

So much for the nation being for the people by the people

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Eduardo X wrote: Genocide or sex?
I mean really, aren't they both evil? One is the targeted killing of an entire ethnic group, the other a filthy, filthy act of love and humanity. Which is better?

it's only filthy if done correctly...

BADA BOOM!

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:19 pm

hepcat wrote:
Eduardo X wrote: Genocide or sex?
I mean really, aren't they both evil? One is the targeted killing of an entire ethnic group, the other a filthy, filthy act of love and humanity. Which is better?
it's only filthy if done correctly...

BADA BOOM!

That's a Woody Allen quote! You can't claim responsibility!

Heh...I said "Woody."

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:21 pm

You condescending commies quit mocking the male head of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute! Most Americans love the noble busybodies at CWoACaFI and if you mock them none of your candidates will ever win an election and you'll have to get gay-married and France will come over and have sex with your mom!

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:23 pm

Kadoth Nodens wrote:You condescending commies quit mocking the male head of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute! Most Americans love the noble busybodies at CWoACaFI and if you mock them none of your candidates will ever win an election and you'll have to get gay-married and France will come over and have sex with your mom!

Fuckin' France.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:24 pm

Does anyone know what the procedure is in NJ for being able to vote in the Democratic Primary so that I can have some say in making sure that the Dems don't nominate a touch hole that I can't vote for?

Please?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:24 pm

Kadoth Nodens wrote:
... and you'll have to get gay-married and France will come over and have sex with your mom!

France HAS been coming around a lot when my dad's at work lately...

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:26 pm

Ummm...how does the Bush administration figure into this? There have always been groups boycotting films. The religious-right boycotted The Exorcist in 1973. They boycotted The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. And we had the Jews boycotting Passion of the Christ in 2004.

If you're talking about Hollywood censorship in general, the Democrats have been equally as vocal on the subject.

Petey Wheatstraw · Post by **Petey Wheatstraw** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:28 pm

YellowKing wrote:Ummm...how does the Bush administration figure into this? There have always been groups boycotting films. The religious-right boycotted The Exorcist in 1973. They boycotted The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. And we had the Jews boycotting Passion of the Christ in 2004.

If you're talking about Hollywood censorship in general, the Democrats have been equally as vocal on the subject.

Quiet you! Your damnable logic has no place here!!

Remind me, who are the zealots again?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:29 pm

Does anyone know what the procedure is in NJ for being able to vote in the Democratic Primary so that I can have some say in making sure that the Dems don't nominate a touch hole that I can't vote for?

Please?

What is sad is I know a number of republicans who are card carrying democrats and a number of democrats who are card carrying republicans, because voting for the worst candidate of your opponent in the primaries is a more valuable vote than voting for your guy in the final election.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:33 pm

YellowKing wrote:Ummm...how does the Bush administration figure into this? There have always been groups boycotting films. The religious-right boycotted The Exorcist in 1973. They boycotted The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. And we had the Jews boycotting Passion of the Christ in 2004.

If you're talking about Hollywood censorship in general, the Democrats have been equally as vocal on the subject.

To quote Falwell once:

Following the sweeping re-election of President Bush and a new generation of conservative lawmakers nationwide, a new organization, The Faith and Values Coalition (TFVC), has been launched," Falwell announced Tuesday from his headquarters in Lynchburg, Va..

To quote Falwell twice:

Falwell said that on election night 2004, as the returns came in, "I actually shed tears of joy as I saw the fruit of a quarter century of hard work." Of the 116 Americans who voted, more than 30 million were evangelical Christians who voted their moral convictions, Falwell noted.

"I proudly say - they voted Christian!"

in any case, religious nutcases like those in the articles listed above feel justified and even empowered after this last election by what they see as an overwhelming vote of confidence from Americans that they want Christian values to dominate EVERYTHING.

Bush doesn't HAVE to "figure into it". He may turn out to be as much a victim of this crap as anyone else.

As for hollywood censorship and democrats being as vocal as the groups cited above, i don't agree nor do i see evidence that it's even half as bad as that coming from the christian right.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:34 pm

I tend to agree, I can't really see the HOB (Hand of Bush) in action here.

However, given that Bush has very strong support with the crazy religious right; and the mandate-talk being tossed around... isn't it possible.. isn't it just possible... that those religious nut-jobs might feel a little empowered?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:35 pm

LordMortis wrote: What is sad is I know a number of republicans who are card carrying democrats and a number of democrats who are card carrying republicans, because voting for the worst candidate of your opponent in the primaries is a more valuable vote than voting for your guy in the final election.

Unless it backfires and that candidate gets elected...

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:36 pm

SuperHiro wrote:

HOORAY!

If you only post one of these a day now, we need some kind of "HUNH?!?" tracking thread so I can find them.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:40 pm

mandate-talk

And that's what it's all about. Let's just hope not too much happens in the next two years and the we have a good congressional message at that time. The stronger "the right" get without dissesnting from their extremists, the more vocal their extremists will become. They have been hushed nationally for as long as I have been alive if not longer. They are dying for an outlet, especially after the collective voice laid the smack down on those faggots and voted a family values majority into all of the federal offices.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:41 pm

I barely post them at all nowadays. The last one I did was here. Yeah I'm a big enough nerd to actually remember where I did it.

With u2k, dolphan, dragon{kp}, and those other crazy b-level posters gone, it's hard to find a good spot to bring him out nowadays. Which I guess is a good thing.

I guess.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:44 pm

Fallwell and his folk can just keep comin'

Ram that socially conservative "mandate" down the public's throats until even the blindest of the blind see what they're all about.

It's gonna be a long 4 years, sure, but if the fundies keep this sort of thing up it's ultimately going to be the cause of a nasty backlash that will push them right back to the fringiest of the fringe.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:01 pm

So the #$#@$ what if they "feel" empowered? Last time I checked this was America. You do whatever you want to do. If you want to go see the movie, go see the movie. If you don't want to see it, stay home.

Bush was not elected because all of a sudden 51% of America turned into Jerry Falwell disciples.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:06 pm

YellowKing wrote:So the #$#@$ what if they "feel" empowered? Last time I checked this was America. You do whatever you want to do. If you want to go see the movie, go see the movie. If you don't want to see it, stay home.

Bush was not elected because all of a sudden 51% of America turned into Jerry Falwell disciples.

no, and that was never the assumption. it is, however, pretty obvious that falwell and other religious conservatives DO feel that they've been vindicated by the election and ARE trying to ram their beliefs and morals down our throats. to brush it off as being irrelevent is, to be honest, a little dangerous. i wouldn't underestimate the fervor, commitment, and deep pockets of these loons.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:07 pm

Indignant conservative groups are protesting this week's opening of the film "Kinsey," denouncing it as propaganda seeking to glorify the researcher they blame for inspiring the sexual revolution.

See what happens when there's no Harry Potter movie to pick on?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:08 pm

Questions:

Which President openly criticized Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a public statement?

Which President made a public statement that atheists are patriotic Americans just like Christians?

Which President stated public support for gay civil unions?

A pinch of perspective might enhance credibility.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:11 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Questions:

Which President openly criticized Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a public statement?

Which President made a public statement that atheists are patriotic Americans just like Christians?

Which President stated public support for gay civil unions?

A pinch of perspective might enhance credibility.

That's all fine and good, but the fact that you HAVE to remind people of this speaks volumes.

Let's face it, the general belief in this country is that the president was elected on a large part based on his christian values. to deny that is to ignore the facts.

as i've repeatedly said over and over again in this thread, i DO NOT accuse the president of engendering this problem. However, he IS a part of it. An unwilling one most likely, and a victim to boot, but part of it nonetheless.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:12 pm

#1 - It's funny that this is somehow linked to Bush when he has nothing to do with the religious nutjobs.

#2 - It's even funnier that Kerry got a free pass when he tried to have "Unfit for Command" pulled from bookstores. Something tells me Fireball isn't going to be buying a copy of this to balance out the hypocrasy.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:16 pm

Trent Steel wrote:#1 - It's funny that this is somehow linked to Bush when he has nothing to do with the religious nutjobs.

#2 - It's even funnier that Kerry got a free pass when he tried to have "Unfit for Command" pulled from bookstores. Something tells me Fireball isn't going to be buying a copy of this to balance out the hypocrasy.

remember when i wrote this?

Bush doesn't HAVE to "figure into it". He may turn out to be as much a victim of this crap as anyone else.

or perhaps this?

as i've repeatedly said over and over again in this thread, i DO NOT accuse the president of engendering this problem.

when you don't read a thread before accusing someone of something, you make baby jesus cry...

Kadoth Nodens · Post by **Kadoth Nodens** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:25 pm

Trent Steel wrote: #2 - It's even funnier that Kerry got a free pass when he tried to have "Unfit for Command" pulled from bookstores.

Did the Kerry campaign do anything other than say "We don't think you should sell this book" here? I'm pretty sure there wasn't any legal action, but did they organize protests or something?

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:26 pm

Hepcat, then why the reference to the next 4 years? Is that a reference to something astrological? Perhaps it's El Nino or La Nina? I'm sure there's a reason for that reference, but you assure us it's not the President.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:28 pm

YellowKing wrote:So the #$#@$ what if they "feel" empowered? Last time I checked this was America. You do whatever you want to do. If you want to go see the movie, go see the movie. If you don't want to see it, stay home.

Bush was not elected because all of a sudden 51% of America turned into Jerry Falwell disciples.

That's fine. But are you going to tell me that these groups don't desire to force their beliefs onto the public at large, by legal means even if mere scarlet letters aren't enough?

It's not the Falwells of the world ranting about sex that concerns me. It's the Falwells of the world ranting about sex and then trying to make those rantings the law of the land that concerns me. And it concerns me more that they have somewhat sympathetic executive and legislative branches of government to work with.

Does this mean that I think George Bush wants to legislate like the Religios right does? No, but the ties between the two are undeniable.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:29 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Questions:

Which President openly criticized Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a public statement?

Which President made a public statement that atheists are patriotic Americans just like Christians?

Which President stated public support for gay civil unions?

A pinch of perspective might enhance credibility.

Which President happily visited Oral Roberts University?

Which President dragged McCain's name through the mud for weeks over a comment stating that folks like Falwell might not be good for America?

Which President has been courting the Religious Right like a mad dog for the last 4 years?

Not to disagree that he has nothing directly to do with this issue, but to say that he's not in lock step with the Religious Right's agenda seems ... inaccurate.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:29 pm

The Preacher wrote:Hepcat, then why the reference to the next 4 years? Is that a reference to something astrological? Perhaps it's El Nino or La Nina? I'm sure there's a reason for that reference, but you assure us it's not the President.

I think the point is that this administration is more accomodating to the religious right than Kerry's would have been, and that under the perceived moral mandate that accompanied the election of George Bush, the Religious Right has been emboldened with regard to psuhing their legislative agenda.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:32 pm

Questions:

Which President openly criticized Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in a public statement?

Which President made a public statement that atheists are patriotic Americans just like Christians?

Which President stated public support for gay civil unions?

A pinch of perspective might enhance credibility.

I said all of those things recently, and I'm a president in my own right (of the room I'm typing this from, no less). However, I knew you meant that other dude.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:42 pm

geezer wrote:I think the point is that this administration is more accomodating to the religious right than Kerry's would have been, and that under the perceived moral mandate that accompanied the election of George Bush, the Religious Right has been emboldened with regard to psuhing their legislative agenda.

Either Bush is a factor or he isn't. Hepcat can't have it both ways.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:43 pm

geezer wrote:
YellowKing wrote:So the #$#@$ what if they "feel" empowered? Last time I checked this was America. You do whatever you want to do. If you want to go see the movie, go see the movie. If you don't want to see it, stay home.

Bush was not elected because all of a sudden 51% of America turned into Jerry Falwell disciples.
That's fine. But are you going to tell me that these groups don't desire to force their beliefs onto the public at large, by legal means even if mere scarlet letters aren't enough?

It's not the Falwells of the world ranting about sex that concerns me. It's the Falwells of the world ranting about sex and then trying to make those rantings the law of the land that concerns me. And it concerns me more that they have somewhat sympathetic executive and legislative branches of government to work with.

Does this mean that I think George Bush wants to legislate like the Religios right does? No, but the ties between the two are undeniable.

You make it sound like a conspiracy.

W was elected with the support of the religious right. The religious right would like to push their agenda legislatively. Sounds like the American way to me- not some back channel method.