Cinnamon Stillwell

I’m the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. I was a political columnist for (San Francisco Chronicle online) from 2004-2008. I've written for the Algemeiner, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, Independent Journal Review, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, Family Security Matters, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, Jewish Press, J-The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, and many others.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

"300" - Critics Hate It, America Loves It

My new column at SFGate on the film "300":

"300" - Critics Hate It, America Loves It


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You missed another reason: Man Candy! It's eye candy for women and war porn men. I didn't even mind that half of the six pack abs were CGI! Tall hunky men running around in leather underpants with red flowing capes defending freedom...Hmmm... Ok. I'll watch that. And there's a story too! ;)

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ephraim Lytle, assistant professor of Hellenistic History at the University of Toronto, states that 300 selectively idealizes Spartan society in a "problematic and disturbing" fashion, as well as portraying the Persians as monsters and non-Spartan Greeks as weak. He suggests that the film's moral universe would have seemed as "bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians."

Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of Ancient History at California State University, Fullerton, criticizes the central theme of the movie, that of "free" and "democracy loving" Spartans against "slave" Persians. Daryaee states that the Achaemenid (Persian) empire hired and paid people regardless of their sex or ethnicity, whereas in fifth-century Greece "less than 14%" of the population participated in democratic government, and "nearly 37%" of the population were slaves. He further states that Sparta "was a military monarchy, not a democracy," and adds that Sparta collectively owned an entire enslaved population (the Helots).

Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," writing that the filmmakers "are stroking [sic] racist instincts in Europe and America." American critics, including Steven Rea, have argued that the Persians are a vehicle for an anachronistic cross-section of Western stereotypes of Asian and African cultures. Dana Stevens points out that the Persians, as the "bad guys", are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped and/or deformed people.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, give us a break Cinnamon.

"Let me tell you what the public likes: public executions". -Tony Wilson

Critics dislike "300" because it's a bad movie. Period. Some hide behind political extrapolations in an effort to justify their disdain for it, but by and large those who dislike it dislike it for the simple fact it's poorly directed, poorly acted, and little more than a shallow romp in comic book banality...which makes it just the kind of movie "America" would love, I guess.

Well, I'm an American, too, and I hated it. God forbid this country produce good films for people who want good films in the same vein as Bergman, Kieslowski, Kubrick, Kurosawa and Truffaut. But, oh, no, I must be a pretentious liberal who thumbs my nose at all things American. I couldn't possibly like the films by those directors simply because they're good movies, right? 300 "captures the public's imagination", so it must be a superior film, right?

Please. Populist tyrrany is still tyranny.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your whole premise is false: critics didn't hate it.

Your own newspaper, the SF Chronicle, gave it an excellent and detailed review.

Rotten Tomatoes polled it at 61% among critics -- that means moderately positive -- and decided that the consensus description among critics was, "A simple-minded but visually exciting experience."

You'd be more persuasive if you didn't need straw men to buttress your arguments.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinnamon, good article. You noted that the film did not hide the fact that Spartans practied infanticide. Well, we practice infanticide also, we just kill them before they exit the womb. What is the problem? sarcasm/off

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone beat me to it. "Critics" didn't hate it - Chronicle and the critic aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave it positive marks.

If you check out the top box office list this week and look at box office take and critics ratings you'll see:
% is % of positive reviews:

34% TMNT $24.3M
61% 300 $19.9M
47% Shooter $14.5M
17% Wild Hogs $13.9M
55% The Last Mimzy $10.0M
13% Hills Have Eyes II $9.7M
08% Premonition $9.6M
66% Reign Over Me $7.5M
45% Pride $3.5M
22% Dead Silence $3.4M

In fact, 300 is only 1 of 2 movies that got the coveted positive red tomato (>60% positive reviews) rather than a green splat.

If critics were representative of movie goers, critics would be between males between 16-28 (the largest moviegoer demographic, according to the movie industry). This demographic isn't swayed by media movie reviews - they go because they see a "kick-butt" trailer or ad, usually with lots of blood, sex, Jackass-type humor, or some combination of the above.

On the other hand, newspaper readers are an older, demographic who actually read newspapers in their spare time. This is the audience that movie critics are writing for, and who they must please.

It's not some intellectual or cultural conspiracy; it's called knowing your audience.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:30:00 PM  
Blogger seamus said...

"300" has gotten more good reviews than bad -- in fact, they're the very definition of "mixed reviews." Read or for evidence. In fact, I'm mystified that to read that "critics hate it" when I read a very positive review in your very newspaper just two weeks ago.

I happened to enjoy the movie as a stylistic fantasy. Of course, the Spartan talk of "freedom" was preposterous, especially if you attempt to draw parallels with the modern West -- the Sparta of "300" is a fascist military society that values violence and barbarism above all else, and smites all infants who appear unable to serve the state. It's ruled by a king, who himself must abide by the whims of a corrupt council of elderly advisers who literally live on a mountaintop. Now who's the Mullocracy here?

And I think that your view of why audiences have responded to "300" is fallacious. I went to see the movie in a packed house in Daly City last weekend, and looking around the theater, I'm thinking most people were there just to see a cool-looking movie.

It's a visually interesting and entertaining movie, and it's no deeper than an episode of Teletubbies or and evening with Lindsey Lohan. This is exactly is why it got mixed reviews, and why it's making a ton of box office.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah...

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:55:00 PM  
Blogger Blake said...

This is a ridiculous premise in an attempt to smear "liberal critics." It also ignores the fact that, despite ideology or your interpretations of it, movies are a storytelling-based form of entertainment. When they work, they have a strong narrative arc, well-designed story structure, compelling characters, and unexpected but unavoidable conclusions.
Is it possible that the critics who didn't like this film had issues with the above criteria? And simply evaluated it as a film rather than a political statement?
And since when does the Iranian government have a place among discussions of film critics?
It really seems like you're veering into O'Reilly/Limbaugh territory here. Thin premise; blame the liberals. Tiresome.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!! Critics loved it! YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

HA HA HA!!!! Cinnamon is a LIAR!!! She makes up stories to make a conservative point!!


I just love it when bad bloggers who make up shit are proven wrnog.

And anyway, please - people love the gore, the visual effects, and the MEN!!!! Womeon loved the men, gays loved the men, and straight men loved the men, because even straight men get a huge bonor over a bunch of ripped-ass guys with waxed chests.

So, yes, you are indeed a liar who doesn't even take the time to get her story straight.

See ya, LIAR!!!!!!

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Eye Candy"!! Exactly, I have been encouraged to see this movie by my teenage sons, who think I will like, by male friends who enjoyed it, and by female friends who like the 'eye candy'. 3 very diverse groups all saying 'go see it'. All adds up to a win, how many movie's can please those different groups?

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


OK, I was reading the Chronicle today and saw another Cinnamon article about pop culture, wich I find surprising because she already wrote about the Dixie Chicks and how they didn't deserve any awards and now she is on to the 300, which I haven't seen because I hate going to movies when they first come out because there are just sooo many people there and it's so awful at a bloodbath kind of blockbuster, they're all like 13 being loud and obnoxiuos and...ugh! OK, so I do want to see it on the IMAX though, cuz that would be cool.

But, ok, so anyway - I am thinking, why does she care about 300, it doesn't seem her sort of movie, but then I realized, well, it's everyone's sort of movie, isn't it? I mean, everyone enjoys a huge blockbuster from ancient times (Braveheart, Gladiator, even Ben Hur), except well, people didn't really like Troy, did they?

But, I read this and my first thought was, but the little man was sitting up clapping when the Chronicle reviewed it. And I read E Online every night, and they thought it was great, so, I don't think that critics hated the movie. So, I went to Rotten Tomatoes:

The overall consensus was a 61%. OK, so this doesn't exactly make it Schindler's List or Lost in Translation or The Queen or Gaslight (which is one of my favorite movies), but it certainly doesn't really qualify it as "critics hate it." OK, which made me remember that Cinnamon got the name of the Dixie Chicks song all wrong and then that made me remember, well, no she is not really a journalist, is she? She's part of the "blogosphere," and we know that anyone can write on a blog. It's just that the Chronicle picked her blog up for some reason, and I then I remembered someone said it might be because of Gender Identity Disorder or something. Well, whatev, because that was a while ago.

OK, so the point is, Cinnamon seems to have a real problem with facts, and so I think it's always just important to read everything with a grain of salt. Not just the grain you would need to read what Cinnamon says. Well, really you'd need a block of salt when you read her stuff, but bloggers don't need to check facts, so read all blogs with a grain of salt. Bloggers can say whatever they want, because we believe in free speech, and no one is going to shut down her blog because she never checks any facts; she just spouts drivel.

So, really, conservatives shouldn't get all bent out of shape because liberals are expressing their right to free speech by saying that, yes, all the violence and bloodshed and graphic displays of bodies being ripped to pieces in the 300 is OK because that huge hunk from Lara Croft is basically nude all the time, but no, it's not ok to do that in Iraq because Iraq is not a digitally inhanced war and George Bush and his dad's cronies are like 80 and physically not attractive at all and mentally, well, who knows if any of them have ever been ok mentally. Because, freedom of speech says that people against the war have the right to march and protest and at the same time people who write blogs never have to check facts or state the truth. So, freedom of speech protects us both. If they ever took it away, well, we couldn't protest the war perhaps, but then Cinnamon might have to actually check sources and publish the truth.

And really, if Cinnamon needs to talk about a movie critics didn't like but resonated with the public, how about Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. It has a 54% overall consensus but broke the opening weekend record with $135 million. I mean, wuoldn't that make her point better?

OK. Bye!

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinnamon, you need to move on to your neighborhood watch group or whatever it is you're moving on to. You're a has-been with the way you distort the facts and try to make everyting about the war in Iraq. Fact Number 1 - we're losing the war in Iraq. Fact Number 2 - we need to get out of Iraq before any progress will be made. Fact Number 3 - The critics did not hate 300. Fact Number 4 - you need to check your facts and be a more responsible journalist - if that's what you want to be called.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The War Nerd did not like this movie...see his review at

Some good quotes:
"Sparta was about as romantic as North Korea. Give or take a little egalitarianism, Sparta WAS North Korea."

"The script even has Leonidas taunt the Athenians calling them "boy-lovers." Athens, the true hero of the war against Persia, gets dissed time and again in this movie. You won't hear a word in 300 about Salamis, the real decisive battle of the war - because it was Athens, not Sparta, that destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis."

"It's downright hilarious the way this movie punishes every smart character. Every time someone wants to argue with the war party in this movie, he's evil. Everybody who talks in a normal tone of voice is evil. Snyder shows two scenes where the Spartans murder Persian envoys arriving under a flag of truce. And both times, you're supposed to cheer. Since when do Americans cheer when truce parties are murdered?"

"But here's what's really interesting about Leonidas's "freedom" speeches: every one happens just after he's thrown some envoy down a well or stabbed somebody who advocates talking strategy. That's the real fantasy here: wouldn't it be great if we could just yell "Hoo-ah!" non-stop and just kill the naysayers?"

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:37:00 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

The people love it and the elites hate it? Now I'll have to see it.

There are some scholars who like it like Victor Davis Hansen and my friend Doug Grant haven't lost that common touch.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good review, although a bit politically-biased near the end with the discussion on Iran (weird to see it in such length in a movie review, and could probably have been omitted). You could say you showed a bit of bravery yourself with this kind of review given the rabid politically-charged audience of the SFChronicle. I think that's evident in some of the comments here.

I went to see the movie out of curiosity because my professors and graduate student colleagues were pointing it out for perpetuating racist, "facist" ideaology.

I found the movie to be similar to Kill Bill. Heavily stylized. Lots of gore and blood, although rendered to be fake (computer generated dot splashes in this case). Even though reviews in general haven't been overwhelmingly bad, I can see how the idealism in the movie could make a liberal critic want to vomit.

I really didn't see the racism against Persians however. Could you imagine if the Japanese were up in arms about how they were depicted in Kill Bill?

Keep review, keep up the good work, and I hope to see more stuff like this when politically-charged movies come out.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I really didn't see the racism against Persians however. Could you imagine if the Japanese were up in arms about how they were depicted in Kill Bill?"

I'm sorry, but did I miss the part in Kill Bill where the Japanese were depicted as 12 foot tall zombie ogres with horrible looking hacksaws for arms? Honestly, the biggest problem I had with the film was that it was couched in the slightest grain of truth - a battle that took place in fifth century Greece - but totally fantasises every other aspect of it. I have no qualms with the Lord of the Rings movies making all of the dark skinned people the evil bad guys as it's not based on anything. It's pure fantasy. But the fact that the Persian Empire is given such a laughably bad depiction is silly at best, and outright offensive at worst. Yes, the Persian army invaded Greece. That does not automatically make them all evil, depraved monsters. Again, if this was a pure fantasy film there would be no problem, but to attempt to pass it off as an even vaguely accurate historical account is simply disengenuous.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:57:00 PM  
Blogger Joseph said...

If there's a movie about the Peloponnesian War, how will we explain how the heroic Spartans turned into the Bad Guys?

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone else feel that Xerxes and his Army of poor slaves was more like the US military with Bush? (sorry for the comparison, Xerxes) Kind of weird to feel like we have evolved to the giant marauding foriegn army hell bent on destroying and controlling anything in our path...meh, just a feeling, I am sure i would be strung up for expressing my views if I lived in the States.

I loved the movie, but I groaned at the script.

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cinnamon I like you. Let the Lefties,appeasers and jihadi syncophants babble their swill ad nauseum. You touch a nerve with them and paint them for what they are. As for the movie, I'll take the Greeks - the Lewfties can have the Persians. I'll only blame the Liberals when they deserve it - which is a lot of the time! Political correctness be damned.

Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:22:00 AM  
Blogger Deadman said...

Reminds me of a lot of flap before "Kingdom of Heaven" was even released. Members of the left were jabbering away at how it was going to be a right-slanted movie that would show Muslims in a horrible light and Xians as noble protectors blah blah blah ad nauseum.

When I saw the movie I was interested to note that Xians got more or less an equal bashing as Muslims.

Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Loved loved LOVED your article on 300. Finally, someone who writes in the press GETS IT!


Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I knew people like you lived in San Francisco, I might have regretted fleeing the City in disgust.

I'm also stunned that a rag like the SF Chronicle actually has the cajones to have a token dissident voice.

Keep up the great work.

Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't help but be amused that Cinnamon's supporters like Paul and Angry Christian's argument seems to be "I like you Cinnamon, you are right." So Paul, you like the Greeks but not the Persians. Care to let us know why?

Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok cinnamon, you are entitled to your views. that's fine. but i'd be freaked out that an angry christian from bentonville, arkansas, of all places, supported me. geez, christians in red neck country. c'mon. does it get any more frightening?

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't like Persians , because I choose not to like them. Examine their history and you may ascertain my reasons, but in any case I choose not to like theem or their modern descendents. A pox on political correctness too. I have always thought it odd that Americans (in a lot of Lefties' eyes) are expected to love the rest of the world while a lot of the rest of the world despises us. To me that is not logical or wise. Muslims in jihadi country -well that is another story. :)

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, it is reassuring to see that such candid bigotry lives on in the likes of you. Please continue to thumb your nose at the politically correct or the left. Your circular reasoning, which seems to boil down to "I hate them because they hate us" is sure to do everyone a lot of good. Please just don't try to convince anyone that you are any better than a fundamentalist Muslim who holds your same antiquated views on the world, only with the "good guys" and "bad guys" reversed. Thanks.

Friday, March 30, 2007 8:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


In your comments regarding the film itself (as opposed to the inaccurate title "critics hate it"), I think your analysis is spot-on.

I immensely enjoyed watching "300" - twice so far in conventional theatres - and I expect to see it in Imax soon.

In addition to its stunning imagery, this film resonates with those of us who actually believe the following statements to be true:

Valor, honor and sacrifice are not quaint relics of an ignorant past. They are part and parcel of the Western tradition and the Judeo-Christian ethic.

The traditions and cultural values of the Western mind have brought relative freedom to more people than have the traditions of any other civilization.

Americans who don't believe the truth of the above statements simply cannot recognize the source of their own financial and physical well-being.

Friday, March 30, 2007 9:28:00 AM  
Blogger diurnalist said...

Anonymous, who obviously despises people on the right has the temerity to say:

"Paul, it is reassuring to see that such candid bigotry lives on in the likes of you."

Who cares if someone doesn't like a person or a group of persons? And dislike doesn't mean hate either. As long as violence is not committed against anyone we are actually allowed to not like people.

But the totalitarian left care about what you're merely thinking and if they could they'd send you straight to sensitivity training (brainwashing) to fix your bad thoughts.

It's hilarious watching the hissy fit over 300 by people who are horrified by acts of bravery because they know they are cowards and must tear down anyone who isn't. Cinnamon is not a coward.

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Diurnalist, who obviously despises people on the left, you speak of temerity, and yet here you are defending someone who professes to dislike an entire ethnic group, both historically and their "modern descendants," for no apparent reason other than whimsy. Would you be taking the same stance if he posted "I don't like black people because I choose not to like them. Examine their history and you may ascertain my reasons?" Doubtful. But because brown is suddenly the new black, it has apparently become perfectly acceptable to harbor prejudices against an entire race of people. Of course Paul can dislike whoever he wants to dislike. Tim Hardaway's also free to "dislike" gay people. And because of free speech they both have every right to voice their opinions, however ignorant they may be. But for anyone to claim that it's not an unhealthy attitude to take is either delusional or equally bigoted.

Friday, March 30, 2007 5:47:00 PM  
Blogger Theory&Praxis said...

Cinnamon, I enjoyed your article, not for its stylistic prose, but for its blatant lack of factual accuracy and round about attempt to turn a movie into support of U.S. imperialism.

Your failure to historicize the concept of freedom and ‘democracy’ is a large flaw, which has been previously addressed in the posts above. That this concept of ‘freedom’ in Sparta is confined to those who are born free – i.e. the wealthy white landowners who have time to engage in military and political matters because their slaves do all the necessary everyday activities that provide for these ‘free’ men the requisite leisure time to do so.
As the famous philosopher Jurgen Habermas has so eloquently articulated: “the bourgeois society has ideals that it does not realize, and that those ideals at the same time function as legitimations that are necessary to maintain social order.” In essence, the promise of freedom and democracy is held as the standard and used to legitimate the existing power structure of society but is never actually brought into existence. For if it were, the current social structure of society would have to radically change and those in power would lose their power.

Furthermore, if you checked your facts and history/sociology books you would find that the U.S. is not a democracy, but in fact is an oligarchy: the rule of an elite. Historically speaking, Sparta was also an oligarchy: my how far we have come.

And what do you mean by freedom, this word is often thrown around with little actual attempt to come to terms and define it. Do you mean consumer freedom? We are certainly not politically or economically free. We do not actually have much of a voice in the legislation that is passed because our voices as individual citizens are mediated by local representatives, the media, interest groups and corporations. Moreover, we are not economically free as we are forced to sell our labor power for wages, where the seller of the commodity of labor power (the individual) is not on an open and equal playing field. For the buyer of the commodity labor-power (corporations) has a significantly larger say in whom they hire, for how long, and at what price.

On top of all this, your attempt to turn the film into a statement in favor of the ‘war on terror’ is also factually inaccurate. Based on all the documentation I have read Iraq and Saddam had no ties to Al-Qaeda – the perpetrators behind 9/11. In fact, despite being a ruthless dictator, Saddam was secular and socialist and did not see eye-to-eye with Al-Qaeda. Moreover, based on the history the U.S. is the indirect link that ties Saddam (we supported him in his war with Iran back in the 1980s – when Saddam was gassing the Kurds and the U.S. government did not care) and Al-Qaeda (who the C.I.A. secretly funded and trained along with the Mujahidin in Afghanistan in the 1970s to fight against the Soviets). The U.S. government supported both groups when it benefited its interests and it did not care about the human consequences.

Realistically, if the U.S. actually wanted to route out ‘terror’ in actuality rather than putting up the façade of doing so, the U.S. would have focused all attempts on Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al-Queda is based. Instead, the U.S. argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, supported Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks and was a huge threat to the U.S. In reality this claim had no material existence and any threat was purely on a symbolic level. Once the WMD threat failed the Bush Regime turned to Plan B ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ whose purpose was to bring democracy to the Iraqi’s. This clearly shows that the war in Iraq was an attempted power grab by the Bush Regime to reassert U.S. hegemony over the globe, hegemony that it has been steadily losing since the 1970s. Little did we all know, the Bush Regime would fail so utterly. However, we did all know, does no one remember what Bush Sr. said when he was president:

“While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.” (

If only the Bush Regime would listen to their forefathers we might not be in this predicament, but what can you expect from a Regime who has publicly advocated for U.S. imperialism abroad (

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:06:00 PM  
Blogger diurnalist said...

Hey Anonymous I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes anyone. You do! Well probably Jew hatred is alright if you even recognized its existence in your deluded state.

"Would you be taking the same stance if he posted "I don't like black people because I choose not to like them. Examine their history and you may ascertain my reasons?"

Yes I would. Do you get it? ? As long as they're not violent who cares what people think? People like you must control people's thoughts and will not permit any "bad" thinking, regardless of actions.

And yes I despise leftists for their defeatism, lies, ignorance of history, lack of backbone, inability to recognize the bad guys, and for their sheer moral cowardice. You morons don't even know who the real enemy is as you carry out the agenda of those who hate this country.

Let's just hope you don't have children who will have to live with the folly of your brain dead ilk.

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Diurnalist, did I strike a nerve? Your need to resort to ad hominem attacks speaks volumes. Why bother making a well reasoned argument when you can simply call people names? It's an admirable skill. Again, while I fully disagree with your self-righteous point of view, by all means carry on.

Friday, March 30, 2007 8:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous call me whatever you wish. I do not hide behind anonymity as you do. You are a person who is full of yourself and terribly midguided . I don't like Persians and Muslims who want to murder,injure and intimidate people who disagree with their world view - to make the world Islam. As for political correctness-a pox on it and syncophants too of the Left?Liberal variety who would have us (Americans) kowtow to the third world and give up our freedom!

Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul, considering how barely intelligible that last message was, you might be better served posting anonymously. I'm not really sure what making the world "Islam" means, and I'm also not really sure how the United States invading Afhganistan and Iraq so that we can coerce them into adopting a form of government we see fit isn't "injuring and intimidating people who disagree with our world view." But then again, I'm sure that being able to appreciate irony is a trait of the cowardly left.

My name is Alex. Now you know as much about me as I know about you. Does this really make any difference?

Saturday, March 31, 2007 7:14:00 AM  
Blogger diurnalist said...

Hey "Alex" if you think that Paul's last message was barely intelligible then that says more about your obtuseness than anything else.

Maybe your stunted liberal grasp on cogent arguments needs a workout. However someone who seems to think that the Taliban is a preferable government to what is now in Afghanistan is beyond hope. As would be the female population in your longing for the good old days of Islamic fascism.

I'm sure with your amazing leftist sense of irony you can appreciate "feminists" supporting the burka, complete silence on genital mutilation (it ain't circumcision) and solidarity with the hordes who'd love to chop off your head.

Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, "Diurnalist," it's all almost as ironic as the idea that the Taliban would have never risen to power were it not for the United States' involvement in Afghanistan during the Cold War. Or are our attention spans so short that we can't think back to a time when arming militant Muslims was a great idea, so long as their attention was focused on battling the great red menace.

And again lost in the midst your vitriolic attack on my person is your inability to address the point that I made. Afghanistan can barely be considered better now than it was before. As soon as one sets foot outside of Kabul the entire countryside has descended back into chaos, mostly ruled by various feuding warlords. And this is to say nothing of our botched invasion of Iraq. But whichever way you want to slice it, what we have done is imposed our will in an area of the world that wants nothing to do with us. Now, please explain to me how this is not exactly the point that Paul was making in defense of his "dislike" of Persians (who, it should be noted, have nothing to do with the Afghan or Iraqi people).

Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

Good column Cinnamon. You can tell by the frothing reaction from the "tolerant" crowd.

I love how the leftists here calls a volunteer Army who's members re-enlist to fight for the freedom of another nations people "slaves" and another one refers to a free nation that deposes tyants who gas their own villages "imperialist".

What a bunch of deranged fools.

Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am convinced that intelligent people like Alex know what is best. NOT !! You find fault with America at every turn and say that Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban. What idiocy! America is not perfect and I never said that we were, but we, as a nation, are miles ahead of countries like Iran,Saudi Arabia, Syria and other bastions of "tolerant Islam" and if you believe that Islam is the religion of peace you are witout a clue. people like you would give away our freedom and kiss the hand of our oppressor. Shades of Neville Chamberlain.Islamofascism, or jihadism, is as vicious a system as was Naziism and there are a lot of Americans (sad to say) ready to kowtow to it. I am not one of them. The sad fact is our very freedom often blinds us to the world as it is-a dangerous place. Jihadi syncophants and appeasers only make AL Qaida and their ilks goal potentially easier to obtain.

Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A "not" joke. Well played Paul, well played. Your wit is only matched by your complete inability to spell "sycophant" correctly (which is to say nothing of your butchered usage). But it's an impressive sounding word, no doubt, so I tip my hat to your efforts.

It has been clear from the outset that this "dialogue" was going nowhere. Feel free to take the last word in the matter if you wish. You can continue on with your intolerance towards Persians and Muslims, and I will continue to kowtow to... Something or other. I don't really recall what it was us liberals were kowtowing to. Stalin? Refresh my memory.

Sunday, April 01, 2007 3:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I mispelled a word and thank you for catching it. I also made my points. Like a lot of Lefties and Liberals, you have an omniscient attitude that is your Achilles' heel. I doubt that anyone can dialogue with you .You are a true believer and many Americans know what you believe in. You have stated your platform here ad nauseum. I AM intolerant towards Muslims who threaten, maim and murder in the name of the "religion of peace." I would feel the same way towards any Christians, Buddhists or Hindus who perpetrated such heinous acts as we see almost daily around the world.And obsequious Lefties and Liberals know to whom they kowtow.FINIS.

Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's "misspelled."

Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said anything. But you have to admit that's funny.

Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Dr. Johnson. I misspelled "misspell" just to see if you would denote it. You did well. Isn't freedom a wonderful thing? Please repeat this word when you look in the mirro - PHILISTINE. Oh the joys of the English lexicon. :)

Monday, April 02, 2007 4:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typo Phil, er I mean Alex - I meant MIRROR. have a wonderful day. :)

Monday, April 02, 2007 4:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You got it backwards. In 300-land, the US is the Persian Empire and the folks defending their way of life, slavery, dictators, women as second class citizens, and all, are the Iraqis who oppose even worse oppression and exploitation. It breaks credulity to think that the US is somehow the freedom-loving underdog.

Your friend in Seattle

Monday, April 02, 2007 9:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God bless the USA and a pox on Iran. Of course we all know that Iran,Syria,Norht Korea et al are all well-meaning, misunderstood and persecuted by the USA. NOT !! Al-Anon you are a baffer (I coined the word). A baffer is a person who blames America first for every wrong and that description suits you. The truth doesn't matter to people like you my friend. :)

Tuesday, April 03, 2007 4:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to Paul and Diurnalist for pointing out the fact that it is okay to dislike certain groups of people - that is our right - just like the rights the left is trying to protect. If I want to dislike the blacks, I can dislike the blacks. I can even hate them - it is my right. The left tries to shove all that PC-correctness down our throats all of the time. If the real truth came out, we would all know that the holocaust was fabricated to bring sympathy to the Jews just for the fact that they were disliked. It was then blown way out of proportaion. Conservatism rules!

Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home