« Open Thread | Main | Teh Gheys Against Free Speech »

Typical Liberal douche.

And a coward, to boot.

"You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have a fatwa..."

And what, pray, is an "Arab" symbol? A camel? A desertscape?
Doesnt he mean muslim, since not all Arabs are muslim, and not all muslims are Arabs?

However, nice concept a fatwa when applied to liberal dolts.

FATWA? What about a SKINNYWA?

Day after tomorrow--great production and neat special effects, but other than that it sucked. Dennis Quaid is capable of better movies. The 2012 movie looks like more of the same--great SPX but crap other than that a total waste of time. John Cusak won't get one thin dime of my money or one second of my time.

I asked our senior pastor, and they still said we're not supposed to burn dumpsters, flip over cars or kill hollywood film makers creating images of Christ being knocked over.

I'll keep asking though.

I understand the Mayan people aren't happy about being tagged w/ this 2012 nonsense.

The Bible says that nobody knows when the End will come, because the day and the hour is "not for you to know." Jesus was clear on that.

Good enough for me. The only thing I expect to see ending in 2012 is the Obama Administration. (Yes, I know he'll be in office 3 weeks into 2013.)

Repugnant, hypocritical dolt.

I agree, Emmerich is a total douche filled douche with douche coating.

But I did like those movies, because, unlike liberal feltchers, I realize it's just some mindless 2 hour escapism.

A few years ago some eco-wackos errected a idol showing the planet with a human figure standing on it the whole thing went and crumled all to peices becuase the earth freindly glue was no good TOO BAD LIBERAL DWEEBS

Why is he a 'douchenozzle' (juvenile and unchristian name calling)? Taken just at the words he said, it is actually saying that Christianity is a belief of peace, whereas Islam is a belief of violence. I read it as a statement against Islam, not an affront to Christianity.

Please excuse my language, I'm not normally a man of daggered words.....but

what a fucking pussy.

Why is he a 'douchenozzle' (juvenile and unchristian name calling)? Taken just at the words he said, it is actually saying that Christianity is a belief of peace, whereas Islam is a belief of violence. I read it as a statement against Islam, not an affront to Christianity.
Posted by: Jacob at November 3, 2009 3:36 PM

Precisely the point. Christians rarely if ever get violent when they, their faith, their Lord, or their sacred symbols are insulted. To say the same about Islam would be far too kind.

The man who freely mocks Christians for 'fundamentalism' or whatever, but lets Islam off the hook on the same charges...is a coward. Real thinkers aren't afraid to call a religion or philosophy what it is simply because some of its adherents might start rioting and burning things.

Granted, maybe an all-purpose, catchall term like 'douchenozzle' is too vague. It's kind of a general-purpose word to sling at someone you don't like. I prefer "coward," "selectively outraged," "mocker," "fool" and "liar." Is that better?

I realy liked that movie INDEPENDENCE DAY where the old buzzard flew his jet into that a

lien ship cuasing it to explode

(Yes, I know he'll be in office 3 weeks into 2013.)

Posted by: Cylar at November 3, 2009 1:59 PM

That is all the time needed for "The One" to get another Nobel.

Posted by: Jacob at November 3, 2009 3:36 PM- "Why is he a 'douchenozzle' (juvenile and unchristian name calling)? Taken just at the words he said, it is actually saying that Christianity is a belief of peace, whereas Islam is a belief of violence. I read it as a statement against Islam, not an affront to Christianity."

Bull****. The turd sandwich is a douche. It doesn't matter what he is saying here. What matters are his actions. If he wanted to make a statement about the contrast between Christianty and Islam, he would have put it all up on screen, and let the Jihadis show their hand. Instead, he takes the gutless, maggot-low route shown by making a random, completely inconsequential, utterance, that practically nobody will receive anyway.

How on Earth does this 2-bit interview stack up against what he has put out for world wide theatrical release? This "brave" murmur, up his sleeve, during such an interview, is supposed to provide "context"? Bull**** it does.

If he was serious about wishing to "make a statement" about the true nature of the "ROP", he would have included such a scene.

If he was concerend about "being sensitive", he would have not included ANY scene of religious destruction. Why is it required, for the film, anyway? There are plenty of secular landmarks, etc.

No, he is using his film to take a shot at Chritianity, in whatever form he can, and this statement is nothing but a pissweak attempt to avoid being called on what it is. He never intended to show any such "Muslim" scene.

If including the Christian scene is necessary in terms of "impact", for the story, he could have stated such, and added that Islam was NOT considered IMPORTANT enough to warrant inclusion.

Why not do that?

To quote Hank Williams:
"I'd love to spit Beech Nut in that dude's eye!"
What a coward.
I will not see that movie. No way

What a pusswad.

Grow some balls, Roland.

Effing douche. Sure, everyone can go off and diss Christianity, but you gotta leave the Muslims alone. What? Do we need Christian extremists bombing another building in NYC for people to leave off Christianity? And of course he won't diss the Jews cuz they effing own hollywood. If you're going to crush religious symbols, crush em all.

And look at that, he's gay. Of course he'll diss Christianity cuz it's not like christians will stone him to death when they find out he's gay.