Mormons who edit Hollywood Blockbusters - All Opinions Welcome!

[Editor’s note: I think we’ve covered this one before on SEB, but I can’t find the entry. It’s been awhile since this first came to the forefront, but it appears the lawsuits haven’t made their way through the courts yet.]

Here is a link to some info about a bunch of Mormon folks who have been editing Hollywood Blockbusters for what they adjudge to be unnecessary content which includes;

1) Violence – Sometimes only Gory Violence
2) Sex Scenes
3) Profanity
4) Suggestive language
5) Blasphemy

and in some cases
6) Homosexuality

I’ve just seen an A&E Documentary called “Bleep: Censoring the Movies” which was very interesting. It showed these “Flick-Cleaner-Upper” companies and how they work.

They work by basically taking existing movies and editing them on their computers to remove/obscure/dub content they don’t like. There inst a financial issue because they have to buy a copy of each movie every time they sell one – so they supposedly aren’t schtupping Hollywood of their money, but many Hollywood Directors (at least 15 named in a lawsuit including Stephen Soderberg and other Academy Award Winners) still strongly object about their intellectual property being battered in this manner – they see this as an intellectual property and artistic integrity issue – I agree.

One company has a more hi-tech opinion which handles movies kind of like a v-chip in a TV which allows each specific category of “offensive” material to be removed “on-the-fly”.

Particularly difficult for me to accept is the fact that some of the movies that were cleaned up include “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List”. Both sides of my family – my own British side and my wife’s American side – have survivors and victims of WWII violence – I want everyone to know the true horror of war – not a sanitized version of it.

Something I find that particularly offensive – to remove the image of a young soldier lying on Normandy Beach attempting to hold his intestines in his body whilst writing in pain so that they can be rid of a part of a movie they narrowly adjudge to be “unnecessarily violent” is truly the height of ignorance in my opinion.

Personally my opinion is that if you are not willing to accept a director’s vision – sex, violence and bad language included – then you should not receive the gift of that movie at all.

Art is art.

If you find the nude male figure offensive then you should not see ANY of Michaelangelo’s “David” or of Da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man”. To make and sell censored copies would be as offensive to me as it is for them if I used the words “Jesus Christ!” as a curse.

Anyone else feelin’ me here, homies?

Regards,

Deoxy.

80 thoughts on “Mormons who edit Hollywood Blockbusters - All Opinions Welcome!

  1. By the way, the first time I saw Schindler’s list was in Switzerland. At least they subtitle instead of dub movies over there…

    A couple months later I saw Schindler’s List again, this time in London and was stunned to find out that they cut a whole hour in the Swiss version, which rendered the movie into a light comedy.

  2. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. The Swiss are a bit closed-mouthed about that time, so even living there doesn’t help, other than noticing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” bit.

  3. Personally, I don’t like it when the studio beauracracy chops a film, or tv edits for “time and content”, but if somebody wants to slash it up so they can live in their fairytale land, well, I think they have a right to.  As long as they make notice that they’ve butchered the film.  I sure as shit would NOT watch a heavily censored version. 

    I don’t have a problem with radio edits in music, as long as I can get the uncensored version, and they’re clearly marked. 

    Maybe that’s the long term goal of the far right.  Censor the scary, bad stuff out of war movies, so death in battle looks cool.  That way you have plenty of volunteers for the military down the line.

  4. This kind of censorship wades the murky line between the horrible edits I have seen on network television and video style book burning.  It seems to be for parents that are to selfish to wait to watch the real version when the kids are in bed.

  5. but many Hollywood Directors (at least 15 named in a lawsuit including Stephen Soderberg and other Academy Award Winners) still strongly object about their intellectual property being battered in this manner – they see this as an intellectual property and artistic integrity issue – I agree.

    Yes.  If these people don’t want to see the movies as the directors crafted it, they should make their own goddamned movies or continue to watch such utter excrement as “Veggie Tales” and the god-awful “Left Behind.”

    The airline and TV (cleaned up) versions of films are made WITH the assistance of the films’ directors, precisely so their artistic vision isn’t butchered in the editing.  For some religious HACKS to take it upon themselves to sanitize someone else’s art is reprehensible and offensive.  Fucksticks.

  6. Aesthetically, I’m outraged—but, damn, aesthetically I’m outraged by some directors/writers/producers’ visions, anyway, and nobody consults me about that, either. 

    (For that matter, why should the directors get the final canonical “say” in the version that shows up, vs. the writers? Or the writers of the source material?)

    *If* they are buying one original copy per, then, as DOF notes above, it’s just like hiring someone to say, “Hey, this part is too scary for you kids, lets fast-forward over it.” 

    It seems to be for parents that are to selfish to wait to watch the real version when the kids are in bed.

    While there may be some of that, some of it may be simply that they *themselves* don’t want to see what they consider to be excessive gore, foul language, etc.

    Maybe that’s the long term goal of the far right.  Censor the scary, bad stuff out of war movies, so death in battle looks cool.  That way you have plenty of volunteers for the military down the line.

    Do you really think that the bowdlerized version of “Saving Private Ryan” comes out as a light comedy or an army recruitment film?  I strongly suspect not.

    For some religious HACKS to take it upon themselves to sanitize someone else’s art is reprehensible and offensive.

    If they are doing it just for themselves, then that’s their call.  If they are doing it so that *I* can’t see the version I choose, then let me find a brick to throw at them.

    Perhaps the test should be to turn this around—have someone make a sanitized version of Gibson’s
    “Passion of the Christ” (which was critized by many for its excessive gore and being “unnecessarily violent”—and not just by the fundies) and see what the reaction is (from either side of the debate).

  7. Personally my opinion is that if you are not willing to accept a director’s vision – sex, violence and bad language included – then you should not receive the gift of that movie at all.

    Art is art.

    Agreed. If you don’t like something, fine, but you have no right under the sun to ruin it for everybody else! angry

    If it’s just for their own viewing, well, then that’s their right. But from an artistic standpoint, I still personally find it pretty repugnant.

    These people have had a vendetta against art for centuries. Personally, I think it’s high time the art world takes a vendetta against them. Then again, they don’t deserve that kind of attention. Oh, well.

  8. Oh, they’re perfectly OK with Christian splatter flicks… my guess is they’d be outraged at a sanitized Passion.

    That’d be my guess as well, since I’ve seen that one advertised in the windows at Christian children’s stores (no shit).

  9. I lived in Utah for four years, so I’m used to this.

    In any case, I agree that if people want to live in a fantasy land without excessive gore or what have you, let them edit for themselves. It’s when it becomes outright censorship that I start sharpening my pitchfork.

    I wonder what the right would say to a censored version of Passion?

  10. I wonder what the right would say to a censored version of Passion?

    blah blah blah anti-Christian bigotry! blah blah blah we’re being persecuted by liberals/the mainstream/ rationalists/ Europeans/ Muslisms/ West Coast-ers/ basically anyone and everyone who’s not us, again! blah blah blah blasphemy! blah blah blah politically correctness! blah blah blah anti-family! blah blah blah the Left is downplowing Jesus’ message again! blah blah blah

    Basically the same crap they throw at us all the time, I’d wager.

  11. Deoxy: Personally my opinion is that if you are not willing to accept a director’s vision – sex, violence and bad language included – then you should not receive the gift of that movie at all.

    Gift?  Gift???

    *slaps forhead* I’ve been PAYING for movies all these years like an idiot.  Where do I sign up to receive them as gifts?

  12. In any case, I agree that if people want to live in a fantasy land without excessive gore or what have you, let them edit for themselves.

    I’m not sure that wanting to avoid “excessive gore” in one’s life is emblematic of wanting to live “in a fantasy land.”  I haven’t seen Gibson’s Passion largely because I didn’t feel the need, didn’t want to deal with the “excessive gore,” and didn’t think I would be entertained (which is usually why I watch a movie).

  13. Gift?  Gift???

    *slaps forhead* I’ve been PAYING for movies all these years like an idiot.  Where do I sign up to receive them as gifts?

    I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “gifts”.

    Maybe being an atheist I have this humility about me because I’m not arrogant enough to believe in some bizarrely vain and selfish doctrine that teaches people that some magic man in the sky who created everything really gives a crap about my problems.
    Maybe because I believe that when I die I just frickin die – dead – nothing else – I don’t believe that when I die if I’m fawning enough towards said “magic man” I’ll end up in a magic happy land forever.
    That just seems awfully arrogant, selfish and vain to me.  That’s what happens with atheists I think.

    In my opinion, some movies you almost can’t ask too much money for.

    Schindlers List changed my life – I would have almost been willing to get a mortgage to see that film if I’d known how profoundly it would have affected me.

    Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” film trilogy was a rendering of the book that I had dreamt and hoped for since I was 8 years old.

    I spent a total of $250 to see the movies in the theatre and to buy all the collectors sets and stuff that they put out afterwards, the accompanying books and even video games that were based upon Jackson’s vision.

    Those movies took immense creative visionary genius, artistic talent, hard work, technical knowhow, making use of the extraordinary skills of literally hundreds of people.

    I payed $250 to get to see all of that and all I had to do was show up to a theatre and place a few on-line orders.

    You call that “paying”? 

    No Daryl, I call that a gift from some extremely talented people. There is no other way I could have experienced some of the great movies I’ve seen in my life had those people not been willing to put in the hard work and take the financial risk in making the movies in the first place.

    Humility. It rocks.

    Regards,

    Deoxy.

  14. Oh, Zilch, thanks for cracking me up with the remark about the swiss.

    Must confess I loved that one. Maybe because I’m a born and bred Brit.

    Dunno.

    To Decrepitoldfool

    I’m not sure how this differs from hitting the fast-forward button, except you’re paying someone to hit the button for you.  Retarded, yes; but so what?

    I think it’s very different.

    They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

    They aren’t fair representations of shizzle – they are pale imitations of movies that might have been great or at the very least wonderfully creative and entertaining.

    How would Christians feel if we changed the bible – take all the bits out of it that we don’t like – You know like Revelations perhaps? How about 1 Timothy, Chapter 2 (and in fact all of the Gnostic gospels) for the misogyny?
    How about the bits the speak ill of homosexuality?
    How’s about we remove the stories that involve slavery, incest, people selling their own children to god or to other people?

    How’s about we cut it down to the stuff that makes sense? (it would be more of a pamphlet if we did that) – translate it into modern language too? Remove the whole concept of “The Devil/Beast” and “Hell”.

    How about we take our edited version and present that as a valid representation of what Christians believe to other people?

    To SexySadie Your point was probably the best one… I had to laugh because you’re so right.

    To TalkingSoup, I just wanted to express my sympathies for your time spent in Utah.  I know I had nothing to do with it but I’m still sorry to hear you went through that.  If I wasn’t an atheist I might pray for you or something.

    Regards,
    Deoxy.

  15. I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “gifts

  16. How would Christians feel if we changed the bible – take all the bits out of it that we don’t like

    You refer to the Jefferson Bible? His contemporaries were like petulant children – “but, but, but, he excised the best parts! Mommy!”

  17. Deoxy,
    LOL Thanks. It was a pretty traumatizing experience.

    ***Dave,
    I was pretty much just making a point. I don’t care if people censor what they watch, so long as they’re not trying to censor what I watch too. I have the same thoughts on religion—“don’t shove it down my throat.”

    I’m a writer (or I pretend to be), so I can understand the issue of destroying creative vision. I figure if you’re going to censor something, censor whatever really, really doesn’t need to be there. Mostly for the sake of children—if you’re an adult, either don’t watch the movie or hit the fast forward.

  18. They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

    To my knowledge, CleanFlicks and the like mark the edited products as such.  As long as they aren’t pirating copies of the edit, or repackaging the edits without labeling them as such, I don’t consider it piracy, although I totally agree about it screwing up the artistry of the film. 

    I agree about paying a lot more to see some films.  Paying $17 for the wife and I to see a flick means we just go for the ones we think we REALLY want to see on the big screen.  Considering some dvds are $10, it’s cheaper than the theater, and only $5 more than renting, it’s tempting to just buy the damn thing, and resell it if we don’t like it.

    Elwed beat me to the Jefferson bible reference.

    Or maybe…wait for it…somebody else gave the movies to you!! That would make it a gift, would not it, Darrell?

    Kazzaa???  Bittorrent???  And then, you may get a gift from MPAA/RIAA in the form of a subpoena.
    Joy! wink

  19. Sexy Sadie: Or maybe…wait for it…somebody else gave the movies to you!! That would make it a gift, would not it, Darrell?

    If I could swerve off-topic for just a moment: Sadie, are you just basically incapable of spelling someone’s name correctly even when the proper spelling is staring you in the face?  What’s the story on that, anyway?  Your lifetime record is about zero-for-fifteen.

    Back on topic.

    Sure, it would be a gift from someone to me.  They paid for the movie so I wouldn’t have to.  What does that have to do with Paramount, or Twentieth Century Fox, or Steven Spielberg?  It certainly wasn’t a gift from the director or the producer: Take a look at the mansions some of those people live in.  You think they got those by handing out gifts??

    As a conservative, I have this wacky idea that if I pay for something, I own it.  That means I can do what I want with it.  If I buy a book, I can tear out any pages I don’t like, or maybe write some things in it which the author never thought of.  Why?  Because it’s mine.  It belongs to me.  I don’t need the author’s permission.  If this offends the author, too bad.  Once he sells his book, it doesn’t belong to him anymore.

    If I buy a copy of “The Two Towers” and scribble out J.R.R. Tolkien’s name and write “WRITTEN BY DARYL CANTRELL THE WORLD’S GREATEST AUTHOR”… Well, that might be a bit immature but there’s really nothing stopping me.

    If I sell my car to someone, I don’t try to tell them what kind of engine oil to put in it: it’s their car and they can do what they want with it.  Maybe Ford should sue people who trick out their Mustangs, because it’s not an accurate representation of the car designers’ original “vision”..?

    If I build a house and then sell it to someone, I can’t object when they turn the study into a guest bedroom because my “artistic vision” was for it to be a study.  It’s their house and they can do what they want with it.

    If these authors and directors really value “artistic vision” more than they value money, the solution is simple: They can keep their artisitic works for themselves.  No one forces them to sell their books or movies to other people.

    Deoxy: They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

    The movies have a trailer at the beginning which states that they have been edited for content after purchase.  Anyone who’s enough of a busybody to wonder whether the movie is an accurate representation of the director’s “vision” won’t be deceived into thinking it is.

    Anyway, it’s easy enough to solve this problem: While you’re editing the movie for content, go ahead and remove the credits.

    Deoxy: How would Christians feel if we changed the bible – take all the bits out of it that we don’t like

    Which parts do you like?

    Go buy your very own copy of the Bible, and knock yourself out.  That’s the great thing about owning something: you can do what you want with it.  In fact, the ability to do what you want with something is a pretty good definition of ownership.

    Deoxy: I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “gifts

  20. When this thread started, my first thought was Who gives a shit?  Now after all the comments I’m a bit more enlightened.

    I would think that the law would be on the side of the Hollywood in this case.  If a performance (movie) is considered a work of art, then absolutely no one should be able to change the content without the writer/director’s permission.  If these asshats want to modify movies then they should have to buy the rights to the script.

    Now, if the movie is just another product, like an automobile, people should be able to do with it as they will to suit their individual tastes.  Once modifications are made to the initial product it can no longer carry the same name, credits or packaging.  This test has stood up in court in the motorcycle industry where builders were taking existing bikes, redesigning them and passing them off as equal or better than the original.

    Last thing.  A movie is not a fucking gift.  Studios do not put up good money just to be generous.  The point is to make money in any way it can.  Some movies go big, some lose and that’s all part of their business model.  I’m glad you’ve been touched by some great movies but I assure you, the only thing the studio cares about is whether or not you put down your hard earned money first.

  21. If a performance (movie) is considered a work of art, then absolutely no one should be able to change the content without the writer/director’s permission.  If these asshats want to modify movies then they should have to buy the rights to the script.

    My feelings exactly.

    A movie is not a fucking gift.

    Certainly not a lot of Hollywood fare (particularly action and/or comedy films). But many films I do consider to be gifts. Just because studios make money off of them does not necessarily strip filmmakers of their visionary integrity. I’m talking about filmmakes I consider good, mind you. Michael Bay need not apply.

  22. Daryl, do you have back pain today?  You seem grouchier than normal.  Try stretching, hot compresses, and maybe ibuprofen.  Make sure your shoes have adequate arch support.

    When I read Deoxy’s comment, I thought; “Well, there’s an example of how some people are more deeply affected by certain art than others.”  The fact that there is a profitable industry surrounding the art makes it more remarkable when something good actually shines through.

    When you “buy” a movie, what you are really buying is a limited license for private performance.  There is probably some unenforceable clause in the fine print against you even discussing alternate plot points or criticizing the producer’s mustache in public.  But in practice, as long as one license is bought, I still think they’re just paying someone to fast-forward for them.

    Why there isn’t a more developed Christian movie industry, I can’t guess.  There’s certainly a well-developed Christian music industry.  Makes more sense than bowdlerizing stuff made by evil secularists.

    The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.  It promotes interest in their cars.  The Mini, in particular, has a series of ads about modified Minis.

  23. As far as “changing the art”, DJ’s remix music in clubs/dances.  I don’t see a difference in what CleanFlicks does.  The copy was paid for, it’s not being pirated.

    I feel some licensing infringes on Fair Use.  I don’t believe the “Artist” has a right to tell me how many times I can view their work, or that I’m not allowed to fast forward through the film. 

    In short:
    I don’t have the right to paint on the original “Mona Lisa”.
    I don’t have the right to paint copies and sell them as my own creation.
    But, if I buy a print of the “Mona Lisa”, I believe I have every right to pencil in a mustache and hang it on my door.

  24. The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.

    Oh, man. Don’t get me started on my beloved VW van! …too late… wink

    Well, I bought it six years ago from a really cool guy from Vermont who drove it all over the country in the mid-‘60s. It was originally solid green (pea-colored, to be exact). I have since added psychedelic designs to it and put curtains in the windows (flowery print, of course). I named it Lucy, and yes, it’s a girl.

    She doesn’t drive as well as she did back in the glory days of the ‘60s, but she still looks beautiful (I like to think I helped). Instead of actually driving her, I usually keep her in my yard and hold parties in her, listen to records in her, and occasionally even sleep in her when the weather’s nice. She’s really comfy!

    Ah, me and Lucy…Thanks for letting me share!

  25. Why there isn’t a more developed Christian movie industry, I can’t guess.  There’s certainly a well-developed Christian music industry.  Makes more sense than bowdlerizing stuff made by evil secularists.

    I suspect that the large costs of movie production, and the low volume that can be cranked out, makes it a lot easier to do Christian music than Christian movies.

  26. Sadie, my ‘67 Beetle just acquired a Brazilian engine with a new German carby and Mexican distributor.  Vrrroooom!

    There are lots of VW restoration specialists.  Compared to cost of buying a new car you don’t like, they aren’t that expensive; just finding a good one (there are a few crooks).

    Next up: carbon-fibre & blue-neon running-boards, bitchin’ stereo, Porsche wheels, custom seats…

    Not sure if it fits Ferdinand Porsche’s ‘vision’ but it should be a lot of fun.

  27. Sadie, my ‘67 Beetle just acquired a Brazilian engine with a new German carby and Mexican distributor.  Vrrroooom!

    Yay!! Yeah, I’ve taken in Lucy a few times. We drove her when my friends and I took a roadtrip around the country in the summer of ‘01. She drove beautifully, but I decided to let her rest after that. If I do any serious driving, it’s usually either in my Volvo or in my life partner’s PT Cruiser. Lucy’s my outdoor bedroom (aside from my flower garden).

    Have fun with your Porsche! Me, I’ve always liked Rolls’…

  28. The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.  It promotes interest in their cars.  The Mini, in particular, has a series of ads about modified Minis.

    Granted, but there’s a big difference between a consumer modding his car and a reseller doing it and selling it under the original manufacturers name.  That’s why companies like Saleen (Mustang) have reseller license agreements with Ford.

    As far as “changing the art

  29. I suspect that the large costs of movie production, and the low volume that can be cranked out,

      With computer graphics/editing getting easier/cheaper, and with HD digital cams only running a few grand, I’m hoping to see more indie films getting made.

  30. Dude, seriously, this is the single gayest response ever posted to SEB.  Put a dress on already.  Even my wife thinks so, and she’s way nicer than me.

    I’ve noticed that this is the attitude in America that doesnt seem to exist anywhere else in the world that I’ve been.

    This is a symptom of the fundamental difference that exists in America between a conservative and a centrist/liberal attitude.

    It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop” or “wetback”) and someone who finds the idea deeply offensive.

    An American conservative would rationalize this idea by saying “Well, that dirty stinking foreigner is probably better of with me looking after them than being free and ending up unemployed and poor and unable to feed their families”.

    If it’s gay to respect and care about other people, including those of other religions and cultures then I’m a big steaming queer.

    If it’s gay to think that art is something valuable that improves the quality of our lives then I’m a screaming faggot.

    If it’s gay not be proud of “aggressive ignorance” like American conservatives are then pass the dress, the high heels and the lube – I’m a flamer.

    I’ll take the whole BS lie about being gay (I’m actually heterosexual and married to a beautiful petite American woman), you can take the truth that the fearmongering hatemongering anti-intellectual anti-science anti-art hate-fuelled stupidity that is American Conservatism is the worst scourge that mainstream America has ever suffered. 

    If I had a choice to rid the world of Modern American conservatives or every addictive and destructive drug from the face of the earth it would be a no-brainer to choose the conservatives.

    Regards,

    Deoxy.

  31. Dude, seriously, this is the single gayest response ever posted to SEB.  Put a dress on already.  Even my wife thinks so, and she’s way nicer than me.

    At the risk of sounding like an easily offended liberal or something, I find the use of “gay” in this kind of perjorative sense to be really fucking stupid.

    But I digress.

    It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop

  32. I have to admit, Deoxy, that I think you went a bit off the deep end with that last comment. I’m no big fan of most of the Conservatives out there, but you’ve taken it to a whole other level.

  33. The DJ’s, just like you, are allowed to mix tracks anyway they please as long as they own them.  The problem, once again, arises in the reselling of mixed mutilated music.  You can’t redo one of Aerosmith’s songs and then resell it as an Aeosmith original.

    This why recording artists have to use samples or purchase the rights to the song they want to butcher.

    From what I’ve seen, CleanFlicks and the like are not selling the films as the originals, but as labeled, edited originals.  That’s the whole selling point – it’s not the ORIGINAL film.  Same as selling a remix of Aerosmith that not only says “remix” on the package, but having purchased a copy of the original for every remix made.  It’s just cheaper to license it to make a remix or use sampling.

  34. I have to admit, Deoxy, that I think you went a bit off the deep end with that last comment. I’m no big fan of most of the Conservatives out there, but you’ve taken it to a whole other level.

    Although he could have put it a little more gently, I agree with Deoxy’s main point (that the mindset of fear and insipid hate-mongering of American conservatives is launching our nation frighteningly backwards), and I think it needs to be stated again and again.

  35. If it’s gay to respect and care about other people, including those of other religions and cultures then I’m a big steaming queer.

    If it’s gay to think that art is something valuable that improves the quality of our lives then I’m a screaming faggot.

    If it’s gay not be proud of “aggressive ignorance

  36. After coming home with a big smile, having rung the New Year in proper, I zip around for a few quick reads and find a strong contender for asshat statement for 2005 that just squeaked in:

    This is a symptom of the fundamental difference that exists in America between a conservative and a centrist/liberal attitude.

    It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop

  37. Sexy Sadie, you rock, I’m so glad you understand me – thanks for the support – I was starting to feel like I was about

    to get net.strung-up.

    Les, You’re right, it was a bit hyperbole but I’ll write some more explanation about this later and why I feel this

    way.

    Consigliere

    Dave correctly points out that the political/economic philosophy highlighted by you is actually a liberal one,

    not a conservative one. 

    This is the biggest load of crap I’ve seen since I last helped out on my uncle-in-laws cattle farm.

    That political philosophy is pure conservatism.
    Your post was utter crap.

    I have to let you know, Consigliere, that when you write something like that as if it were factual when you have no

    information, argument of sources to make a case it really makes you look arrogant.

    Just because Lincoln belonged to a party called “Republicans” did not make him a conservative. He was quite the

    opposite in fact.

    I’m not surprised at this because it’s the same lie as claiming that because Hitler’s Nazi party had the word

    “Socialist” in the name that they were liberals. 

    Racial purity is a conservative ideal, the southern states founded the KKK and ever since the illegalization of the KKK

    the south have been trying to find another way to politically revive the “White Power” movement.
    It it the white conservative Christian movement in America that has been trying to make it socially acceptable again to

    discriminate against people of different ethnic backgrounds. This is because they believe that they are the chosen

    people of God and they believe that they are the only ones going to heaven and that only they are the truly chosen

    people of the bible.

    Lincoln’s Republicans were liberals through and through. The Republican party of 1860 was founded to stop slavery but

    the party was DESPISED in the ever staunchly conservative Southern states hence South Carolina’s secession from the Union.
    The Southern States detested Lincoln and the men who were prominent figures in the south openly encouraged people to assassinate Lincoln using the same kind of rhetoric we hear today from conservative Christians who try to justify murdering abortion doctors.

    Today’s Republican’s are nothing like those of 1860.

    Deoxy, you seem to fashion yourself as an ubermensch being oppressed by dumbass conservatives like myself.  Let me put this to rest for you. You may be something special in God’s eyes, I don’t claim to speak for Him.  What is clear is an ubermensch you are not.

    You have no idea who I am or what my life has been like. It really shows how arrogant conservatives are for you to judge me like this.

    I’m certainly not a superman – not with two broken legs I’m not, and I never was anyway.

    Fact is my wife is American, I’m British and we are atheists and I’m currently unable to work. The reason for this is because I used to live in a very conservative area – very staunch Republicans and Christians.

    One neighborwoman who lives in the community heard that my wife and I don’t go to church or celebrate Christian holidays.  Last spring she approached me and demanded I show up for the easter sermon at the local baptist church and when I told her that we weren’t going to do that she told me that I was unwelcome in hers, George W. Bush’s, and Jesus Christ’s country. 
    She asked if I believed in a god at all and I said that I didn’t.  She asked if I would allow my wife to come to the church, I said I did not mind at all if she did, so she went to the front door of our house and knocked. She demanded my wife show up at the church and my wife politely told her that she did not wish to this easter or at any other time and that we are both atheists.

    The next night I was jogging through the neighborhood when I heard an SUV coming up behind me, next thing I know my the SUV mounts the curb, hits me, and my legs are crushed against a tree, breaking both of them in several places.

    So I’m lying there on the ground and the woman who had confronted me from the night before walks right up to me and she kicks me in the head and screams “That’s from Jesus!  He’s mad with you because he suffered on the cross to save your soul and you wont let him love you”. She gets in her SUV and drives off.

    Well then someone comes out from a nearby house and calls the cops and the ambulance.

    Since that rather unpleasant day we’ve moved to another area.  The lady that tried to kill (whom I’m not allowed, by law, to publically name) me was arrested and released within a week on bail.  Her insurance company has refused to help with my medical bills because she admits she ran me over deliberately – They are only liable for accidents.  The court system told me they arent keen to press charges against the woman because she’s so popular in the community and she’s having such a tough time financially they say I wouldnt get much out of it anyway.

    A civil rights activist group have given me a grant to help me. They furnished me with a couple of powered wheelchairs for indoors and outdoors. The civil rights group is putting pressure on that courts system to press criminal charges but so far the DA has failed to return their calls, my calls or answer any questions on the issue.

    However, when it was found that I have spinal damage from the attack and that It is unlikely that I will ever get back full function in my legs there was a response from the DA’s office in a letter which said that in the light of the fact I may have suffered permanent damage they may pursue charges against my attacker.

    When I told the woman’s pastor about the incident he told me that he knew about it, he told me that he believed as the woman who attacked me believes –  that she was not driving and that in fact the spirit of Christ had taken the wheel and that it’s all my own fault anyway – all I had to do was show up at church and this would never have happened.

    So you tell me, Was I being oppressed by conservatives or is that kind of behaviour “liberal” now too?

    Regards,

    Deoxy.

  38. Deoxy, assuming your story happened as you tell it – you were oppressed by facists, not conservatives.  But it is a difficult assumption.

    Woman intentionally runs over atheist jogger in a fit of religious violence: unlikely but possible.  Prosecutor refuses to prosecute obvious case of vehicular assault because of religious agreement with popular driver: unlikely but possible.  Pastor of Christian church condones said violence as “Spirit Of Christ”: unlikely but possible.  All three in sequence:  well please forgive us if we might have problems with that story. 

    I’m not saying it’s untrue, or that you weren’t hit by a car but the ancillary details are a bit difficult to combine. 

    I still think Darrellllll was being an asshat with his ‘gay’ comment.

    Happy New Year, everyone!

  39. creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

    I notice the motherfuckers didn’t forget to qualify their law with a little ‘thou shalt not adulterate the commercials’ aside.

    Hey.  I find endless promos far more offensive than anything CleanFlix is editing out.

    But I already have a company that deals with that for me.  It’s called -tons of free DVD editing and ripping software available freely on the internet-.

    If I could, I’d buy stock in the company.

    [aside]  I don’t know if Deoxy’s story is true, but you gotta admit it’s a -great- story.  Especially the part where the fundy is booting him in the head while screaming ‘That’s from Jesus!’[/aside]

    Happy New Year!

  40. In a likely vain attempt to get this back on topic at least a little bit, I’d like to take a moment to point out what the U.S. Copyright law actually says. From the U.S. Copyright Office:

    WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

    Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,

  41. Thanks for the compliment, Deoxy. cheese

    If the anecdote you shared is true, then that is seriously fucked up. Sadly, I wouldn’t put it past many Christians to do such a thing.

    The political parties of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were quite complicated as far as labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” go. There were several “reversals,” the last one quite recent (I would argue as recent as Reagan) that led up to the parties being the way they are now. However, it is accurate that Lincoln’s party was far more liberal than the Southern Democratic counterpart. There is some controversy surrounding just what Lincoln’s actual feelings toward African-Americans was, but the fact remains that he freed the slaves. Seeing how Southern Democrats at the time were largely pro-slavery, I hardly think it can be argued that they were “liberal” in any way. To this day, many Democrats from the South differ from asshat conservative politicians in name only.

    To me, “liberal” and “conservative” are most accurately mindsets and even lifestyles. I’m the most liberal person I know (along with my life partner John), but neither of us belong to a political party. We vote Democratic 99.999% of the time, but we don’t really consider ourselves Democrats, if only because we don’t want to belong to a group (especially a political one).

    I still think Darrellllll was being an asshat with his ‘gay’ comment.

    Of course he was. But seeing how I’m very pro-gay, I don’t consider being called “gay” insulting! In fact it’s quite a compliment. cool smile

    Sorry to tread off-topic again, but I have to ask: what the hell is the deal with the “snake” smiley (bottom row)??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.