Missouri Mayor Kind of Agrees With Kansa City shooter

iffy....
a bit more info about birth of a nation....the film has always been celebrated as a cinematic triumph of early film making....
when will you and putz boy realize that you can't shape history to suit your needs just as you cannot shape the present day....

stung by criticisms that the second half of his masterpiece was racist in its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan and its brutal images of blacks, Griffith tried to make amends in Intolerance (1916), which criticized prejudice. And in Broken Blossoms he told perhaps the first interracial love story in the movies—even though, to be sure, it's an idealized love with no touching....

One famous part of the film was added by Griffith only on the second run of the film[43] and is missing from most online versions of the film (presumably taken from first run prints.)[44]
These are the second and third of three opening title cards which defend the film. The added titles read:

A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE: We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue – the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word – that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare

and

If in this work we have conveyed to the mind the ravages of war to the end that war may be held in abhorrence, this effort will not have been in vain.

Various film historians have expressed a range of views about these titles. To Nicholas Andrew Miller, this shows that "Griffith's greatest achievement in The Birth of a Nation was that he brought the cinema's capacity for spectacle... under the rein of an outdated by comfortably literary form of historical narrative. Griffith's models... are not the pioneers of film spectacle... but the giants of literary narrative."[45] On the other hand, S. Kittrell Rushing complains about Griffith's "didactic" title-cards,[46] while Stanley Corkin complains that Griffith "masks his idea of fact in the rhetoric of high art and free expression" and creates film which "erodes the very ideal" of "liberty" which he asserts....

the term Chelsea fetus was run in the new your post and has since been changed by their editors....
once again you show how blatantly stupid you are...
what a putz and I don't think your jewish.....
Chelsea's "baby"? Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's follow the NY Times style guide and only refer to it as Chelsea's fetus.... Originally Posted by stevepar

I guess old Woodrow(D) did not see it that way... HUH?

iffy....
try to remember the year the film was released and how much racism existed at that time...as I said before the film was a cinematic triumph seen by millions...
wilson was a big time racist....to think his policies in any way reflect todays' democrats shows what a major moron you are....you're grabbing at straws to try to make your stupid point....just more weak shit from a small mind just like putz boys'....
between you and putz boy I don't know who is the biggest moron....I think it's a dead heat....too bad you and putz guy can't have a child...although I think you should book a motel for the weekend and give it the old college try...you won't need condoms and lube,,,,if you could conceive the child be the poster child for having abortions....

"Most people think of the Democrats as being the softer and more liberal of the two parties. That's undoubtedly true today, but back in the day of Wilson, the Democrats were as radical as they got. If you actually take the time to look into our country's history, you'll discover that we've had more than a handful of radical nutcases for president (the most recent example being 2000-2008".

I guess old Woodrow(D) did not see it that way... HUH? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

If you actually take the time to look into our country's history, you'll discover that we've had more than a handful of radical nutcases for president (the most recent example being 2000-2008". Originally Posted by stevepar

Actually, I think you could extend that back to 1964, up to and including today, and the foreseeable future. Some may want to go back as far as 1961. I don't think Ike was a radical nutcase. But since then, they seem to be getting worse with each election.

IIFFy, you are the biggest non sequitur on this whole board. So in your mind since there are dumb people out there, that makes shooting people outside a synagogue OK? You really are a sick puppy.

And because some morons think a supreme court justice should vote based upon skin color, that means it's OK for you to be stupid AND bigoted?

How is Clearance Thomas' vote on Michigan affirmative action related to your hero, the KKK nut job killing people? Typical IIFFY, caught being stupid and you go into cut and paste dumbest mode.

PS: Since you claim I am a racist, what race am I? Either you know or you are just spewing again. Here's your opportunity to get something right and show you are not 100 percent blowhard.

four questions for Slobbrin.

Old-T, don't get your hopes up.

Expect a reply in the form of a black dude on a YouTube.

It's IIFFy, my expectations are low.

24 hours in, the low expectations do seem accurate.