[Mattie and Rooster and LeBeouf are interesting characters played well by the actors who inhabit them, but there’s no real depth there. ]

Sorry but I have to disagree entirely. I thought that the Coen Brothers did an excellent job at slowly revealing the depth of the characters involved. Three scenes in particular encapsulate this view for me.

1) LeBeouf's kill shot that saved Rooster. This was the culmination of the slowly-evolving respect between the two lawmen, where Rooster finally saw through LeBeouf's braggadocio to see the skilled, dedicated lawman that he was. And after all his previous yammering, LeBeouf's humility in the face of Rooster's praise was revealing.

2) The shooting of Little Blackie. Although Mattie was tough as nails in many ways, she was still a child and her screaming for Rooster not to shoot the horse she had come to love beautifully potrayed the small amount of innocence that was left in her. Opposingly, Rooster's complete lack of hesitation in putting down Little Blackie also perfectly portrayed the no-nonsense, harsh realities of the time - it was no place for the timid and sentimental. Sadly, you get the feeling that Rooster's bullet not only killed the horse, but that it also killed any traces of the little girl left in Mattie.

3) Rooster's ride to save Mattie. Rooster pretty much exemplified all of the traits that you found in the evil men he opposed: gluttonous, greedy, arrogant, quick to kill...but with one, glaring difference. He still had a conscience. His frantic ride to save Mattie, followed by an agonizing run across the landscape, poignantly showed that in his heart of hearts, Rooster was indeed a good man who could be counted on to do the right thing.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and highly recommend it.

An better header for the illustration:

What Would Sheryl Crow Do-Do?

But several people familiar with the debate among New York’s Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims. They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally.

"Sensitivity" my butt. The only "wave of bitterness" the Muslims were worried about unleashing was the one that would come crashing down on their useful idiot enablers -i.e, the Democrats - at the ballot box for the next few election cycles.

Loved this movie. The scene where Spock basically tells the Vulcan Science Council to go f#ck themselves after they insult his mother is worth the price of admission.

I guess that would depend on whether it actually happened or not. Since none of us can prove it, it's all speculation.

Wrong. The video evidence proves that the incident didn't occur. You're just refusing to accept the facts because you're an intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Let's try a hypothetical situation:

A white store owner - well-respected in his community - calls police and states that a black gunman walked into his store, forced him to empty his safe at gunpoint, and escaped with $50K. Later, however, when the police view the store's security camera footage, as well as video footage from a bank across the street that shows the front of the store, it becomes clear that no one entered the store at the time that the owner claims that he was robbed. Furthermore, the safe from which the $50K was allegedly stolen is visible in the security camera footage and is clearly never opened by anyone that day, much less by the store owner as he's being held at gunpoint. As they investigate further, the police come to learn that the white store owner has a tax debt of $45K and is facing IRS troubles.

Now, which are you going to put your faith in: the store owner's word or the video footage?

Any answer other than "the video footage" is absurd and only indicates that anyone who would give that answer is doing so out of some distorted emotional need to cover for the store owner or some mental illness that doesn't allow for logical reasoning.

Reps Carson and Lewis stated that at a specific time, at a specific location, Tea Party members screamed "n!gger" at them at least 15 times. Breitbart has presented several individual video/audio recordings from that specific location, at that specific time, from different vantage points...and not one of them managed to capture even a single utterance of the word "n!gger".

It is blindingly clear as to what the truth is here: namely, that Reps Carson and Lewis are liars - plain and simple. Their motivation in lying is that they are liberal Democrats who wanted to paint the Tea Parties as racist in an effort to 1) disparage the Tea Parties in the eyes of the American people, which would in turn 2) help the Democrats.

Actually, following his initial whiny, ankle-biting post, he makes some valid, level-headed points.

But to come on to Breitbart's own Web site and deride him for not doing enough to further the cause is ass-hattery at it's best. The funny thing is that he's no different in temperament than those he rails against like Obama - a snobby, elitist "intellectual" whom we should all thank for being allowed the privilege of basking in his brilliant brilliance.

His attitude is a perfect illustration of the admonition against cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sorry. Of course you are right. The sign of the champion debater - one who needs to try liberal distractions because he doesn't have any real facts to debate.

Funny then that you haven't once denied being a whining, ankle-biting jackass, huh? Which would infer some level of agreement with the observation...perhaps sub-conscious.
That being the the case, with what - exactly - are you finding fault?

I of course bow to your flawless execution, logic and command of the English language.

I would take your bowing as a compliment, but seeing as how you probably spend most of your time prostrate in a futile attempt at kissing your own ass, it's really much ado about nothing.

Remind me when I see you on the street to bow in deference and thank you for not having to resort to actually demonstrating your abilities, only your distractions...

Oh, I have no interest in demonstrating anything to you. And thanks to your childish, myopic need for approval and applause, you're doing an outstanding job of assisting me in demonstrating my point to my actual audience - the other posters.

So thank you and please continue :)

Don't be angry that you were publicly embarrassed by your betters.

That would require me to be bested, which hasn't happened.

You keep harping on a "debate" but you're missing the central point - that is, that there's nothing to debate.

I stated that you're a whining, ankle-biting jackass...which is precisely what you are.

What is there to debate in that?

If you would like to learn how to debate and file complaints I'll be happy to instruct you.

No thanks, but here's a few instructions for you:

1) Find a dictionary.

2) Look up "whiner".

3) Look up "ankle-biter".

4) Look up "jackass".

5) Note your feelings of discomfort.

Wow. You filed and complaint...and you post on internet forums.

How earth-shattering.

Thanks for letting the Sun come up this morning.