kimmy

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. This was not "any" snippet about Muslims, it was one of direct, obvious relevance to this thread. You two don't really need to have it explained for you why the quote from the article was noteworthy in the context of this discussion. And AW is hardly someone who has made a reputation of going around singling out Muslims for abuse. There are a number of "case warriors" here on MLW whose devotion to their particular causes-- whether it be complaining about immigrants, complaining about Da Joos, posting LPC talking points, posting Republican talking points, discussing Jesus, declaring war on atheists, or whatever. AW isn't one of them. You guys have been around long enough to know her better than that. It's par for the course, though: if you don't support the supermegamosque, you must be a bigot! -k

That's refreshing. When the movie originally came out, the thread was filled with indignation from progressives who were outraged with everything from historical inaccuracies to supposed anti-gay sentiment to the Spartans' cruel parenting philosophies, but mostly the completely unfair portrayal of the Persians. It was apparently some sort of profound geopolitical message that was unbearably offensive to many people, a metaphor for "the war on terror" or something. It was either funny or sad, I'm not sure which. I enjoyed 300 for what it was: buff guys with no shirts on running around kicking ass for 2 hours. As for Kick Ass... I liked it. Hit-Girl was cute and really disturbing, but I felt that Kick Ass himself was the more interesting character. Hit Girl really had no choice in what she turned into... like a child soldier in an African civil war, she's a remorseless killer because she just doesn't know any better... it's what she's been raised for. Kick Ass, though... why would a basically normal person decide to do that? He believes it's altruism, and that seems true enough, but it seems more rooted in his real-life powerlessness. As with Dan Drieberg in The Watchmen, he hates feeling powerless and impotent and longs to be something more than just some schmuck who wanders through life with nobody noticing. -k

If you have any information that bribery was attempted, you should contact the authorities. -k

Come on, August. It's clear from your comments here that your complaint is not that di Caprio isn't Jim Broadbent or Tom Wilkinson (what does that even mean??) but rather that di Caprio was talking to a creature with "weird eyes". In August-land, that makes it a childrens' movie like Shrek or Cats and Dogs. -k

My part-time work often shows UFC events, so I often get to see them for free. I've been learning boxing for a few years. I did years of Judo when I was younger. My special guy of many years was a Huge Pants ranked student of Aikido. I just have an appreciation of the techniques, and I often learn something from watching top level jiu-jitsu experts. I assume you're referring to BC Medical Association call for a ban on the sport. They don't know what they're talking about. They have no evidence to support the claim that "too many fighters are getting their brains beat out", they themselves admit that they have little data to support their call, and that it's primarily based on the premised that it "seems dangerous". You're more likely to see permanent injury on the ski-slopes than at a mixed martial arts event. If it's the safety of the competitors that is the concern, there are a *lot* of sports that should be banned before we look at mixed martial arts. I think peoples' real issue is not safety, but some sort of moral concern. I don't share it. The guy on his back knows lots of techniques to keep the other guy from punching him in the head, and if he can't, the referee will stop the fight very quickly. -k

I'm guessing the answer runs something along the lines of: unflattering portrayal of brown-people. That's exactly it. The narrator himself explains that he was sent home by the king to tell their story for purposes of what-- in modern terms-- is propaganda. It's not intended as a documentary or an even-handed account of the battle. It's a one-sided, biased account, told by a guy sent home to rally his countrymen against the invader. -k

I assume this thread title is intended as a parody of the guy who blamed the NY mosque protests for the attack on the Muslim cabbie. Because the logic makes about as much sense. -k

Gee, Mike, it was just last year you were crying that you couldn't get a job because the immigrants have taken them all. And now you own your own home. Sounds like the Canadian dream is alive and well, when even barely-literate morons can afford homes after just a year of work. -k

So what makes it "wrong" then? Your 3rd grade elementary school teacher? Some absolute moral authority you believe in? If Uncle Sam himself says you can burn his flag, why is it "wrong"? -k

Happy New Year!!! -k

Out of curiosity, any media estimates at the size of Al Sharpton's "counter-rally"? -k

It's "wrong" because it's "mean", right? -k

I'm trying to ascertain how the "wrongness" of this was decided. I mean, the Quran probably says that burning Qurans is wrong, but it might be biased. I notice you told AW that you think burning the flag out of hate is "wrong", even though the Supreme Court decided that burning the flag is "ok", for whatever reason. What if somebody you think might be burning a flag out of hate is actually burning a flag out of their belief that it's a statement of their political beliefs? Is it still "wrong"? -k

"Wrong"? Because it's "not nice"? -k

I guess what we need is a definition of "ok". If "not ok" means "against the law", then burning Qurans, Bibles, flags, or effigies is indisputably "ok". If "not ok" means "hurts peoples feelings", then burning Qurans, Bibles, flags, or effigies is certainly not "ok". Do you have some other definition of "ok" that you'd like to offer, one that considers the hurt feelings of Muslims who are sad that Florida yokels burned their scripture, but discounts the hurt feelings of New Yorkers who are sad that Imam Feisal is co-opting their "hallowed ground" for his own message? -k

People can make whatever statements they want, and people will react to those statements according to their own world view. -k

I feel a group hi-five coming on. -k

Indeed. "They hate Islam! They hate our Prophet!" The protesters are "doing Bin Laden's work for him." I'm sure that next time the Sharia-in-Canada debate resurfaces, opposition to Sharia will likewise cause third-world mooks to say "They hate Islam! They hate our Prophet!" and those who oppose Sharia-in-Canada will likewise be "doing Bin Laden's work for him." -k

Well, I'd be fined by the authorities if I burned a stack of Qurans in my area, because there's a ban on open fires in effect right now due to extreme risk of wildfires. But... if the books are their own property, and there's not some sort of fire ban in the area... then I'm at a loss to see how it's either wrong or heinous... unless you're saying that it's how people will feel about this act that makes it wrong or heinous. If it's how people will feel about it that makes it wrong or heinous, then the supermosque must be wrong and heinous too, right? -k

Why's it wrong? Some sort of fire code violation? -k

This has been explained for you at least twice already, and you still don't get it. I'm starting to wonder if you've got some sort of mental impairment. The Imam Rauf group have the right to build their Islam center. And the Florida group have the right to burn Qurans. So why aren't people wondering why the Florida yokels aren't showing empathy to Muslims? Because the Florida yokels don't give a crap about Muslims. They're trying to piss Muslims off. So why are people calling for Imam Rauf to show empathy? Because he himself keeps talking about how much empathy he has. He's literally full of it-- full of empathy! He has so much empathy, he can hardly contain himself. He's building bridges! He's uniting New Yorkers of all creeds and colors! He's healing the city! That's why he's being held to a different standard than Quran-burning yokels: because he's proclaimed this noble ambition. If you're arguing that Imam Rauf should be held to the same standards as the Quran-burning goons, then you're arguing that his aims are no better than theirs. Do you think that's the case? -k

-k

BC's terrain, and the way planes are used here, presents flying hazards for small aircraft, and makes planes hard to locate if something goes wrong. And yes, it happens every year. -k {there's no Bermuda Triangle here, if that's what you're worried about...}

I guess "astounding" was the wrong word. But the speed at which our courts work is appalling. -k

Maybe if you're a brilliant legal jurist who doesn't speak fluent French you can still get to the Supreme Court and take that super-awesome language skills training Da Shwa was talking about. -k