Help Shut down the Movie "Redacted"

[TGeorge]

Cuban, DePalma and Treasonous Film Propaganda

"Treason shall solely consist of waging war on the United States, or adhering to their enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT" (or something like that)
U.S. Constitution.

I CAN'T believe some of the responses to your post on this subject.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to treason anymore than the Second Amendment applies to Nuclear bombs.

Brian DePalma and Mark Cuban have conspired to present a single unfortunate event as standard operating procedure in a deliberate effort to discredit our war effort and provide aid and comfort to the enemies of America, who, by the way are also the enemies of western civilization. Even had they merely presented this as abberation, it still falls within the description of providing aid and comfort to America's enemies - every much as Jane Fonda posing with North Viet Namese Anti-Aircraft crews.

We have been so bombarded with politically correct garbage about the selective application of "freedom of speech" that we are no longer capable of viewing reality from a sound perspective.

We should treat Messers DePalma and Cuban the same way George Washington would have treated Benedict Arnold had he gotten his hands on him.

They are traitors, this film is despicable, and it should not be merely boycotted, it should be stopped.

Had they produced something like this in WW1 or WW2, there is no doubt in my mind where these two abberations and traitors would have wound up.

 

[nwilliams]

One of the things that makes this a free country is freedom of speech, why would I want to deprive anyone of that right?

Last I heard this movie was INSPIRED by true events, its not like the movie is making everything up to try and put the troops in a bad light. There was a reason this movie was made and it was to bring to light an event that should not be swept under the carpet.

People can see the movie or not, they can decide for themselves how to feel about it if they choose to see it.

IMO our government already does enough to try and quell the 1st amendment, why would I want to contribute to that?

LOL Treason that a great one

These kinds of threads really bring out the best in people

 

[jjduller1946]

tdubya,

Thanks for the recommendation - I got off the THR road with this topic. The forum you recommended is a better fit.

After this thread experinece I will stick to muzzle velocity, ft lbs, best round, and best set up for an elk rifle...

 

[CZJedi]

IMO our government already does enough to try and quell the 1st amendment, why would I want to contribute to that?

How does speaking out agains something you find offensive contribute to quelling the 1st Amendment?????

So for those that asked, here is the gun connection: The 1st Amendment is an idividual right (just like the 2nd); it does not just apply to certain groups (such as film makers).

Last I heard this movie was INSPIRED by true events, its not like the movie is making everything up to try and put the troops in a bad light. There was a reason this movie was made and it was to bring to light an event that should not be swept under the carpet.

Ok, lets get the facts out here...
1) There is a real agenda in Hollywood to trash the troops. This is the second movie ("Lions for Lambs" being the other) to paint all soldiers in a bad light. Bruce Willis is trying to have a movie made showing the troops in a positive way and NOBODY is picking up the film. Yet they will make these box office bombs one after the other.

2) DePalma openly admits that he is against the war and openly said in interviews that he hopes this film will turn others against it. This is what we call an "agenda".

3) All of the soldiers are portrayed in a bad light; not one positive soldier in the film.

4) The events that "inspired" the film were not "swept under the carpet", and the soldiers involved are serving time.

5) The real events are bad enough; why make it even worse by adding ficional elements such as the troops burning alive the the family of the raped girl? Oh, that's right... this movie is part of an agenda.

And for our second gun related part of this post: The liberal freaks who made this film are the same liberal freaks who want to take your guns. So if you don't think we should speak out against this film, please keep quiet when they try to put out propoganda against gun owners.

 

[nwilliams]

How does speaking out agains something you find offensive contribute to quelling the 1st Amendment?????

It doesn't, but suggesting that a movie that's already been made be shelved because you don't agree with film makers perspective does.

The best way to hurt this movie is to spread the word not to see it, the less money they make the more it will hurt them. Also based on the reception its getting both from critics and the public I think that should send a pretty clear message to De Palma.

But really its not worth arguing over this any longer, its not gun related and belongs on a different forum.

We all may not agree on the war but we all support the troops that's what matters, who cares what some crappy movie wants us to believe, I personally don't think its going to change public opinion.

Current US Box office is $25,628, its at 50th place this week and its playing in 15 theaters nationwide, that hopefully gets the message across to De Palma that his movie is garbage.

 

[GunTech]

Since this thread hasn't been killed yet, I have to ask.

How many of the posters who want to kill this movie have actually seen it?

 

[Colt]

jjduller1946:

Thanks for posting this. I'll be sure to avoid the movie and contact the advertisers.

From what I've read about this film, it's this guy's attempt at a modern day "Platoon." People came to believe the crimes committed by US soldiers in that movie were also commonplace occurances in Vietnam.

With regard to the self-righteous responses you received, the empty can rattles the loudest.

 

[joab]

So far all I have to go on is your word as to the political content of the movie
I for one am not so weak minded that I can be herded by that

I will watch the movie and decide for myself then and only then would I consider any action against the makers, if your accusations are correct

I am so sick of those that would appoint themselves as our moral voices telling us what we should or should not watch or read.
Most have not even seen the material they are condeming

 

[CZJedi]

Quote:
How does speaking out agains something you find offensive contribute to quelling the 1st Amendment?????

It doesn't, but suggesting that a movie that's already been made be shelved because you don't agree with film makers perspective does.

:banghead: Ok, all together: IT DOES NOT!

If the government shelved it, it would. If I call/write/email asking it be shelved, then I am expressing MY 1st Amendment rights. EVERYBODY has the right to express themselves, not just film makers. The only one quelling anything here, is you trying to quell my 1st Amendment rights by saying I should not speak my mind.

I am so sick of those that would appoint themselves as our moral voices telling us what we should or should not watch or read.

You have the right to watch or read whatever you want. However I have the right to speak up when I am outraged.

Isn't it funny how the so called protectors of the 1st Amendment are the ones really trying to trample on in???

 

[Colt]

I will watch the movie and decide for myself then and only then would I consider any action against the makers.

Once you've paid for the ticket, you've already supported them. You've also demonstrated to their paying advertisers that their films are worthy of supporting.

Have you ever been the victim of a crime in a city that prohibits citizens from carrying a gun? How do you know such laws are bad if you've never experienced the effects for yourself?

You're not going by the opinions and experiences of others are you? That's soooo close-minded!

lol

 

[joab]

You have the right to watch or read whatever you want. However I have the right to speak up when I am outraged.

Then why are you trying so hard to prevent me from seeing it
You do realize that that is what would happen if you get your way and it is shelved, right?

Once you've paid for the ticket, you've already supported them. You've also demonstrated to their paying advertisers that their films are worthy of supporting.

Too me that is not nearly as bad as accepting the word of some self proclaimed moral authority on the matter.
I will not be swayed by hysterical bloviating on a subject that the bloviator has probably not even seen for himself anyway

The Last Temptation of Christ is a prime example of this
The clergy came out roundly and authoritatively condemning the movie, based on scene they heard were in the movie but if fact were not

Have you ever been the victim of a crime in a city that prohibits citizens from carrying a gun? How do you know such laws are bad if you've never experienced the effects for yourself?

Is that what this movie is about? Or is this some kind of failed attempt at a compelling argument by making an apples to broccoli comparison?

Tell me what scene in this movie is most offensive to you?

You're not going by the opinions and experiences of others are you? That's soooo close-minded!

Just as an aside
I never go by the opinion of others, that seems to be your short coming

 

[ravencon]

I'm neither interested in viewing this movie or in shutting it down.

Personally, I find the neo-cons and the Christian Zionist war-mongers as loathsome as the Hollywood limousine liberals and cultural revolutionaries. YMMV.

 

[Matt King]

And for our second gun related part of this post: The liberal freaks who made this film are the same liberal freaks who want to take your guns. So if you don't think we should speak out against this film, please keep quiet when they try to put out propoganda against gun owners.

Gee, stereotyping a group of people you disagree with and calling them freaks is very high road of you.

BTW, gun related how?

 

[telomerase]

I'd be more interested in thinking of ways to keep US troops from raping foreigners than in banning movies. If you think government bans on movies are such a great idea, go live in the US-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.... they ban movies. Most Americans, even the evil liberals or neoconmen, don't try to ban movies, or books, or newspapers.

 

[joab]

So if you don't think we should speak out against this film, please keep quiet when they try to put out propoganda against gun owners.

Thank you I will

Trying to silence an idea is one of the most loathsome dishonest and despicable position I could ever think of
It smacks if immaturity and corrupt mentality

Why not counter the idea with intelligent verifiable counter argument instead of appearing to be trying to hide truth

 

[CZJedi]

Ok, looks like a lot of people here have been drinking the same Cool Aid, so lets just cover all of them together...

I'd be more interested in thinking of ways to keep US troops from raping foreigners than in banning movies.

That is a repugnant statement. We have the most well behaved military in history. Did some do bad things? Unfortunatly, yes. However, it is movies like this and statements like yours that make this sound like the majority of troops are the bad guys in this situation. Why is it Abu Ghraib was a front story everywhere (including 30 times of the front page of the NY Times) while the Micheal Murphey's Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in the war on terror was burried in the back pages and was not even mentioned on CNN or MSNBC during prime time? People are so quick to bash the troops, yet will do nothing to praise them. Worse yet, some here will even get agry when their honor is defended.

If you think government bans on movies are such a great idea, go live in the US-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.... they ban movies.

:banghead: In those countries the GOVERNMENT bans them. That is called "censorship". When citizens speak out against it, that is called "freedom of speech". When the theater companies act on that, it is called "free market enterprise". Feeedom of speech and free market enterprise have nothing to do with government censorship.

Gee, stereotyping a group of people you disagree with and calling them freaks is very high road of you. BTW, gun related how?

Ok, let's take the first point... you are right. Left-wing Hollywood types are usually very pro-gun. I'm sorry for stereotyping them. I don't know what I was thinking.

Second point... It is gun related because the very people who are defending your right to have this conversation, to own a gun, or to do anything else you as an American have the right to do are being attacked. Get your head out of the sand.

Too me that is not nearly as bad as accepting the word of some self proclaimed moral authority on the matter. I will not be swayed by hysterical bloviating on a subject that the bloviator has probably not even seen for himself anyway.

When the producer (DePalma) tells you his agenda, you don't have to see it. What are you going to do; see the movie and then write DePalma and say "no, you are wrong, attacking the troops is not what you had in mind."

I don't have to watch Debbie Does Dallas to know it is porn, and I don't have to watch Gone With The Wind to know it takes place in the civil war.



But this is what we have come down to in America. Burn a flag, mock God, kick the Boyscouts off of city land in Philadelphia, kick the ROTC off of school ground in San Francisco, slander the troops. Go ahead, it is ok. Just don't dare defend your beliefs or those being attacked. That is where the Bill of Rights end.

To be quite honest, after reading some of the responces, I'm embarrased to be associated with some of you. So respond if you will, but this will be my last post on this issue or anywhere else on this forum.

But let me end by saying that those of you who suport attacks against the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend your rights are not worthy of those rights.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

So let me repeat: when they come for your guns, keep your mouths shut!

 

[jeep-2]

Sounds like a Bill O'Reilly thread.

 

[joab]

looks like a lot of people here have been drinking the same Cool Aid,

No we have just chosen not to drink your Kool Aide

But let me end by saying that those of you who support attacks against the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend your rights are not worthy of those rights.

I served my time as did my father and his father before him, both are buried in National Cemeteries
And both would have told you the same thing I tell you now
Kiss my freedom loving ass

We did not do serve so that self righteous hypocrites could try to tell us what we could watch or how we should think

Save the over the top emotionalisms for a less intelligent crowd

 

[Risasi]

Wow, this thread isn't locked yet?


Personally I find this whole thing funny. All this thread has done is make me possibly, sometime, maybe, want to see it.
Bans on any material does the same thing gun bans do. It drives up consumer interest and demand.

jjduller, you don't work for De Palma do you?
I kid, I kid...





C'mon guys, let it die...

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Why is it Abu Ghraib was a front story everywhere (including 30 times of the front page of the NY Times) while the Micheal Murphey's Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in the war on terror was burried in the back pages and was not even mentioned on CNN or MSNBC during prime time?

Because it's a more important story? We here in the "land of the free, home of the brave," who pride ourselves on how we fight oppression worldwide, were caught torturing suspects and holding them for years without charging them with crimes or giving them access to an attorney. Mostly people who were picked up on the battlefield, but who weren't being treated according to the Geneva Convention.

Because they were "enemy combatants" you see -- even the ones rounded up by their neighbors and sold to the US. If you don't call them "criminals," and you don't call them "prisoners of war," then you can get away with torture and indefinite prison sentences. Or at least so it seems.

There are lots of heroes in every conflict. In my opinion (former airborne infantry speaking here) the news that we've sunk this low is of more importance than any one man's story. Sorry if you disagree.

It is gun related because the very people who are defending your right to have this conversation, to own a gun, or to do anything else you as an American have the right to do are being attacked. Get your head out of the sand.

There's a bunch of killing going on halfway around the world in a desert, and the fact that it's happening is being used as a wedge by my government to try and pry more of my rights away. Our soldiers who are deployed in the middle east, whether you agree with the mission or not, are doing nothing to defend my rights.

 

[Coronach]

Not about RKBA activism.