‘L.A. Times’ Writer Slams ‘Anti-Hollywood Crowd’ With Everything But Facts
by John NolteThe other day, the L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein responded to this post of mine with a beauty of a headline:
“New Muhammad biopic drives the anti-Hollywood crowd nuts”
You know, sometimes you just have to put politics aside and take a moment to admire the tactics of your opponents, because no matter how you slice it, that is one gorgeous humdinger of a headline.
At a glance, the headline intentionally furthers the whole “conservatives are intolerant” narrative with the inference that I somehow have a problem with a big-budget biopic about the prophet Muhammad. Later in his piece, Goldstein doubles down on that smear with this:
But as usual, the news has aroused a storm of derision from conservative bloggers, who always find a way to be offended by any high-minded Hollywood project.
Odd… Especially when the very first sentence – the opening line — of my piece says the exact opposite:
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a respectful, big-budget biopic of the prophet Muhammad[.]
Nowhere in Goldstein’s 650-plus worder does he quote that. But you have to remember that Goldstein’s not a journalist. He’s an ideological warrior who writes about movies (so am I … but I admit it), and so I tip my hat in admiration to his headline — a well-executed opening salvo.
The headline, however, is not just about smearing me. He’s after the whole “anti-Hollywood crowd” (i.e., conservatives). If you read Goldstein’s entire piece you’ll see that only yours truly is referenced or quoted. But that’s inconvenient, so one guy magically becomes a “crowd” and a “storm of derision from conservative bloggers.”
Don’t get mad, it’s the L.A. Times… I’m lucky every reference doesn’t read, “Small-Child-Hater John Nolte.”
The rest of Goldstein’s post just tries to make the same lame point that I (i.e., a “crowd” of “bloggers”) have some kind of issue with the Muhammad movie — blah, blah, blah — mentions a film that portrays Christians in a positive light (“a” film — as in “one” – as in I wouldn’t have bothered) — but here’s my second favorite quote:
Nolte conveniently forgets that the prime reason why Hollywood studios kept their distance from “Passion of the Christ” was because the film was viewed by many as offering an anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews, not because anyone had a lack of regard for Christians.
Good grief, where to begin? I know … let’s take Goldstein at his word:
First off, every single Hollywood studio interpreting a faithful retelling of the Gospels as “anti-Semitic” is its own form of ignorance and anti-Christian bigotry. Secondly, if those same studios were just as eager to “keep their distance” from films “many view” as bigoted portrayals of Christians, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios wouldn’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic, but as we now know throwing a little urine on Christ and stereotyping Christians as falling for a drop of piss as a divine sign is perfectly okay.
To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios won’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic, but this was okay. And so was this. And this. And this. And a confession. And this. And this. And…
Look what I did. I listed a whole bunch of high-profile studio films that “many view” as anti-Christian released by the very same studios who refused to release a film “many view” as anti-Semitic.
I’d list the independent films and television episodes “many view” as anti-Christian but the Internet only holds so much data.
I admire Nolte’s passion, but I can’t say that he’s made much of a case.
Then I thank you for making it for me.
Yeah, sure, every once in a while something that treats Christians fairly pops out of an industry that considers the very foundation of the Christian faith — the Gospels — anti-Semitic. And while these films are appreciated, they’re also notable exceptions. But when it comes to the serial offense of denigrating, ridiculing, stereotyping and marginalizing — anyone with one good eye and a shred of intellectual honesty knows full well that Christians stand alone.
So please don’t piss on my God and tell me it’s raining.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
108 Comments
I love your sardonic wit John.
You have to remember that these are the same Jewish people who don't support Israel their country of origin. Instead they turn their backs and stand with the Hollywood crowd and obama. We're living in a Bizarro world where everything wrong is now right.
Mr. Nolte,
Again the dinosaur media demonstrates why the public rejects them.
This site and the contributors on it make no claim to dispassionate objective reporting and they are HONEST about it.
It is insulting when journalists don't even make an effort an unbiased reporting yet claim they are only laying out the facts and are offended when their biased position is pointed out.
Keep up the good work.
Well, John, you yourself had outlined what a war this is so it should come as no surprise he won't let facts get in the way of making his point. Why don't you invite him to an online debate with you on this topic?
One word Jed. C.O.W.A.R.D.
Kinda makes you wonder…hmmmm…abhors Passion of the Christ…Hollywood supports Hussein Obama…laughs at comedian urinating on pix of Jesus…lauds biopic on Mohammed…
Could they be getting ready for a Muslim jihad in the US?
All the Jews not supporting Israel should be given a cherem, with Rahm-A-Dan Emmanuel at the top of the list.
Wow John. I had no idea you were that powerful. One man is a"crowd"; one blog is a "storm." Kudos to you for that. But I wonder, does the LAT recognize how it marginalizes itself by bestowing that power on you.
Another irony here. $150 Million on a motion PICTURE about "He who must not be shown." Given the unusual deference on this issue, one has to wonder whether there will be any honest exploration of the darker side of Islam. Doubtful.
Shouldn't that be
LA Times "Writer" ?…
Just watched THE GREAT RAID again and was reminded of how the soldiers prayed before going into battle. Prayed for themselves and for the men they were to rescue. Once in a while, pro Chrisianity squeeks out.
John: Your writing is becoming more erudite and powerful with every article. I, for one, really appreciate your presence here.
It’s jealousy John, your readership is probably higher than his. Therefore he invokes your name, and BH to enhance his tripe!
A movie about "He who must not be shown?" Been done. "The Message." There were riots worldwide, it was the main excuse a Muslim group used to attack a Jewish building in Washington DC. Though the violence seems to have gone down the memory hole in all online articles about "The Message." And the talented director, Mustafa Akkad, producer of the "Halloween" movies, was killed in Jordan in a bombing, supposedly just because he was there when the bomb went off, but I have my suspicions. I just think that in assuming the Jihadists will credit them with reverence and accept the "not shown" workaround, the producers may be very wrong. I wish them luck.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kurtis Marsh and Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: ‘L.A. Times’ Criticizes ‘Big Hollywood’ With Everything But Facts http://bit.ly/38YYFn [...]
Ah! The soldiers PREYED in the film!
I was wondering why it got panned by the critics (Leftists, all of them).
This country is becoming more crazy each day, An the liberals wonder why so many Americans dont buy into there misguided beliefs.
This movie will be a laugh riot! A movie where the subject IS NEVER ON THE SCREEN!
The "Mohammed's-eye view" or "Mohammed-cam" shots will have Western audiences rolling in the asile….while doubtless muslims will be scrutinizing every frame for blasphemey.
I just woner if the film will show Mo (Piss Be Upon Him) deflowering his nine-year old bride.
Goldstein is channeling his inner Roland Emmerich.
it was a hit piece, Mr Nolte…
And having secularists like Goldstein weigh in on anything faith related is- well, like having Al Gore debate on global warming.
Neither know what the dickens they're talking about. Your original point on the 'Mohammed' biopic was positive, and the conundrum of Hollywood making something that is at best a dicey situation with Islamic audiences.
His take on 'Passion' represents the desire of some to rewrite history for their own partisan reasons. No self respecting Christian holds Jewish folk responsible for the Crucifiction, for it was a fortold event. The characters involved- including Pilate- were just elements in a cosmic event.
We could get into Constantine and the first council of Nicea but that's a debate for another time. Just understand that those who profess their ignorance- like Goldstein- for everyone to see just diminish themselves…
A true portrayal of Muhammad's life would definitely qualify for anti-Semitic (well, anti-Jew really). But I doubt if any of the harsher Quranic suras and hadiths would be included in the film, and if anyone in Hollywood would even raise a fuss if they were.
do you suppose Goldstein knows who buys tickets to the movies? What can we say about a prophet who approves of interbreeding with goats a end assasinating everyone who doesn't agree? I mean how much entertainment value is actually there?
What is the take home message from Mr. Goldstein's drivel? The Left lies, absolutely and without compunction.
John, I would wear their critisim as a badge of honor.
Congratulations Mr. Nolte! You must be doing something right. You can always, always, always tell who the left is afraid of because that's who they attack. Sarah Palin being the most recent and glaring example.
If the left is attacking you, it's because they're scared. Trust me on this one, I used to be one. I know the play book well.
I wouldn't worry about the movie. If they play it to appease fundamentalists Muslims, it will be so boring, no one will watch it.
And if they tart it up enough to gain some interest, fatwa city.
They're already sunk.
Barrie Osborne is making his $150 million Muhammad propaganda film with funding from Al Noor Holdings, a Qatar media company.
The film's theological consultant is a Sunni imam who has been banned from entering Britain – Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi.
Al-Qaradawi has condoned the Holocaust and supported the stoning of homosexuals.
He was denied entry to Britain in February 2008 because of his views in support of terrorist violence.
In a sermon, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 9, 2009, Al-Qaradhawi stated:
…"Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."
Osborne said the film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam?
I don't think so. Barrie Osborne is a sellout.
Agreed, if this thing ever gets off the ground, these people are in for one hell of a quick and painful lesson.
A more truthful TIMES headline would read:
"Conservative condemnation of Roman Polanski drives LA TIMES Hollywood writer nuts."
http://tinyurl.com/yafqvxy
A little revenge from the TIMES.
I'm looking forward to the midnight trip to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. I wonder if they'll show the rubble from Jewish Temple?
That would be good for at least a few thousand fatwas.
Dirty Harry…still kicking ass.
But as usual, the news has aroused a storm of derision from conservative bloggers, who always find a way to be offended by any high-minded Hollywood project
Unlike politically inebriated liberals, conservatives prefer to think before accepting the offered kool-aid. We're not offended by *any* high-minded Hollywood project, just the Jonestown variety. The same 'storm of derision' applies to high-minded L.A. Times reporters as well.
Excellent response, John!
The left doesn't know what a fact is.
I seem to recall hearing about that too, but could not recall the movie's title. The ironic thing is "he who must not be shown" was actually not shown! The actors talked to the camera.
These are people who killed over a toy bear and some cartoons. Yeaaa – logic and reason will do wonders with them.
Um, how are they going to make a Muhammed movie? During the cartoon jihad I heard every Islamist declare that their Prophet's image couldn't be depicted in any way. Maybe the lead actor can just keep his face covered through the film.
Hey, Goldstein. I'm not even Christian. What offends me is: (A) your bias; (B) your lies; (C) the fact that you have an entertainment-related job; and (D) the fact that your thoughtless, bigoted lies, which you get paid to print, virtually assure that I can never have an entertainment-related job unless I lie about my political views.
On second thought, does Hollyweird have a death wish? Making this movie will make Hollyweirdland a new favorite target for insane jihadists.
BRAVO!!
Same reason you can't debate the "intellectual's intellectual" Al Gore.
Is this more acknowledgement that A.B, and B.H. are a new and potent POWER in Hollywood, and hack publications like the L.A. Times feel they must respond to Big Hollywood and it's humble bloggers? Mah-levous!
There are no atheists in foxholes.
Yeah, that works pretty well, Kit.
they'll use the "Doonsbury" motif, a blank spot will depict the "Big Muh" aka "The Head Muslim in Charge" or "Let's Jihad! but Why? WHY NOT?"
"Small Child Hater" is not considered a smear among the most liberal of the liberals, who rabidly support partial birth abortion. Try "Puppy Killer."
A peripheral (if a bit wordy) point:
Mel Gibson's The Passion Of the Christ was trashed months before it came out. On the TV shows I watched, it was almost all Jews, one after the other, after the other, after the other, after the other.
The movie is released and it was an amazing feat. Besides making $300,000,000 (probably much more than that now) from a small investment, it was completely in Aramaic, a foreign language that no one speaks any more. Hollywood should have been bowing to Gibson. His accomplishment was unprecedented! – unprecedented! and that in itself put him in Academy Award territory. Did even one of the Jews who bitched on TV publically retract his comments? If they did, I didn’t see it.
Gibson, knows publically to let that sort of BS to roll off his back, quite likely held some fairly pissed off opinions about the Jew led Leftist hype against his brilliant film. Most importantly, he had no way of expressing them on TV because racist Jews could attack him as an anti-Semite.
He isn't going to be shown. Another movie like this one was made and people talk to the camera as if it was Mohammed.
When he was blitzed enough on alcohol, in my opinion, some of his subconscious got past his internal censors, and came out. Not one of the racist Jews who poked their stick at him was ever held to account and he is now remembered by nearly every Jew, religious or tribal, as he was tagged at the time: a Jew hater of the very worst kind.
It is almost as if Jews are supposed to be perceived as infallible in our media. There was no legit forum for Gibson to point out the truth. Instead, it might have very well spilled out of his subconscious while he was drunk.
This type of scam is a real pain in the ass.
This is exactly like the spate of Iraq War movies that came out after 2003. The precious geniuses thought they had something useful to say about an issue the American people already knew everything about and were already furiously debating on their own. Hollywood's contributions were like the interruptions of a little kid in a serious, "grown-up" conversation. You just want to pat the writers, actors and directors on their sensitive little heads and say "That's nice, sweetie – now go outside and play."
Now, in another effort to "change the world," these fruitcakes are going to tell us all about Islam. Thanks, guys, but we here in redneck country have been boning up on Islam for the last forty years. We know the good, the bad, and the ugly – way more than we want to know, in fact. Your little gloss on the subject isn't going to tell us anything we don't already know. And we know propaganda when we see it. So how about sparing us the experience?
Second on that. Look at Roman Polanski.
LDF – Living in the Volunteer State I am, sadly, all to familiar with fat "Prince Albert in a Can," the king of the internet. During Katrina he tipped (no pun intended) off the press about his involvement with a private plane flying down "relief supplies" to New Orleans. He then had the balls to let them interview him about how he had hoped to keep his involvement on the "q.t." Our local paper had a front page picture above the fold of his jowly siling puss, while the story about confirmation of Justice Alito was shunted down to a small story with no picture. I have no respect for the man. At least Nixon realized in 1960 it was better not to put the country through a recount.
P.S. – When someone out there has the guts to make something along the lines of "The Last Temptation of Mohammed," complete with Willem Dafoe doing full-frontal nudity, instead of reverential biopics meant to educate us poor, intolerant slobs about the "true meaning of Islam," then I'll believe in Hollywood's equanimity in matters of religion.
maybe we should all run right out now and get our advance tickets so we don't have to stand in line!
I remember "The Message" (aka "Mohammed, Messenger of God") very well. The Medved brothers wrote it up in their book "The Hollywood Hall of Shame", a tribute to the biggest box-office bombs in cinematic history. In that 1976 film Mr. Akkad was not allowed to present a corporeal depiction of The Prophet and had to make do with pov shots and his camel-riding stick. Being unable to show the audience the protagonist in a biopic is, to put it mildly, a great creative challenge. I wonder if Larry david will be signed on a a creative consultant?
"high-minded Hollywood project" – A new oxymoron !
We can only hope. Ever noticed how the rest of the world gets blown up, shot at, jihaded against…but Hollywood goes blissfully along. They sit out there watching the blood flow, and then they make movies about it – crass, clueless little commentaries on other peoples' actions and sufferings. Not to bring down evil on its denizens, but sometimes I wish something would happen to penetrate the shield of fantasy and glamour that seems to protect Hollywood from stuff the real world deals with every day. I wonder how those actors, directors, writers and producers would feel if they were actually in the crosshairs. Would they still be comfortable criticizing the beliefs and behaviors of people who really live through the shit we read about in the news? Would it all still be just a story to them?
The success of conservative themed books, which are dominating the best sellers lists, and continuing box office weakness of "it's America's fault" movies should be trickling down to Hollywood anytime now right? I mean, the money men in Hollywood will begin to see the obvious trend? Is "V" an aberation?
I'm JACKED! WOW,can't wait! The sequel will be bonkers! It's called "Islam – believe or DIE!"
they nixxed "Faster Mohammed DIE DIE!"
I'm JACKED! WOW,can't wait! The sequel will be bonkers! It's called "Islam – believe or DIE!"
"High-minded" and "Hollywood" don't belong in the same sentence…not even the same thought.
The way I figure it, dude said "Prophet" and the studio pezzonovanti thought he meant "Profit." The rest is Hollywood history…
I believe Ayesha was axctually six years old. Not nine.
As if Mohammed wanted an old hag!
Sure they do – any statement that makes them uncomfortable is a "fact" and therefore must be completely disregarded.
"…where everything wrong is now right"
And doesn't the Bible tell us that it would be like that?
Nolte conveniently forgets that the prime reason why Hollywood studios kept their distance from “Passion of the Christ” was because the film was viewed by many as offering an anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews…
Oh, please, Mr Goldstein, that's hardly true. We all know that the movie didn't turn out that way. The anti-Semitic concerns were pre-emptive and without merit. What kept the secular Jews that run Hollywood studios away was their repulsion of Mel Gibson, a practicing Catholic, bringing his personal vision of his faith to the screen.
There will be no artistic independence, no examining the bad parts of Mohammed's life which live on as literal permissions in the Koran to treat infidels, gays and women badly with Osborne's Mohammed. And, we all know why. It's going to be as sanitized as Chamber of Commerce promotional fluff piece otherwise lives will be lost in riots. Free speech surrenders to the mob.
Mr. Goldstein, what's been said on this site are legitimate issues, issues that you wouldn't have the guts to raise which is why you, the LA Times and Hollywood are so irelevant.
What about the Synod of Nicea? I mean, is this simply a reference to the incredibly inaccurate view of the Ecumenical Synod that the "Da Vinci Code" presents?
the sinner,
Patrick
Better yet, "Non-Prius Driver"
Last Temptation of Christ is a brilliant movie made by a devout Catholic… though I understand the point of hypocrisy. There Will be Blood is equally impressive. I can not imagine a Christian having much a problem with it.
Hell yeah to that Bugs! If I could ive you 10 thumbs up, I would.
Yep, it does Phil. In the end times.
Of course not, it's not in Louisianna.
"Therefore he invokes your name, and BH to enhance his tripe!"
Or to dwaw more readers, I mean 3 just isn't enough.
I trust you Ed.
Couple of thoughts –
First, isn't it ironic that for people who hate religion, Hollywood, and its myriad sycophants, so effortlessly adopt pseudo-religious language in attacking critics of filmmakers? I mean, who, exactly, is "anti-Hollywood?" Is Hollywood a religion (or, at the very least, is Goldstein unknowingly admitting to a monolithic religious/ideological character to ALL of Hollywood)? Are the "Hollywood deniers?" Sorta like anyone that challenges humanistic, naturalistic interpretations of science suddenly becomes "anti-science." It's a joke.
Second, my biggest problem with the idea of a Mohammed biopic is that there is no way it will be historically accurate. Even things that Muslims openly admit to (like the child bride that he married, if I remember correctly, when she was 6 and consummated the marriage with when she was 9) won't be shown, let alone the things that Muslims try to hide and lie about. (Which they are allowed to do – taqqiya).
In any event, it probably won't be any better than "The Messenger." Not only was Mo never shown, neither was any member of his family, nor could any dialogue be heard. So actors would "repeat" his words or just nod in response to dialogue that couldn't be spoken. Yeah, don't think that's gonna play so well for movie-goers.
the sinner,
Patrick
Hey I know..Since they can't show his image let's all pay 14.00 to go see a blank movie.
An excellent response, Dirty Harry. Nobody does it better!
Or maybe they could just put him in a burkka.
not quite. Constantine, who was about as christian as Bill Maher, (the deathbed conversion they will have you believe) made certain that the proper teachings of Christ were hidden, that the 'new world order' of the time needed a religion- so they paganized Christianity- most of the customs we're taught are Sumerian/Babylonian paganism. Jordan Maxwell has an excellent grasp on religious history- and speaks about the continuation of Ba'al and Horus through what is now 'mainstream' religion. Ultimately, the discoveries at Nag Hammadi in 1947 and the unearthing of the Gospels of St Thomas (Didymos Tomas of Judea) and the 144 verses that contain the esoteric messages of Christ that Constantine sought to repress
has changed things dramatically.
Namely that we are in charge of our spiritual ascendancy. Not the 'church'- a hierarchial artifice…
make sense?
I didn't see the movie, I read the book.
"Nowhere in Goldstein’s 650-plus worder does he quote that." Hysterical. Lemme guess. The only words they'll quote are the ones they put in your mouth?
Nolte. Rock solid. The mere fact that the Death Valley Tribune errrrrr the LA Times felt compelled to write that piece is telling.
Tells me that Big Hollywood is getting bigger and stronger. Smell fear anyone?
Great stuff. And the bizzarro world analogy by one of the bloggers is billiant.
naaa, its called obamaland
land of America haters and muslims to support the nobelbozo
but, it is in the process of taking its name back to freedom and the American way
One of the most important moments of the film is when Simon of Syrene stops to help Christ with the burden of the Cross. He heroically and compassionately does so defying the Romans (who are the real villains of the film) and in a moment you won't find in any four of the Gospels, one of the Roman soldiers calls Simon a "dirty Jew" or something of the like.
Michael Medved talks at great length of the importance of this moment in one of his books.
To call "The Passion" anti-Semitic is to call the Gospels anti-Semitic and to call the Gospels anti-Semitic is purely and simply smearing Christians.
Goldstein crafted his own rhetorical trap with that nonsense. Pulling the lever on him was the easy part.
Hollywood won't be a problem much longer.
The Muslims have seen through this attack by Hollywood on Islam and a fatwah has already been prepared.
We need to get the message out to every Islamic sect that Hollywood is mocking Allah and their prophet and deserves to be destroyed.
Starting with George Clooney and Barbra Streisand.
This guy had better be 100% correct or he's got some explainin to do after he's room temperature.
Just ask what Muhammed did to the Jews in Arabia who refused to accept his religion.
Are you being serious? No, really, I'm asking, because as you may know from earlier posts, I'm not the quickest at picking up on subtle sarcasm, and I can admit that. If you are, I have some serious problems with that interpretation. That Constantine only had a deathbed baptism doesn't necessarily say anything about his faith or lack thereof; it was customary in the fourth century for wealthy Romans to be baptized on their deathbed. Furthermore, that whole thing about 'true' Christianity being submerged sounds very much like Gnosticism, and I don't mean that in a good way. Anyway, if it was tongue-in-cheek just let me know, and I'll continue to work on my perception of dry wit.
not gnosticism- but the Gnostic Gospels which is hugely different…
Constantine was a murderer and a tyrant. A bad guy. We really do believe that pagan rituals are being taught by all 'mainstream' religions- with the net goal of subservience to easrthly masters.
Don't expect a lot of agreement on this, it is the culmination of a LOT of research.
Gnosticism as a religion is no better… we could go on but perhaps we should both leave it alone.
Let's just say an 'intimate' relation with Christ is a VERY good thing…
Great. But I think Mr. Axelrod or Rahm Emauel should have been in this film somewhere paying homage to their deity….or making a cameo appearance, sucking off a picture….would be funny, like Larry David pissing on Jesus..right?? I mean, what's the difference, I am sure the Muslim world wouldn't mind an Axelrod sucking the rod….hmmm….hymmmm……hmmmmmm
I hate Hollywood like any normal person who works here. However, I'll let the Muhammad issue out (not that I am that fond of him, either), and I'll go to Goldstein's remark, or rather at what has truly caused it – PARANOIA.
Liberals are generally paranoid types, and also they live in small, sect-like groups, where everyone has to prove that is enlightened – I simply wouldn't stand this pressure unless my life would be on the line. And further, for the Hollywood liberals (oxymoron), the standard stress they live as liberals is augmented by the fact that Hollywood is not liked, that they live on a very thin crust of ice which can crack at any time – socially and business. So they have nervous breakdowns, go ballistic over the slightest challenge or perceived threat to their status quo –
Remember the Scientology dude who walked out from the interview last week? Well, that's Patrick Goldstein -
Even though this is pretty much business as usual for rags like the LA Times it will never cease to amaze me that a writer could put together a piece full of outright lies and still retain his job. Does this seem rather incredible to anyone else?
I quit watching 60 minutes 20 years ago because they did a hit piece on a topic of which I had some knowledge. I was horrified at the mis-representations and haven't watched network news since that time. I don't even know why these sorts of things are legal – I thought we had slander/libel laws.
Rule number what ever) When in fear of being wrong, go viral and attack, attack, attack. Don't think, attack. Don't reason, attack. Ignore facts, attack.
The left doesn't care what the facts are. There's a Utopia that needs planning.
I meant to point out the Bernard Goldberg, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager were Jews who refused to trash The Passion Of The Christ.
Interesting point Mr. Nolte. If I recall correctly Matthew's Gospel shows up in the historical record somewhere around 85 AD – 115 AD, when it was translated from Aramaic to Greek. Because of the abundance of references to Hebrew scripture, it suggests the intended audience were interested in converting Jews. But the text was almost certainly written by Jews.
So how can MAT 27:25 be antisemitic?
I watched V when it first came out back in the day. To be honest, I still can't figure out why some one would think resurrection it would be a good idea?
As near as I can tell, they're thinking of trying to glomb on to the Vampire craze. Look like humans, only better, and oh yeah, they eat you too.
But how are they going to make a Muhammad movie if they can't show Muhammad?
Isn't it sad, that Nixon had more dignity and class than the current batch of politicians?
And the press keeps changing around the chairs on their titanic. How much money did the LA times loose this quarter?
The only logic is a gun barrel staring down their nose, and the reason is the round clicking into place in the chamber.
Roger – You would think eventually they (L.A. Times) and their ilk would go under financially unless Congress bails them out with your and my tax dollars. Talk about separation of church and state, that sure seems to me like the first step down the slippery slope towards Pravda.
Or unless you, you know, try. And prove to have a little talent. And are willing to work like hell for it. But it's much easier to lie on the couch eating Cheetos and whining about how the mean libs would never let you into Hollywood so it's not even worth trying.
If this isn't the dictionary definition of a loser, you need a new dictionary.
Yeah, the sequel will be the bloody action movie featuring his infamous rapes and beheadings while this prequel will show how he used to have seizures in his cave, frothing at the mouth while he contemplates suicide. Since it'll probably feature muhammad in first person camera view, FPS action games can't be far behind.
Like the adults on the Charlie Brown cartoons?
I'll repeat my suggestion upthread: like they depicted the adults in the Charlie Brown cartoons.
"Wa-waaa-wa-wa-waaaaugh!"
I've written six screenplays and optioned one. As I clearly explained, the problem is that, thanks to ideological gatekeepers like Goldstein, I can't do this unless I lie about who I am and what I believe.
Why don't YOU try that and see how YOU like it.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the LA Times has become so irrelevant that it will have to be a very small badge.
Ditto.
They don't "wonder," that would be an indication of intelligence, and the desire to seek out knowledge.
They believe anyone who doesn't agree with them is either mentally deficient or the devil incarnate.
Perhaps no one followed up with Passion of the Christ II, because the first movie was just awful.
It was obscenely gory, and the English subtitles kept drawing my eyes from the obscene gore onscreen, which I found very disturbing. I mean, it was disturbing that I didn't want to miss the disturbing material because of reading the disturbing subtitles. I don't know what I mean, but the movie was too awful for me to allow my grandsons (both over 16) to see it.
And then, of course, there were the revelations into the character of Mel Gibson himself. There are MG apologists who comment in these pages, making defenses and excuses for his rotten attitudes and behavior, but most sane and reasonable people were shocked and outraged by his idiocy and hate.
Maybe that had something to do with Hollywood kind of ignoring the movie like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. I'm guessing…
I don't see how anyone could defend Mel Gibson. He's out there, way, way out there.
Isn't he a member of his dad's church, which includes like 3.5 people, and spouts craziness on a number of topics?
Excellent quote to go down in history coined by John Nolte, "So please don’t piss on my God and tell me it’s raining."
Has anyone heard this anywhere else?
Stupid Christians: Kicks are for Ribs!
You must be logged in to post a comment.