Liberals Suck
-
rek16803 — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 07:23 AM)
Has anyone tried to ban this movie? Seriously?
A US cable channel just banned the Dukes of Hazzard reruns because of the Confederate Flag on the General Lee's Roof.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/warner-bros-bans-dukes-of-hazzard-car-with-confederate-flag-20150624 -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 12:46 PM)
I can't see where they have tried to ban it, although the editing of the movie certainly takes away from the message.
As far as buying the Dukes of Hazzard on DVD, that isn't the point. The point is, there was no racism in the show - just the flag. I can understand if the show specifically promoted racism and slavery as being good in this day and age, but it doesn't. There is no reason to not show it on regular TV, other than PC pansies get their panties in a twist over what they think the Confederate Flag means. -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 06:49 AM)
I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. Just because Google doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Remember, schools have banned The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & To Kill A Mockingbird because of the "proper" use of the 'N-word', regardless of the fact that such books show the ignorance of bigotry & racism. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 07:12 AM)
So typical Con logic
Blazing Saddles isn't banned, no one has suggested banning it, I can't even produce any examples of anyone trying to ban it, but they might ban it in someone's imagination therefore Liberals suck
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 07:22 AM)
Typical libtard "logic." Thinks that if it doesn't exist on Google it doesn't exist at all.
By your "logic", my dad never worked on the space program in the 1960's because I can't find examples of it on Google. Never mind where he worked, all of the documentation he brought home, the behind the scenes information he told us, the FBI screenings, etc.
but they might ban it in someone's imagination therefore Liberals suck
Oh no, it isn't that at all. Liberals suck for so many other reasons - it is hard to list them all. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 07:34 AM)
I didn't mention Google. You did.
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles. No link has been provided. You'd think attempting to ban a film would cause some fuss. But apparently either a) no one particularly cares or b) no such attempt is happening
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to (I don't) suggests b)
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 08:08 AM)
I didn't mention Google. You did.
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles.
Do you realize how fuqking stupid you just sounded? Google is the largest search engine. I said I didn't find any. But, I also provided a sound reason why there might not be a link to a source - it may pre-date Google/the internet.
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to
The fact that you can buy the two books I mentioned, or get them from the library, or download them doesn't mean people haven't banned them. Again, your analogy is invalid.
You REALLY want to prove your point, but you really can't. History didn't start in 1998. There could have been people trying to ban the movie in the 1970's. Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970's, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned - and yet I remember how it caused an uproar and groups were trying to get it banned.
So, by your "reasoning", it never happened. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 08:52 AM)
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
No. But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
The OP said this. And if you're not saying that they're trying to ban it, then what are you saying? That someone somewhere said that he'd like to ban it, but that this person was so insignificant that no-one bothered to record this.but still the fact that they said this means civilisation is going to hell in a handcart? What? Just what is your argument?
The fact that the film is freely available from Amazon and I could get a copy tomorrow if I needed to
The fact that you can buy the two books I mentioned, or get them from the library, or download them doesn't mean people haven't banned them. Again, your analogy is invalid.
I wasn't making an analogy, I was stating a fact. If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned. Something not being freely available is the very definition of being banned.
You REALLY want to prove your point, but you really can't. History didn't start in 1998. There could have been people trying to ban the movie in the 1970's.
There could have been. But the fact that no-one bothered to record this shows that they didn't do very well and weren't significant enough to bother about. Which means it's a bit pointless starting a thread in 2015 about libs suck because someone in 1970 said a film should be banned.
Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970's, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned - and yet I remember how it caused an uproar and groups were trying to get it banned.
Really? I just looked this show up on Wikipedia and found this..
In early March 1977, ABC screened the first two episodes of Soap for the executives of its 195 affiliate stations, many of whom were instantly appalled by the show's emphasis on sex and infidelity. Two of the affiliates, neither in a major market, privately told ABC that the show was "raunchy" and its subject matter not fit for television.[5]
In June 1977, a Newsweek preview of the fall season written by Harry F. Waters panned the show while mischaracterizing some of its basic plot elements and offering exaggerated reports of its sexual content. Despite having not seen the pilot, Waters called the show a "sex farce" and claimed (erroneously) that the show included a scene of a Catholic priest being seduced in a confessional.[6] Waters also stated:
Soap promises to be the most controversial network series of the coming season, a show so saturated with sex that it could replace violence as the PTA's Video Enemy No. 1.
Harry F. Waters, Harry F. Waters (June 13, 1977). "99 and 44/100% Impure". Newsweek 90 (3): 92.
Whether Waters' errors and misrepresentations were intentional or accidental is unknown.
Within days of the Newsweek report, a number of local and national religious organizations began to quickly mobilize against Soap, despite the fact that they also had not seen the pilot. Among these were the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,[7] the latter of which went so far as to divest itself of 2,500 shares of ABC stock "because the board does not approve of programming related to the abuse of human sexuality, violence and perversion."[8]
The Roman Catholic Church, led by its Los Angeles Diocese, also condemned the show and asked all American families to boycott it saying "ABC should be told that American Catholics and all Americans are not going to sit by and watch the networks have open season on Catholicism and morality. [Soap] is probably one of the most effective arguments for government censorship of TV that has yet come along."[9] In August, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California representing three branches of Judaism, joined the Catholic protest saying that the as-yet unaired show "reached a new low."
That took me 2 seconds to look up.
You REALLY want to prove your point, but you really can't.
I have no need to prove my point. If someone wants to attack Libs for trying to ban something, it's up to them to prove that Libs in fact are doing this thing.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 09:08 AM)
No. But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
Why? Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google? Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
I remember it because the show was watched in my home because it cracked my parents up.
But, if you Google 'TV Show Soap Banned' you won't find any reference to it on the results.
Again, by your "logic" it didn't happen.
And if you're not saying that they're trying to ban it, then what are you saying?
I made my point quite clear - sorry if you are too stupid to understand it.
If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
In other news, water is wet. Now, for some breaking news, you don't know WTF you are saying, because no one has said it WAS banned. So, yet again, your analogy is invalid. Sheesh!!!
But the fact that no-one bothered to record this shows that they didn't do very well and weren't significant enough to bother about.
First off, just because YOU think it should be there doesn't mean it should be there. And, secondly, reference my point about the TV show Soap.
Really? I just looked this show up on Wikipedia and found this..
And I didn't say it wasn't there. I said if you Googled it, there results didn't show anything - as in the list of links on the first page made no mention of it. I didn't say you couldn't find it if you didn't look. Hell, it is all over the place on just the board for Soap on this site.
I have no need to prove my point.
You've proven your point - that you cannot use logic and reasoning in a discussion. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 09:28 AM)
Why? Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google?
No, I think that something that makes people angry enough to post threads saying 'Liberals suck" should be something that is actually happening.
Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
All of which is mentioned in the article I linked to.
But, if you Google 'TV Show Soap Banned' you won't find any reference to it on the results.
Again, by your "logic" it didn't happen.
Check out this.
http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/soap/
You're welcome.
And if you're not saying that they're trying to ban it, then what are you saying?
I made my point quite clear - sorry if you are too stupid to understand it.
In order to make a point, you actually have to make a point. Not just waffle vague generalities and then accuse people of being stupid.
If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
In other news, water is wet. Now, for some breaking news, you don't know WTF you are saying, because no one has said it WAS banned. So, yet again, your analogy is invalid. Sheesh!!!
And you don't know what an analogy is.
I like Blazing Saddles. I think it's a funny film. If someone took away my copy, I'd be sad. But they haven't. If someone took away my copy and said I couldn't buy another one, I'd be sadder. But they haven't. If someone said it should be banned, I'd be angry with them and argue why it shouldn't. But I've not seen anyone say this.
You seem to be saying that we should be angry because someone somewhere at sometime said a film should be banned but no-one bothered to make any record of this. Or I don't know what you actually are saying.
And I didn't say it wasn't there. I said if you Googled it, there results didn't show anything - as in the list of links on the first page made no mention of it. I didn't say you couldn't find it if you didn't look. Hell, it is all over the place on just the board for Soap on this site.
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier. The fact that you don't know how to do a proper internet search isn't my problem.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 09:38 AM)
No, I think that something that makes people angry enough to post threads saying 'Liberals suck" should be something that is actually happening.
Nice job of moving the goal posts. The OP is obviously a troll, and you got your panties in a twist and fell for it. My point about stuff happening even though it isn't on Google is perfectly valid - you just don't like it.
All of which is mentioned in the article I linked to.
Again, moving the goal posts. I said that the results on the first page - the sh!t you browse through to see if it is worth clicking on - showed nothing. But, since you can't accept being wrong, you have to scramble to find something.
Check out this.
No thanks. I watched the show when it was originally on and have read all of the info on here.
In order to make a point, you actually have to make a point. Not just waffle vague generalities and then accuse people of being stupid.
I had a valid point, it wasn't vague, and I'm not accusing you of being stupid. I'm flat out saying you are.
And you don't know what an analogy is.
And you are still wrong and trying to move the goal posts. No one has said it was banned. If it was banned, you couldn't get another copy.
You seem to be saying that we should be angry because someone somewhere at sometime said a film should be banned
No, I didn't say that at all, but I'm sure you had fun pulling that out of your azz.
no-one bothered to make any record of this
Again, just because YOU think it should be recorded on the internet doesn't mean that it was. You could fill the internet with things that aren't on the internet - but now I've just overwhelmed your little mind with that.
Or I don't know what you actually are saying.
Again, I'm flat out saying you are stupid.
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
Psst. Hey, moron. Where did I ever said it was banned?
Yet again, I'm flat out saying you are stupid. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 11:25 AM)
The OP is obviously a troll, and you got your panties in a twist and fell for it
I don't think a simple question asking for proof of a claim is 'getting your panties in a twist'. But then I forget that this is the internet where facts are less important than 'like totally respecting my opinion man'
My point about stuff happening even though it isn't on Google is perfectly valid - you just don't like it.
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google. Only yesterday I stubbed my toe and this hasn't turned up on Google. I just happen to think that something as major as calling for the ban of a classic film might cause a bit of a ripple somewhere.
And you are still wrong and trying to move the goal posts. No one has said it was banned. If it was banned, you couldn't get another copy.
People have said other people are trying to ban it. Be nice if we had some proof of this.
Again, just because YOU think it should be recorded on the internet doesn't mean that it was. You could fill the internet with things that aren't on the internet - but now I've just overwhelmed your little mind with that.
I think that Cons are retards because they want to ban The Shawshank Redemption. I mean, I can't provide any proof of this, but just because I can't, doesn't mean it's not happening. Know what I'm saying?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 11:48 AM)
But then I forget that this is the internet where facts are less important than 'like totally respecting my opinion man'
Yes. You've proven that quite well that we should respect your opinion that any and everything should be posted on the internet, no matter how many years ago it was.
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google. Only yesterday I stubbed my toe and this hasn't turned up on Google. I just happen to think that something as major as calling for the ban of a classic film might cause a bit of a ripple somewhere.
And yet you've been obtuse about it. This is the first time you've acknowledged that not all facts are on the internet - probably because I backed you in to a corner where you can't squirm out of it.
People have said other people are trying to ban it.
Correct. Yet YOU moved the goal-posts saying that we said it has been banned. Then you tried to prove that it wasn't banned because you could still get the movie.
I think that Cons are retards because they want to ban The Shawshank Redemption. I mean, I can't provide any proof of this, but just because I can't, doesn't mean it's not happening. Know what I'm saying?
No, no one knows what you are saying because your head is buried so far up your anus we can't understand you. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 12:16 PM)
And yet you've been obtuse about it. This is the first time you've acknowledged that not all facts are on the internet - probably because I backed you in to a corner where you can't squirm out of it.
Really? This is what is upsetting you? Listen, I never made any comment one way or the other about 'all facts are on the internet' because I didn't think that was relevant. I am talking about one specific claim
Just to recap for the easily confused- The OP said that liberals suck because they are trying to ban Blazing Saddles.
- I asked for some proof that this is in fact happening.
- You came back with a load of irrelevant detail about your Dad being in the Space Program and the fact that you couldn't find any details of people trying to ban Soap (despite the fact that these details are easily available on the internet and your claim really boiled down to 'I don't know how to do a search on the internet')
And you accuse me of trying to move the goalposts.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
-
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 12:34 PM)
Not upset, just hate obtuse, pretentious douche bags such as yourself.
Yes, let's recap:
You
Has anyone tried to ban this movie? Seriously?
Me
I can't see where they have tried to ban it,
You -
So no one's tried to ban this movie then?
(No, you weren't being obtuse at all, were you?)
Me -
I don't know. I Googled it and got no instance of it being banned, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been. Just because Google doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
You -
So typical Con logic
(No, you weren't being a douche-bag going for an insult when someone is having a discussion that isn't fully in line with your "thinking.")
Me -
Thinks that if it doesn't exist on Google it doesn't exist at all.
You -
I didn't mention Google. You did.
(Nope, not pretentious at all there.)
You -
What I'm asking for is any link to anything anywhere that says there is an attempt to ban Blazing Saddles. No link has been provided. You'd think attempting to ban a film would cause some fuss.
Me -
I also provided a sound reason why there might not be a link to a source - it may pre-date Google/the internet.
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
Your point was quashed here but you couldn't accept it.
You -
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
Let's just hold on to this one a little while.
You -
I was stating a fact. If something is freely available, it hasn't been banned.
I was going to say you were being obtuse here, but it is more accurate to say idiotic since no one said it had been banned. YOU moved the goal posts.
Me -
Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google? Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
You -
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
Again you display your ignorance since I clearly did NOT say it had been banned.
Me -
My point about stuff happening even though it isn't on Google is perfectly valid - you just don't like it.
You -
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google.
Wait a minute! What was that you said earlier?
You -
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
So, are you stupid, a hypocrite or both?
I like cats. I've often watched them play with a mouse for hours until it gets bored with it and puts the mouse out of its misery.
Please put us out of your misery by not posting any more. I almost feel bad doing this to you, but you are such an obtuse, arrogant, moron that it is fun smacking you around like this.
Next time, if you want to have a discussion, lose the insults. You look EXTREMELY stupid when you start throwing them out there when you are obviously too stupid to have a discussion. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 01:07 PM)
You -
I've never denied this. I'm sure that things happen that aren't on Google.
Wait a minute! What was that you said earlier? You -
But if there was enough of a fuss caused to warrant people getting so annoyed that they have start threads saying "Liberals suck" then I presume there'd be some record of this. Somewhere.
So, are you stupid, a hypocrite or both?
Oh dear. Is this honestly what you think counts as hypocrisy? Do you not honestly see the difference between 'everything everywhere and anytime being recorded and accesible via Google' and 'something as major as as Liberals attempting to ban a film not being found on the internet'. Given that every major news source, most minor news sources and millions of bloggers and posters of all kinds of stripes are posting on the internet, you'd think something like 'trying to ban a film' would make some ripple? Wouldn't it? Do you think maybe the liberal media have got hold of the entire internet and purged every single mention of them trying to ban Blazing Saddles? I mean is this what you really think?
Because you think that something that happened 40 years ago warrants a link on Google? Again, the TV show "Soap" was controversial in the late 1970's and people made a stink to have it removed. The network took it off for a while, and then brought it back with a warning about it being controversial.
You -
So the fact that Soap was CANCELLED (not banned) exists and is freely available on the net. Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
Again you display your ignorance since I clearly did NOT say it had been banned.
Well done on stripping out the bit where you said "Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970s, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned" - so the show getting banned was something you brought up. Of course if the show got cancelled not banned, you wouldn't find anything about the show being bannedbut the information about the controversy around "Soap" was easily available to anyone who looked.
I also provided a sound reason why there might not be a link to a source - it may pre-date Google/the internet.
The film was made over 40 years ago. Do you think that every time someone threw a hissy-fit over it in the 1970's or 1980's or even the 1990's it is recorded on the internet somewhere?
And, I never said that they ARE trying to ban it, so your "proof" is invalid.
Your point was quashed here but you couldn't accept it.
My point was not quashed at all. My point is, if someone is going to go round calling people scum for trying to ban something, it might be a good idea to actually produce evidence that this is happening.
I do understand your pain, I really do
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better -
justanicknamed — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 01:19 PM)
You must REALLY love the abuse, because you keep coming back for more.
Look you moron, YOU are the one who keeps saying two different things. You keep saying a movie was banned, then try to prove it wasn't, when no one has said it was banned. Are you really that stupid? (Yes)
Well done on stripping out the bit where you said "Hell, if you Google the TV show "Soap" from the late 1970s, none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned" - so the show getting banned was something you brought up
Holy SH!T your reading comprehension SUCKS!!!
"none of the information that comes up on the searches shows anything about the show getting banned"
That means there wasn't anything about it getting banned. I didn't say it did get banned. I said it didn't show anything about it getting banned even though there were people trying to get it banned.
Holy SH!T again you are stupid! You don't even know how stupid you are.
And you don't understand my pain. Mine is in my brain. Your pain is in your anus from all of your boyfriends.
I laid it all out there step by step. The best you can do is ignore the parts I DIRECTLY QUOTED which show how wrong and stupid you are.
Please, go away. I'm almost starting to feel like I'm beating up on a special needs child. -
Culfy — 10 years ago(July 21, 2015 01:29 PM)
I never said that Blazing Saddles was banned. The OP said Libs tried to ban it. All I've ever asked for is any evidence that someone somewhere is trying to ban it. I'd just like to see any evidence at all that is in fact happening. Anything? Anywhere?
Ever tried. Ever failed. No Matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better