The Da Vinci Code

Home  \  Off Topic  \  The Da Vinci Code

Anyone with eyes or ears will have heard of the Da Vinci Code, and most people know that it is a worldwide bestseller. I jumped on the bandwagon a few days ago in anticipation of the movie, and I have to say, after about 150 pages it is absolutely terrific. Anyone who likes to pick up a good book once in a while should check it out, especially since you don't want to spoil it by seeing the movie first on May 19.

:2cents:

posted by  Mathew

I've had the audiobook for about 3 months and my sister got the book the other day, but I'll just listen to someone read it to me starting tonight if it really is that good lol...The movie sounds good too, can't wait to see that.

posted by  chris_knows

'tis an excellent read. I won't spoil it.

posted by  dodgerforlife

Better not...every page is tells so much, it would be so easy to spoil it.

posted by  Mathew

What's it about again?

posted by  GreekWarrior

I thought angels and demons was better. But the D. code was a good fiction read.

posted by  Voda48

i'm gonna wait for the movie:thumbs:

posted by  glagon1979

Agreed.

posted by  ChrisV

I read angels and demons first, then TDVC, then his other two books, he is a very talented writer. And yes I must agree that A&D was better... I also think it would make for a better movie, much more action.

I also really enjoyed reading them both agan, because I read them, then went to europe and actually saw some of the things he discussed, and read it agin. Great times!

posted by  Zalight

Without spoiling anything, what made Angels and Demons better? My dad actually has the book, but I haven't read it.

posted by  Mathew

Without spoiling anything:

It had a lot more action, and a LOT more fact, It still has the fiction twist to it, but a lot is based on real shit. Which I thought was awesome. It also has a lot more action as well.

posted by  Zalight

# 1: As far as quality goes, the Da Vinci Code is a peice of shit. I've read parts of it.
# 2: Everything the author says he made up. So he's writing a work of fiction and trying to pass it off as real.
# 3: He plaigarized like half of it, which is why he was recently sued.
# 4: His wife wrote nearly all of it anyway.
# 5: Shit like this pops up all the time. I'm not a catholic, but I can see when a book is written just to make the Catholic church look bad. It's propaganda. And too all you who read it and liked it: you suck. Anyone who believed it too sucks twice.

posted by  musclecarneon

You've read "parts of it" so that makes you an expert?




No, it's being passed off as a work of FICTION, like teh rest o fhis books, including Angels and Demons that uses teh same protagonist. Had you read mor ethan just "parts of it" (parts probably carefully selected for you by someone else), you would have known that.




These contradict each other. Either he plagarized half of it OR his wife wrote "most" of it. You can't do both. You'd be an idiot to believe both. He did write a couple of other books with his wife, however.




It's f*cking FICTION, and it, like many suspense thrillers, from The Andromeda Strain to anything by Tom Clancy, use a couple facts, a couple of "interesting what if's" and then build an entirely fictional mystery/suspense/action drama story around them that SOUNDS like it could happen. They aren't propoganda, and you're an idiot if you think so. No more propoganda than the TV show 24 is.

Dan Brown's 4 novels so far use similar themes in different settings, similar characterizations, and hinge on his long time love of cryptography. Two of the novels use "what if's" based on his history with the church. Much like ANY writer uses what they know to wrote fiction novels that use real places and things as plot points. Deception Point and Digital Fortress use similar plottings, but are NOT church related, and are more like reading any other suspense drama. YOU ony have a problem because YOU think these are direct attacks on YOUR faith. They're novels.

posted by  ChrisV

you sir are an idiot and you SUCK.:banghead: F*UCKING E-TARD

posted by  glagon1979

Fighting stupidity with stupidity seldom works. You have now lowered yourself to his level. :roll:

posted by  vwhobo

Beautiful post chris!


musclecarneon, The novel is based on facts...a lot of the stuff he has on their are based on actual happenings documented in actual historical tombs. What he does to make it interesting is link them all together with FICTION to make a story.

The opus die is an actual organization, "le dossier secret", the assertions made about mary magdeline, the codes included in DaVinci's works, all these are things have been discussed and are common knowledge in certain circles....the thing is none of these are considered absolutes. And none have really been pulled all together like they are in his book.

Its like any hollywood movie, take "the day after tomorrow" as an example. All the doomsday experiences in that movie are actual events...flooding, freezing, etc. But none ever on that scale. Its that extra leap that makes the story interesting and not a documentary on possibilities.

posted by  Zalight

http://www.heedme.com/~omar/gfx/opus.gif
I love Opus :laughing:




::sigh:: oh lordy I don't know why I noticed that and posted it :ohcrap:

posted by  99integra

http://members.cox.net/morpheus91/images/icons/smack.gif

posted by  Zalight

But the line between fact and fiction in his book is cleverly hidden (as one would hope in a good fiction book) The reader, if not educated on the difference, would hardly see a deviation between the two. I think Dan Brown is an excellent author, no matter what people think (plagerism (sp?) and all.) He does his homework, something I would hope other people would do before wrting, and presents a melody of deceit and sheer fascination with the way he developes his characters.

I recently finished Deception Point and although not his best, was a very interesting book as well. Has anyone read Digital Fortress? I would appreciate a opinion on whether or not it is worth it to read.

posted by  Voda48

I coincide with your agreement. Still, D. Code was an exceptional read.

Had to read it for my Honors English class in my first university year. Can't wait for the movie (though Tom Hanks isn't how I imagined Robert to look like, but Sophie, or Sofia, is definately worth it :wink2: )

posted by  Inygknok

Yeah, I think its better than deception point. DP I kinda guessed the ending on accident by saying "it would be cool if ______ happened!" And then it did. Digital fortress is better IMO all the way around.

posted by  Zalight

Right back at you, you mother f-ing SOB. Wreck your car tomorrow and burn to death and you'll be doing the rest of the world a favor.:fu: :fu:

posted by  musclecarneon

OK, get this you bastard. Number One: You only have to read parts of it too see that it is full of shit. I open it up, there's shit on pg. 1. Flip ahead, shit on pg. whatever. Et cetera.
Number two, he's not passing it off totally as a work of fiction. It supposedly a 'historical novel' based on facts, most of which, if not all, are either myths or just completely fabricated.
Number Three:You're right. I should have said "His wife wrote most of it, and even that was plaigarized from another book." my bad.
Number four: Brown has made it clear that it is fiction based on 'facts' and that's all people need to believe in it. Look at all the dumbass gullible people who believe harry potter or the matrix is real.
And number 5: The only organization left in politically correct america you can still bash is the Catholic church, and I know a book with a leftist atheist agenda when I see one. Like I said, I'm not catholic myself, but i also don't agree with making up shit about the church and spewing it out in book form. We've had just about enough of that. It's within an ace of being slander, and if the church had any legal rights in america they'd sue.

posted by  musclecarneon

Yum yum, pass me some! :pop: :pop: :pop:

posted by  vwhobo

1: Opus Dei is a real organization, yes. However, all it is is a Catholic youth group for boys, like the Boy Scouts. There's nothing deeper.
2: The assertions made on Mary Magdalene are based on the writings of an 11th-century philosopher named Tertullian. Beside's Tertullian's writings, there is NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION to support Brown's assumptions.
3: I did an internet search for "Codes Da Vinci" and came up with nothing but stuff either directly related to or dating from after the Da Vinci Code came out. This strongly suggests to me that Brown made it all up.
4: I don't think it's wrong for an author to take 'author's license' and adjust facts slightly to make a good book. However, all of the 'facts' that Brown either adjusted or made up are designed to make the Catholic church, and Christians in general, look bad. This is why the book was written. It's just like that one stupid movie that came out in Australia that claimed Jesus and his disciples were fags.

P.S: It's kind of refreshing to discuss this in a little more civilized manner: i.e: You don't swear at me and I don't swear at you. Thanks.

posted by  musclecarneon

it's FICTION.



And the dead sea scrolls. But hey, why not ignore your religious writings. THat's part of the speculative "what if." that good novels are built on.



Really? Go figure that some of a fiction novel might be made up.



Ohk, cry a ****ing river. Catholic preist jokes make teh church look bad. The f*cking Inquistion made the church look bad. There's a LOT more where that came from. Get the sand out of your vagina. He wrote a novel. Mobster novels make the Italians look bad, there are police novels that make the police forces look bad. How about that movie, Training Day, with Denzell Washington? Bad cops as the main plot point. It's what mystery and action dramas do.



It's not refreshing to see you be completely idiotic about it. You came on here like gangbusters saying anyone who likes the book SUCKS. Therefore you get what you deserve, you twit.



If you only read parts of it and can't handle that it's a FICTION NOVEL, you're a retard. First part about having an expert opinion is to actually know your subject. You don't. Period, assclown.




YOUR goddamn interpretation, idiot. He's stated over and over, and did in the book, that it's a work of fiction based on some historical situations and some speculation. Just because you're too closed minded to understand that doesn't make the BOOK the problem.



You'd still be factually wrong, retard. "my bad?" Nice retort, moron.




That's not the problem of the stories, now is it, dumbass? People BELIEVE a lot of things, no matter WHAT the facts are. Look at what YOU believe, wthout even HAVING all the information.




Shut the f*ck up. That just proves how f*cking retarded you are. I'm a registered republican, and a non practicing catholic. My wife and stepson are both confirmed catholics, and WE ALL LIKE THE F*CKING BOOK! So go blow your "leftist atheist agenda" out your ass somewhere else. Intelligent people are having none of it. (especially as Dan Brown is neither Leftist nor atheist)

Damn, this kind of unintelligent, literally ignorant response from idiots like you pisses me off.

And since you started this little bashfest with the "all of you people suck" crap, I feel fully justified in responding to you like this.

posted by  ChrisV

Cool, I see what your saying, but you arent taking to heart what we are saying.

Which is this:

Its a novel....not a text book. And therefor, yes, a lot of what he says is fiction. But this fiction is loosley based on real things, or at least real theories.

This isn't bashing the catholic religon. If you read the whole book you would understand this. Bashing the catholic religon would be like saying "the pope is an asshole!", not saying that "there is a certain sect of undergroung people who think the catholic church is hiding information regarding jesus' life and his relationship with certain people."

posted by  Zalight

The catholic church is just hiding the fact that if they people knew the truth about them, they'd be done. But, it would only affect catholics and christians, who would be pissed that they've been lied to for hundreds of years. Most civilized people aren't part of 'cults', as I like to call them, full of dogma and discrimination anyways.

posted by  zero_emissions

Wow thank you for blessing us with your wisdom.... :banghead:

posted by  Voda48

Lol, you call yourself zero_emissions, yet you just farted that out.

posted by  Mathew

Oh, just shut the f*ck up. Your opinions are retarded and you suck. Go bless the libbies with your questionable wisdom.

posted by  musclecarneon

All right, if that's the way you want to play, you f*cking homosexual little monkey shit, that's the way we'll play. I have this to say to you: you suck. Your mother and father suck for having you. Your grandparents and great-grandparents, down to the four hundredth generation, suck for having sex too much and coming up with a retarded little mother f*cking asshole like yourself. Your opinions are idiotic and I can smell the putridity of the utterly deformed and retarded monkey shit that's crammed into your ugly skull in place of a brain. You suck so much I can't believe you haven't turned yourself inside out. When did you learn to read? Yesterday? Can you use correct grammer yet? Spell? How the hell do you drive a car on the road without being shot on sight by the people who have a public duty to rid the gene pool of assholes like you? Here's a hint: go wreck your car and die in a gasoline-fed fireball and the world will be that much better.
Y-O-U S-U-C-K. Savvy?:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:
I hate to tell you the truth but you deserve it. There goes your little bubble.

posted by  musclecarneon

What is it about the anonymous nature of the internet that breeds these esoteric little f*cks?

posted by  Voda48

Time for you to shut the hell up (and ChrisV...but more so you!) and read the rules.....:banghead:

posted by  Cliffy

I must admit I haven't read the book, but I intend seeing the movie. Seems an even split amongst my friends who have read it; good read or insult to literary competency.

In fairness to musclecarneon, the concept of the Roman Catholic church being the font of treachery and deceit is wearing thin. We all know how poorly they behaved over the years; eg Columbus' financier Isabella and her lacky Tomas de Torquemada did some terrible things to Muslims and heretics in the name of the church.

Just the precept that Jesus fathered a child is sacrilegious to a true Christian.

posted by  Wally

Thats just the thing. If you read the book they dont really come out like that. Its more about the greed of the individuals.

Hell the church doesnt even play a big roll in the book.

posted by  Zalight

Maybe I should read the book, but I thought the main theme was an organisation called "Priory of Sion" keeping vigil over the descendants of Mary Magdalene and Jesus (read God to christians) to protect them from the evil Roman Catholic Church? A basic tenet of Christain belief is that Jesus was sinless, so how did he father a child?

posted by  Wally

wally, where do babies come from?

posted by  windsonian

Santa Claus delivers them during the off season.

posted by  Wally

Yes thats what it is about, but the roman catholic church doesnt come out as evil, only a few key players do.

posted by  Zalight

I still think it's funny that someone can't seem to differentiate between fiction and NON-Fiction. God bless the public school systems.

and Matthew...two thumbs up for that eloquent play on words :thumbs: :thumbs:

posted by  97Talonchik

Well sir, I have about 50 pages to go, and it sure is getting twisty!

posted by  Mathew

I just got done reading DV Code yesterday....I did not expect the ending. This book was basically a murder mystery with a twist. And yes it was a FICTION. With some fact...the Louvre pyramid does exsist, as does Opus Die and no they are not a boyscout troop for the catholic church....google it..

posted by  hayala

Amen, brother. Especially "the concept of the Roman Catholic church being the font of treachery and deceit is wearing thin". Listen to him.

posted by  musclecarneon

Thats just the thing, when you read the book they DONT COME OUT THAT WAY. Brown is a very talented writer, which is why he has the opus die play such an integral roll in the story, he didn't want to cause a huge drama by balming the church for everything.

Musclecarneon, you have yet to read the book and are so opinionated about it. Ignorance and intolerance lead to horrible things, and although this is just a small matter of a novel, it does show your level of stubburness in all things in life and I would suggest reading the book WITH AN OPEN MIND and coming to your own conclusion as to browns message

posted by  Zalight

Um, Jesus was BORN sinless, but he took on everyone's sins before he died. That being said, you can father a child when married and it's not a sin. In fact it's part of what you're supposed to do.

In 1st Corinthians 7:28, Paul said specifically "If you marry, you do not sin." It was not a sin, nor was it a command to not get married.

Which is why it's so unbeliveable that Joseph was married to Mary for years before Jesus was born, but he didn't sleep with her, as that woud've been part of the wedding night in their society. The New testament does, in fact, mention siblings of Jesus, but how many remember that part?

Of course, there are many, many years of Jesus' life that are unrecorded, and a lot of evidence either way. It doesn't help that the ancient Hebrew word for woman was also the ancient Hebrew word for wife, so it required a knowledge of context to determine which was meant... And the fact that the Gospels were written well after Jesus' death, about the time the Church was laying down it's doctrine. While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have Him sinful, but rather, that His mission was too demanding and heavenly to allow Him the opportunity for marriage. This is the stance that the Church takes, today, and the source of that stance.

Remember, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:30-1)

Anyhow, the main theme was a murder mystery, that had as one plot point the Priory of Scion. Other novels have said even stranger things, even if there was a kernel of truth under them, without anyone batting an eylash.

posted by  ChrisV

If I said to him what I want to say, you'd edit it anyhow.

Suffice it to say he's the epitome of small minded retard. And he deserved everything I said to him, whether you like it or not, Mr. Thought Patrol.

posted by  ChrisV

Ah the great religion topic, this could go on for weeks :ohcrap:

posted by  99integra

cliffy didn't you make a thread especially for flame wars...

posted by  salimander13

No need to go on, a true Christian knows the score and what the Christ in Christian stands for. The Da Vinci Code book is pulp fiction, but brings in question the very core of the faith, by it's primary assertion. I wonder how safe the author would feel if he had written about Mohammed, a mere prophet of God in Islam.

posted by  Wally

Well I finished the book, and I have to say I enjoyed every page. However, I will admit that I didn't think his story was that good, it was just like any other thriller really. It was the church conspiracy theories that really made the book enticing (whether they are true or not). I guess he did a good job of mixing the fiction and the non fiction, but in a way it just seemed like he needed a platform to talk about all of this holy grail stuff, because at some points the story seemed rushed (especially near the end).

Anyway, I think it turned out quite nicely in the end, and though the storyline was only slightly above average, altogether it was a good read.

I just picked up Deception Point, I'll save A&D for later (because my dad lent it to a coworker).

posted by  Mathew

Ok...... I didn't bother reading every reply because it all seemed like the same. ChrisV tries to point out reality, and someone just takes it too personal and argues and starts insulting.


Ok, first, for those of you arguing about the book and saying it's offensive and such, exactly how much religion have you studied? How much about the Bible do you really know? Think about that for a while.....


Anyways, this is reality, and you better accept it. Ready? You sure? Here it comes: the book is FICTION! Who gives a damn if Dan Brown does use a few historical facts in his novel, the matter of fact is that it is a work of fiction. How? There never was a Robert Langdon that went around running in The Louvre while a fanatical orphan monk kept chasing him. Therefore, the novel is fiction. Had there really been a Robert Langdon at some point in this modern society, then yes, it would have been non-fiction (but it isn't).


Next up, Dan Brown does just as ChrisV has been doing for the last 4 pages of this thread (which I admire him for having had the patience of doing up until now). He uses a few historical facts, some historical speculations, and some historical conspiracies in order to TRY to give his work of fiction some support.


True, MANY things in the Bible are symbolic and not literal. I myself believe that God didn't create everything in 6 days, it's more of something symbolic. I'll ask my mother for an exact reference, but as you all know, He is eternal, so to Him time honestly has no meaning. So 6 days could be 6 billion years, 6 seconds, 6 days, 6,000 years, it could mean anything! But God doesn't care because He is, has always been, and always will be. Time is just a concept that limits our mortality. I'll explain the time thing later, as it's off subject by a substantial margin.


Anyhow, it is very well known that the Catholic church has been hiding many facts that could ruin them. It's not that they're evil creatures or anything, but that's the truth. Sure, maybe the modern Catholic church isn't at fault since all of that began with the Roman Catholic church, the same one that crucified Jesus Christ. That alone did affect their reputation (and still does).


The whole Mary Magdalene thing..... sorry but there is no actual evidence of that ever happening. Jesus didn't marry, and he wasn't intended to do so. I'm sure that at some point in his younger days, before the Jesus described in the Bible, that he did maybe look at some woman and find her attractive. Sure, he was still human, but the fact is that he didn't marry for that was God's will.


Also, Dan Brown did use a few historical facts, but some of them he had the balls to twist them around with senseless conspiracies which he swore would back them up. The whole Templars thing? That was insane. Sure, it gave the story in the novel a big kick, but if you know it's a complete lie, then just ignore it.


Leonardo Da Vinci, a true genius. Yes, he had his own codification systems (like the mirror writing) and other stuff. He is even credited for making the schematics for the first ever tank. That's as far as he goes. He had complex coding systems..... for HIS times. Scientists have been able to see past through his works because we have advanced quite a bit in that area.


And now I'm tired of typing.... screw spelling and caps. ill wait for ppl's reply later and keep typing later cuz now im tired and my right hand is injured thanks to some damn pick up's transmission yesterday.

posted by  Inygknok

I was not aware the Roman Catholic Church crucified Christ. This and other facts you have presented provide a compelling reason to take ChrisV's arguments as gospel. I'm sure he is well pleased you have championed his cause with so much supporting evidence.

posted by  Wally

I was unaware that I said anything of the sort. I did, however, quote scripture...

My "cause" was that the novel was fiction. And a fun bit of a read. Are you just trying to be as dense as possible?

posted by  ChrisV

No need to get personal. Maybe if you read the post previous to mine you would have noticed:



Your thoughts betray you Luke.:wink2: BTW Jesus was sinless, it's a basic plank of Christianity.

posted by  Wally

There is still evil in the RC church ... I can feel it.

This is just one of those topics where everyone is right, and unwilling to accept otherwise. We could all support our arguments (with varying levels of plausibility), but at the end of the day, I doubt that ChrisV, wally, or anyone else is likely to concede ground.

But what would I know? Fight on. Fight the good fight, finish the race, keep the faith.... so to speak.

posted by  windsonian

Nothing to concede. I'm not even getting into theology, just basic principles that are taught at Sunday school. If someone wants to skew the rules to suit an argument in cyberspace so be it, I couldn't care less.

We all know the book is fiction, that's not in question.

posted by  Wally

WTF... I think you meant to type that differently then how it came out because it appears to say that the RC church, which was formed AFTER Christ died, was responsible for his death :doh:

I also think that we should have the Holy Gospel according to ChrisV. (j/k) Thank you for setting some thing straight Chris, it was nice to read your posts here.

I have be trying to search to find a "credible" source on when the RC church was established but have thus come up empty handed.

I do know that a large push was made back when Constatine was kicking butt in the world. Legend has it he was faced with a mighty battle, one he did not think he might win. He had heard of early christianity and its concepts and made a deal sort of. If he would win in battle he would accept this new religion as his own, so he prayed to god, the rest history. With Rome as the largest power in the world RC took off, there was a fondation for it but much of the world was pagan and ununiform. I will look at my notes from one of my religion classes, there was actualy some really interesting stuff (but then again I was not alive at the time therefore much of what is written or passed down we have to take on account of FAITH.

posted by  Voda48

Didn't get what you meant with the second thing.


Alright, had a bit of a talk with one of the classmates (yes, I'm in class right now, so bear with me) that's pretty religious herself and knows this better than myself.


Ok, first, I know Jesus was sinless, but he was still crucified because his people (the Jews) didn't believe he was the real Messiah and rejected him, just like God said they would (and still do).


Second, about the Roman Catholic church. Thing is, it could be said it originated with Jesus and his 12 apostles. One of them was the one that founded the base (Peter I believe) for the Catholic church itself. Of course, back in the day, the catholic church wasn't what it is today. Peter preached about God being almighty, eternal, etc., very different from today's Virgin Mary appraisal. You could say it's wrong to call the one that crucified Jesus the Roman Catholic, but the problem is that while Jesus was around, there really wasn't a name for what he was preaching about. It wasn't called Christianity or anything back then, it was just God's words (to put it in simple terms).


Now, yes, later on, after all the messes that went around in Rome, the Catholic church was born, and eventually accepted as the main "doctrine" in Rome, which was then named the Roman Catholic Church. So the base of what was partially responsible for Jesus Christ's crucifiction was later on known as the Roman Catholic church..... so I guess we're all correct on that term. It wasn't the RC at the time, but it was the base of it (just had to wait a tad bit longer).

posted by  Inygknok

I'm about 300 pages into Deception Point now, and so far I think its a better novel. Not as interesting of course, but the storyline is better.

posted by  Mathew

Star wars ..... ?



not sure i agree with that. i see where you're going with it, but i don't agree.

posted by  windsonian

I'm a conservative, intolerance is my trademark.:wink2:
"Liberals whine about tolerance, but when I kick their little asses they get all sulky. Hey, where did the tolerance go?"

posted by  musclecarneon

The Roman Catholic church didn't crucify Christ. Good lord. The Romans did, with the encouragment of the Jews. (I'm not addressing you wally, it's the other guy)

posted by  musclecarneon

DO NOT paint all conservatives with your far right, intolerant, ideological brush. One moron like you can rapidly undermine the hard work of thousands of genuine conservatives like me. :banghead:

posted by  vwhobo

[QUOTE=ChrisV]
Which is why it's so unbeliveable that Joseph was married to Mary for years before Jesus was born, but he didn't sleep with her, as that woud've been part of the wedding night in their society. The New testament does, in fact, mention siblings of Jesus, but how many remember that part?
QUOTE]
Chris, a couple things ...
1: Joseph did not marry Mary years before Jesus was born. Mary was 14 when she married Joseph, and she actually became pregnant before that.
2: Jesus was not actually Joseph's biological son. Mary was, according to Christian doctrine, actually made pregnant through an act of God.
3: Some translations of the bible mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. This is not because Jesus had brothers or sisters, but because the New Testament was translated from Greek, and in Greek the same word means both 'brother' and 'very close friend or any relation', so that's where a lot of that confusion comes from.

posted by  musclecarneon

Sorry, man, just a little humor.

posted by  musclecarneon

By the way, what DO you tolerate? If you're one of those 'conservatives' who tolerates gay marriage, abortion & stuff like that you're just another liberal.
Politically, I would more or less follow George Bush's platform, with a few modifications. I do not believe immigration should be allowed, and I was disappointed when Bush passed the assault weapons ban. I'm sure I could think of more stuff too, but I'm lazy.

posted by  musclecarneon

Yeah, apparently thinking is something you don't spend too much time doing. No immigration? What kind of idiot believes in that? Last time I checked, the USA is a nation of imigrants. I'm only second generation myself. We need to put locks on our borders, identify all of the illegals in this country, immediately deport every single one with a criminal record and then give the rest of them the opportunity to become citizens... After they go back to their own countries and get in line. The USA is a better place, for the most part, because of legal immigrants who come here and are willing to work for a better life.

Unfortunately for me, as a good citizen of this country I have to tolerate idiots like you because I firmly believe in free speech. The problem there is that you know how to implement that right, you just don't have the mental capacity required to do so properly.

posted by  vwhobo

I think you're right about the immigration, I guess I was thinking more of all the mexicans flowing over the border and ruining our economy when I said that. The problem is, immigrants work for nothing, and they're shoving Americans out of jobs. And you must have some kind of Freudian insecurities about your own intelligence, since you have to call me stupid all the time :wink2:

posted by  musclecarneon

Immigrants that come to this country, whether legal or illegal, are paid the same as American citizens... Based generally on their level of education, experience and willingness to work. The fact that they tend to take lower paying jobs such as maids, janitors, agricultural work, etc is a reflection of that. I personally see too many "Americans" who would rather sit at home, collect a check and drink 40's all day instead of working at a job that reflects their abilities. Your argument doesn't hold water.

While I'm typing, it needs to be pointed out that you seem to have trouble with accurate communication and facts. Please show me one instance where I've called you stupid. Go ahead, you made the statement, now back it up or give us further proof that you are a person to be tolerated and not taken seriously.

posted by  vwhobo

I must say the idea looks tempting, but I doubt that the president is going to lock up the country and hold the key till someone says pretty please. As for the legal immigrants, I have worked with several and i must say, the stereotype of "lazy Mexican" is full of shit. The ones I have met in my lifetime would put Martha Stewart on speed to shame. they balance family, and usualy several jobs. We could use more able folks like that and less people sitting back collecting BS checks that I have to pay for.

posted by  Voda48

From my vantage point and I'm sure to a plethora of the world's people, the ruined economy in Mexico has in no small part been historically due to astute US businessmen flowing over the Mexican border and ensuring profits flow back across the US border .

posted by  Wally

I agree with that, Mexican's work for minimum wage doing jobs that most Americans would never do for the salary that is given. The reason being is because the standards over where they came from where so low that 7 bucks an hour is like 20 an hour to us. A lot of my friends are Mexicans and they are damn smart and have some of the best work ethics around, I'm not saying all of them are like this but a lot of them are :2cents:

posted by  99integra

I'm sorry, you'll have to direct me to where I stated Mexicans are lazy. BTW, this may come as a surprise to you but just for your information, the president doesn't have to lock up the borders. We already have plenty of laws on the books that simply need to be enforced. I know it's not popular to say this, especially among people of your age group, but people who come to this country without going through the proper immigration channels are illegal. And if they are in this country illegally, that does in fact make them criminals. In no way do I want to see it made a felony to jump across the border, but if they chose not to obey our laws now, do you think they would obey them if granted amnesty?

The bottom line is that most Mexicans immigrants are good, hard working people. But if they or anyone else wants to live in this country they need to do it legally, just like my ancestors and I'll bet yours too.

posted by  vwhobo

I am pretty sure that is what I just said right there.... wait let me go back and read....yup reading works....funny how that can avoid problems.....

in fact I didn't say... "VW says Mexicans are lazy" so don't go getting nutz on me, it will also make directing you to where you said "VW said: Mexicans are lazy" extremely difficult as well. I was indicated that among many people certain sterotypes exist, I am sure we are no stranger to these. One sterotype included was how Mexicans are suppose to be lazy. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, please don't do the same for me



In fact I was pretty much agreeing with you.

posted by  Voda48

I once punched a baby.

But in my defense the baby was kinda being a dick.

I dont know what that babys problem was.

posted by  Zalight

Someone feels left out.

posted by  Mathew

/mecriesindarklonleycorner


Actually I just wanted to break up the tension in the thread.

posted by  Zalight

Good point, I started this thread to discuss the book, and whos read it, now its just a big church related flame war.

On a side note, I'm about 400 pages into Deception Point and I like it much better so far.

posted by  Mathew

I liked digital fortress more than either DP or DVC. but i still think angels and demons is the best he has written.

posted by  Zalight

Yes, the Romans crucified Christ, and guess who were the ones to primarily accept the teachings of Peter? The Romans, which gave the religion its (or one of) first official names. It was Christianity (I'm guessing by then the name was established, not sure) and soon thereafter the name of the RC stuck. But the ones that crucified Jesus were the base.... the BASE.... base.... BASE. I believe I explained that pretty well on my other post.



Next, windsonian.... Star Wars? Now I'm confused :ohcrap:


Honestly, I didn't expect this thread to last this long. I kept wondering all week how it was going. Thought Cliffy had argued with hobo and closed it :wink2: (j/k u guys).

posted by  Inygknok

when wally said "your thoughts betray you luke", it was a star wars quote.

posted by  windsonian

So did anyone see the movie today? It was pretty packed when we were cleaning it up, but not as busy as I thought it could have been. I only heard one opinion and they said it was a great great movie.

posted by  salimander13

Didn't get the chance, I woke up at 730 and I drove for about an hour through tight winding mountain roads filled with switchbacks and sweepers to get to the cliff jumps in the jemez mountains with about 7 friends. 25-50 foot jumps into freezing cold mountain water. Then the hotsprings afterwards to relax a bit. Then we ate lunch in a small diner in jemez springs (the village) where they made a damn good turkey baguette, and afterward I went to work for a few hours and left early to get to the dragstrip, where I beat up on my friend shay in his new (to him) z06....yes I beat a c5 z06. And the DA that night was high as shit, like 8200 feet. But it was his first time to the strip, and by the end of the night, when he got used to the car, how to launch it, etc, he was ripping me a new hole by about 3 carlengths which is what should have happened. But at least now I can honestly say I beat a c5 z06 :)

All in all a great day and I didn't have time to see the movie. I might go today.

posted by  Zalight

saw it last night.... ready for the big suprise???..... the book was way better, but the movie was good enough that you didnt realise the time pass by

posted by  Voda48

Your Message