Ooh … this is going to be a long one.
Let’s start with Rip…
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A comet is approaching Earth, and FAST, because this is the first time GSholtz and I agree.
Nah, if that were the case then we would be long since dead already. Remember we agreed on the E31 being the “dream car” back in the olden days of AH1:
I still think it teh awezum! Especially the newer facelifted versions.
However … soon after we agreed on the E31 World War III started, so you may have a point!
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Also note: German Gov't sentences a pastor 1 year in prison for simply comparing abortion to the holocaust.
Freedom of speech is dead in Germany. All Hail Hitler. 
I do agree that the Germans have gone too far with their legislations against what is in reality a “thought crime” with regard to denying the Holocaust, use of Nazi symbols etc, and that they as a people need step back and take a long hard look at themselves and their history rather than trying to “ban” it.
However, that article you posted is fraught with spin and errors to the point of being pure falsity.
1. Murder is an unlawful killing. The author systematically mislabels abortions (which are legal in Germany) as murders. This is no more truthful or any less deceitful than those who call hunters or soldiers “murderers” purely to incite anger.
2. Pastor Johannes Lerle was not convicted of “denying the holocaust” but for harassing and insulting people in public. The rather harsh sentence is a result of multiple previous charges of the same.
3. “Volksverhetzung” does not accurately translate into “incitement of the people”, this is a misrepresentation to facilitate the later comparison with the Nazis. “Volksverhetzung” means “harassment or incitement of
a people” – the harassing or insulting of a group of people. In the US you call this a “hate crime”. This charge would not look very good on the old Pastor, so the author again takes liberties with the truth.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harass, insult or slander people in public. Not even in the USA, although you haven’t gone to such lengths of legislating it as Germany has.
Originally posted by Lusche
Army doesn't like your agenda, person or project? Film it elswhere. (And I think that's absolutely their right).
I don’t have a problem with the German Army declining to help with the film because they think Mr. Cruise is a bad actor that won’t do your national hero justice on the silver screen. I
have a problem with your Army, an agency of your government, refusing to help because they don’t like the
religious beliefs of Mr. Cruise. I bet the outrage would be significantly more vocal if your Army had told Dustin Hoffman that they didn’t want him on the base because they don’t like Judenschweinerei.
*Humming on “1939 Returning” by The Crocketts.
Originally posted by Curval
From the little I read in that link it does not appear that Cruise is persuing any kind of Scientoligist agenda and therefore I don't agree that he should be refused permission to film BECAUSE of his beliefs. If you don't like Tom Cruise portraying your father in a Hollywood movie, that is a separate issue and the son should be free to try to stop it from happening through all legal means at his disposal.
I agree completely. While Mr. I have never seen him promote his religion or personal agenda (if any) in his movies. Cruise may not be a good actor by any measure, but I consider him one of the better
people in the US film industry.
Originally posted by Elfie
Who are you? And what have you done with GScholz? 
Ssshhh! Don’t wake him.
Seriously though; same guy, different target, new allies. That’s all.
I could say much of the same against the USA, but it would be redundant at this time. In any case you guys now seem to see things a bit differently than before with regard to “homeland security” and other aspects of your post 9/11 …
unfortunate changes.
