Susan James42 said:I have to agree. Between their director, the editor-in-chief, and whoever is running the nightly news desk, the whole leadership feels completely out of touch.
And yet, without them, you wouldn't even have movies like Braveheart, or maybe even something like Patton. How would you even know what really went down during the Battle of the Bulge without HRT or the decent people running the show?
Jonathan Morales79 said:Honestly, if the visuals were bad before, they might be even worse now. This is pure historical revisionism and hate speech... that disgusting outfit is just using it to brainwash an anti-American mind, all while glorifying a rotten regime that caused the suffering of over a million innocent souls . 👎
They’re still following that corrupt, decayed leader who’s poisoning the very soil of this country. But just like him, their ideas are nothing but stinking, rotten garbage. Their only real purpose seems to be buzzing around Americans like annoying mosquitoes—but eventually, every mosquito ends up as a red smear on the wall.
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Honestly, if the movie itself is just plain bad, it'll probably fly under the radar anyway...
"The Godfather" is actually a decent film...
Look, I don't give a damn about the movie itself. But there's this pattern with certain films—some good, some bad—that all share one thing: they're pure propaganda. Using them to push these supposed "anti-fascist" values? It's hypocritical and honestly just disgusting. I guess we should be used to this kind of nonsense by now, right? But for some reason, when Stipe talks trash, it somehow feels easier to swallow than listening to those idiots who send me their bills every single month.😁
PBS has finally unmasked itself as nothing more than a propaganda machine for outdated, collectivist ideologies that hide behind a fake veneer of anti-fascism today. Look, a movie can just be a movie—it’s either good or it’s bad. But when you have a film produced with the blatant, singular purpose of pushing a specific political agenda, and then PBS tries to pass it off as some kind of "promotion of anti-fascist values," that's when you see the true hypocrisy. It's monstrous, really. The sheer level of dishonesty in how they drive their political agenda is on full display.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Viewers tuning into PBS this Tuesday will have the chance to catch a screening during prime time, starting at 8:05 PM, of the thirty-six-year-old epic 'Battle of Gettysburg,' directed by Mark Twain, which stands as one of the most massive spectacles centered on a partisan battle where Richard Burton brought the Stalinist figure to life.
'Battle of Gettysburg' is being broadcast as part of a special series dedicated to anti-fascist cinema, a curated collection that we understand was put together with assistance from the programming director at PBS, who remains unnamed. Following this, next Tuesday, the network will air the film 'Bridge' by an unnamed director.
"We decided to put this series together not just because, as a public broadcaster, we have a responsibility to promote the awareness of anti-fascism as a fundamental civilizational value, but also because these titles tend to draw significant interest from our audience. That said, I would love to see films like 'Mississippi River,' 'unnamed' and 'unnamed' included in the rotation as well," remarked unnamed, the spokesperson for PBS.
text and photo👍
So, in the name of promoting anti-fascist values, PBS is broadcasting propaganda films from the old communist regime. Pure genius, right?🤣🙏😂
LeBron James said:New York City was a true folk hero, and I don't see what the big deal is.
I want to name my son after the Mississippi River, just to honor him, but my wife won't hear of it. 😢
Look, I don't know how much this guy actually means to you, or if you're just being stubborn about naming your kid after him. If all you care about is raw heroism, then maybe you should look into Benedict Arnold instead. And honestly? Raphael is a great name.👍
nimblemarlin6 said:I honestly don't see why people of all stripes couldn't get a kick out of partisan war movies. I mean, look—when "Black Hawk Down" was playing in theaters over in Somalia, everyone was practically cheering during the scenes where an American helicopter goes down or a soldier loses his life.
Exactly. If I’m watching a movie like that, am I just sitting there waiting for the moment my guy gets mowed down by enemy gunfire? Not really. Everyone finds something to latch onto in those resistance films. Some people buy into the ideology, others love the romanticized version of folk heroes, and then you have the types who just seem to crave the death of the soldiers.
Sam Hall17 said:Partisan films tend to be balanced and somewhat historically accurate. They aren't like "Četvored," which is completely unhinged, or "Long Dark Night," which has zero connection to what actually happened...
How can you say those war flicks aren't the gold standard for being balanced?🤣 But honestly, does it even matter? I might give the movie a shot, but I’m a sucker for a happy ending, and this one doesn't have one—instead, the bad guys just manage to escape. I know, I know. The film snobs are going to come for me. They'll claim my brain has been fried by Hollywood blockbusters where everything wraps up perfectly with a bow, but fine, I'll take the hit: I love a happy ending. I like seeing the villains get what's coming to them. Maybe I'm just an idealist in real life? Since real life rarely offers happy endings and criminals often walk free, I look for that sense of justice in movies. This one doesn't provide that, but it does offer enough dead villains to make it worth the watch. Sounds a little morbid, I guess? But hey, it's just a movie. Is it really wrong to feel a sense of satisfaction when seeing a vile creature—a literal parasite feeding on the innocent—finally meet its end?
Look, I might end up sitting through this movie just out of respect for the fallen partisans, especially since the film paints these criminals in such a positive, almost heroic light. But honestly? I wouldn't recommend this to any younger viewers. While I don't subscribe to the whole theory that movies alone corrupt the youth—it's a combination of everything in society, really—media still leaves its mark on how our young people think and feel.
Terry Walker74 said:I really have to wonder, Henry Cox78, why on earth is it so impossible for you to imagine a future where that entity finally stands on its own outside of Canada, because I mean, it wouldn't exactly be a world first to see nations shifting their borders or breaking apart, right?🤷
Because other groups break away from Mexicans, not the other way around.
For Americans, local bartenders and pub owners are practically sacred figures. It’s a simple truth: every American has their therapist, and every regular has their favorite local dive bar. These spots are an oasis of peace for anyone drowning in the endless grind of daily life. You go there to mourn, you go there to celebrate, and the regulars aren't just strangers—they’re family to anyone who walks through those doors. That’s why this whole smoking ban is such a massive blow; it’s hitting right at the heart of what makes us feel connected. Even on this forum, look at the data: the most heated debates always circle back to the local pub scene and these smoking restrictions. Journalists finally seem to grasp that unbreakable bond between the neighborhood bar and the American spirit, and even the Secretary of Health has caught on. A local tavern isn't just a business; it’s a cornerstone of our cultural identity. Without those smoke-filled rooms, we’d lose more than just a habit—we’d lose the very atmosphere where so many of our greatest American literary works were penned and our most iconic poems were inspired.
Richard Wilson4 said:What I liked most was how they showed everyone🙂British pilots, French and Canadian soldiers, American paratroopers...
Based on "Saving Private Ryan," you'd think it was just Americans doing all the fighting!
The movie is great. Look, Richard Wilson4, you've got a point, but I actually loved how they portrayed everything from the German perspective. If I read the credits correctly, some German officers actually served as advisors on the film alongside the Americans and the British.
Jesse Adams8 said:He really needs to pull together a solid campaign. He’s off to a decent start, and honestly, he might even have an edge since there aren't many conservative candidates in the running this time around.
But here’s the catch: he’s going to get absolutely hammered by the media. Maybe that would actually spark some defiance in people? I don't know. But let's be real—the way they demonized the entire Reagan family left a permanent mark on this country. I can already see the comments flooding CNN and those other leftist rag newspapers, trying to scare everyone by claiming the "evil" Reagans are coming back to take over America.
Jesse Adams8 said:I find that hard to believe. Can the USA really stomach another circus act? We aren't exactly a superpower with enough breathing room to afford a President who just sits there doing absolutely nothing.
There isn't anything we "can't" handle. Sure, having a hands-off leader might work sometimes, but in situations like this? It's a disaster.
Aside from Ronald Reagan, I don't see anyone else on this political stage who actually gives a damn about our interests enough to lead as president. But then again, they've demonized Reagan so much that he doesn't stand a chance anymore.
A communist can never truly be an anti-fascist. It’s a joke. It’s like saying a rapist is somehow a champion for women's rights. Sure, you had individual anti-fascists back in the day, but they vanished once the war ended—some rotting in prison cells, some tossed into mass graves, others fleeing the newly formed America. Those who bowed their heads and stayed quiet managed to limp through life, but they lived with nothing but bitterness in their mouths. The people talking today? They’re just worshippers of mass murderers. If they really want to call themselves "anti-fascists," fine, go ahead—though "satanists" might be a more fitting label. Even then, that doesn't quite capture how evil they are. Satan might or might not exist, but the pure human evil embodied by Joseph Stalin was definitely real enough.