This seems to be just a few selected scenes.  I'm sure the entire movie will be available online within a few days.

The hubbub reminds me of when Last Temptation of Jebus and the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre premiered, but this is just like a SNL skit with bad production quality.

We're probably at the front end of protests and violence for this particular insult to Mohammed. I predict the beginning of a cultural trend of art that taunts the Islamic belief. How fun...

Anybody but the Scientologists. They don't blow you up, they sue you into the next century. Waaayy worse.

Does it have the sex scene with Aisha?

opsec wrote:

It's counterintuitive, but the weird thing about religion is that the more modern the sect the more batshit crazy it is.

Attribute it to religious creep.  The new religion's genesis story and rationale for separating devotees from the rest of society must out do those preceding.

Egoist wrote:

opsec wrote:

It's counterintuitive, but the weird thing about religion is that the more modern the sect the more batshit crazy it is.

Yes, mainline Lutherans are MUCH crazier than the majority of Amish, orthodox Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Jainists, etc.

You clearly missed the previous post to which Opsec responded: he was referring to New religions such as Scientology. New religions are defined as those movements based on either original ideas or on older, traditional religions, that have arisen within very recent history. Scientology, Eckankar, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soka Gakkai, and similar groups all fall under this category.

AladdinSane wrote:

It isn’t a matter of freedom of speech

Nice post.

But always remember that Free Speech as known in America basically doesn't exist elsewhere in the world.  Most countries ban hate speech and perceived inflammatory speech.


(Hell even we ban the word "fire" if spoken in the wrong environs.)

opsec wrote:

It's counterintuitive, but the weird thing about religion is that the more modern the sect the more batshit crazy it is.

It only seems that way. Like some strange uncle that everyone pretends isn't married to his car.

sigmoid freud wrote:

I wonder how Romney would feel about a video depicting Joseph Smith as the charlatan he was.

Well - and I know this is reaching a bit - but I think it's a fair bet he wouldn't blow up an embassy.

If this was taken seriously, it would still be more dignified

whosasailorthen wrote:

Well - and I know this is reaching a bit - but I think it's a fair bet he wouldn't blow up an embassy.

Of course not. But would he shrug and go on to something else like a geologist does with bible-thumpers?  I doubt it.

And he must suck the dicks of the Christian Right to stay on the True Conservative Path.

Obama's a crappy president.  Romney would be worse.

Basically,  I  think we're fucked no matter what. Why?  Simple.  The operating philosophy of those who own, not run,  OWN the country is this:

There is no god but Money, and it's all about the Profits.

Last edited by sigmoid freud (2012-09-14 01:50:34)

whosasailorthen wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

I wonder how Romney would feel about a video depicting Joseph Smith as the charlatan he was.

Well - and I know this is reaching a bit - but I think it's a fair bet he wouldn't blow up an embassy.

Unless it's in Iran, then all bets are off.

whosasailorthen wrote:

gives nothing to charity.  Romney does.

Romney pays tithes to his church, that 10% tithe is a requirement to be in good standing.

That's not charity, that's a membership fee.

Emmeran wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

gives nothing to charity.  Romney does.

Romney pays tithes to his church, that 10% tithe is a requirement to be in good standing.

That's not charity, that's a membership fee.

From: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 … years.html

"In addition to their church donations, the Romneys had deductions for more than $2 million in donations that are listed as noncash charitable contributions. That includes tens of thousands of shares of stock in Domino’s Pizza Inc, Senasata Technologies, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott that went to his family’s Tyler Foundation, based in Boston. "

....

"The Tyler Foundation made $647,500 in donations during 2010, including $75,000 to the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis and $10,000 to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. It also donated $145,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, $100,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library and $10,000 to the Harvard Business School, of which Romney is an alumnus."

" From a tax perspective, it makes sense for the Romneys to use shares of stock to make charitable donations, Mayer said. If someone donates shares that have increased in value, they can deduct the contribution while avoiding the 15 percent capital gains tax they would have to pay otherwise.

“It’s a very common strategy,” Mayer said.

Still, the large amount of cash donations reflects that Romney wasn’t engaged in an aggressive strategy to use charitable contributions to lower his taxes, said Miranda Fleischer, an associate professor of taxation at the University of Colorado Law School.

“In 2011, about 75 percent of what he gave was in cash and that’s not necessarily the most tax-advantageous method,” she said."

In the period 2000-2004, Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity. 

In the period 2005-2006 (now visible as a candidate for election) Obama still gave only 5%.

In 2010 Romney gave 13.7% of his income to charity (church + outside charities).

Under the estimated return for 2011 Romney gave 19.1%.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2012-09-14 12:03:33)

Emmeran wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

"The Tyler Foundation made $647,500 in donations during 2010, including $75,000 to the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis and $10,000 to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. It also donated $145,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, $100,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library and $10,000 to the Harvard Business School, of which Romney is an alumnus."

"If you’re wealthy, you set up your own private foundation,” Mayer said. “You get a deduction now" (without actually giving anything away)

Ergo, his foundation donated a mere $95k to actual functioning charities; the rest was mandatory donations to church, political party and finally $10k to get Harvard off of his back.

I donated at a far higher rate than he did.

However you measure it, it's still a way higher percentage of income donated to charity than Obama did.

I'm just sayin'... I think the guy's got more heart than Obama.  Feel free to disagree.

"Who is Obama? Today's U.S. president, holding enormous power in his hands. But his relatives did not gain any extra care because there is such a president relative and continued to do what they should do. This is incredible. This not only reflects Obama's amazing self-control, but also reflects the perfection of the U.S. legal system."

I don't know where you find this shit, but you should read the articles you link to.

lGay porn actor has a role in trailer

Last edited by Taint (2012-09-14 13:08:43)

whosasailorthen wrote:

Taint wrote:

lGay porn actor has a role in trailer

Page not found.  Did you mean this?

Nope. I meant this. Thanks for catching it, though.

Let's get this back on track, here's a fact I didn't know:

The air was thick with tear gas, but people have learned from the revolution that a bit of Coca-Cola in the eyes will take away the burn.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was reportedly sodomized and raped before his tragic death in Libya according to a report by a Lebanese media publication Tayyar.org.

I assumed the person who wrote the article meant the ambassador was anally raped, and wasn’t precise in their use of the language.  On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Ambassador Stevens was a "man with a pussy" like Buck Angel.

Emmeran wrote:

Decent read

Thoughtful but no revelations. American reactionaries are just as unlikely to listen to reason or to open themselves to compromise. Both sides, if it can be generalized into just two sides, are screwed for now.

Emmeran wrote:

Decent read

At one time Christianity was a dangerous beast, able to cause major wars and have millions of people put to death for trivial reasons.  Eventually the monster was deballed, defanged, and declawed, and today is able to do little more than shit all over the carpeting.  Islam is beginning to experience a similar process of neutralization; it won’t be complete during our lifetimes, but it will be accomplished in time.

Emmeran wrote:

Decent read

So what he is essentially saying is that the violent tendencies of Islam isn't their fault, it's that they have been verbally abused and kept down by The Man (The West) and what they need is soothing words and soft lighting to calm themselves down? They are wholeheartedly embracing the Victimhood agenda. While that shit may fly in a juvi courtroom, I'm having a hard time with it out here in the real world.

I think that the real issue at the heart of the matter is that the Islamic world hearkens back to the middle ages when they were on top of the world and the source of learning, cultural progress and stability. Europe had regressed back into the middle of the third grade, civilization-wise and the Eastern empires of the Mongols were inbreeding themselves into indolence. But from the time of Muhammad through the Umayam Caliphate being Arab was the shiznit. Cities were built, trade was brisk and gold piled up in cities and was spent on universities and hospitals. But what has happened since then? Two things: The Ottomans and the Brits. The Ottomans butt-fucked their way through all that gold and squandered it on useless palaces. Then the Brits came in and chiseled the rotting corpse into pieces and then pitted them against each other with their arbitrary property lines.

Now what do you have left? The 'Stans with little infrastructure and no cultural cohesiveness. They would be fine if left to themselves, but people keep finding oil, minerals or strategic buffers there. Or you have the Oil Sheikhs and their 100% imported lifestyle, trying to reproduce the glory days of the Sultans on oil money and imported expertise.

But it's all a moot point if you live in an Islamic country with some upward mobility like Indonesia or Pakistan. You are too busy to blow up buses if you need to get to work and hustle to move up in the world. But if you know that no matter what you do you will die in poverty married to a wife with a bigger mustache than yourself, blowing yourself up starts to seem a better career move.

(Shit, that wasn't intended to be that long, but I just had lunch with an ex-diplomat who spent 33 years working all over that area and he put a lot of interesting connections in my head)