erynthered Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I gotta believe he does have trouble sleeping. A dude that size has to have some major snoring issues. It probably wakes him up all the time. 62509[/snapback] He's not as cunning as you, I've noticed.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 For what it's worth: 1. I am a bleeding heart liberal, and proud of it. 2. I work in Hollywood in the film industry and know a significant amount about films. 3. I dislike Michael Moore, and always have. I hate his personality, and for the most part, I dislike his movies and find them not only vastly overrated but boring and manipulative. 4. Fahrenheit 9/11, if you have not seen it, is likely not what you think it is. 5. I actually saw it, and hate Bush, and still didn't like it as a film at all, although it had its moments. On a scale of 1-10 I would give it, at the very best, a 6. 6. It's still not what you think it is and you need to see it to have any opinion of it whatsoever. 7. It's more dissimilar than similar to his earlier films, excluding the fact that he edits it for his own personal stance (which he never denies) and it's misleading as hell. 8. You have to see it to have any opinion on it whatsoever.
checkmate Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I am also a bleeding heart liberal. I saw the movie in Columbia, South Carolina. The theater was full, even here in the Republican bible belt. There was cheering and crying. The movie evokes strong emotions. Some of the viewpoints presented are sensationalized, but some of the media clips don't lie. Can anyone tell me why George Bush, when speaking at a costly fundraising black tie dinner said to those in attendance, "some call you the haves, I call you my base"? That is real and still resonates with me. Also the interview with the soldier making 24k protecting the oil workers making 120k was eye opening. I thought trying to link Bush to the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia was way overdone and Moore stepped over the line.
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 For what it's worth: 1. I am a bleeding heart liberal, and proud of it. 2. I work in Hollywood in the film industry and know a significant amount about films. 62544[/snapback] It all makes sense now. Now Kelly I have a couple of questions for you. I'm not being an a$$ (for a change), these are questions that I would really like to know the truth to. 1. Are conservative truely blacklisted in Hollywood? 2. Why is Hollywood so liberal. I can't think of anyother profession that is so one sided?
Paco Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 Can anyone tell me why George Bush, when speaking at a costly fundraising black tie dinner said to those in attendance, "some call you the haves, I call you my base"? That is real and still resonates with me. Actually...it's been a while since I've had to pull out my Michael Moore debunker ring, but if I recall correctly, this speech was skewed, edited, and misrepresented in some fashion. Not so much what he said, but to whom and when and under what circumstances. I could be wrong here, but I remember this was another challenged moment in the film.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 It all makes sense now. Now Kelly I have a couple of questions for you. I'm not being an a$$ (for a change), these are questions that I would really like to know the truth to. 1. Are conservative truely blacklisted in Hollywood? 2. Why is Hollywood so liberal. I can't think of anyother profession that is so one sided? 62655[/snapback] In short, the answer is emphatically "no" to the question of are conservatives blacklisted in Hollywood. And, IMO, there are a couple simple, clear reasons for it. First of all, a lot of the money people in Hollywood are conservative, just not the stars you see on your screen who are 95% liberal (IMO). That is because far, far, far more artsy/creative types are liberal than conservative, and they follow that profession (meaning acting/writing/directing). So naturally, the vast majority of the actors and stars are democrats. The decision makers in Hollywood are business people and money people not creative types, and they are a cross section of conservatives and Jews, (this is of course very general and there are tons of exceptions). Jews often tend to be Democrats, too, but not all. Secondly, another big reason I don't think conservatives are blacklisted whatsoever is that far, far, far more important than politics to Hollywood people is the fact they are money grubbing whores. I have never seen any single group or profession that is as backstabbing and out for themselves. They will promote anything and produce anything and screen anything if they think they can make money off it (because they will lose their huge paying jobs if the projects they select don't make money). That is why there is so much crap, sex, violence, etc. on your screens, because people buy it not because they want to make that stuff. So they would never blackball a conservative actor or director or writer for political stances if they think that woman or man could make them money. Look at Arnold. And remember, the backstabbers are the agents and producers and executives, which aren't the real liberals you're seeing and speaking of. The scumbags are from both sides of the political spectrum. The reason for it, to me, is the same reason there is a clear liberal bias in the mainstream media. A much, much larger number of liberals simply choose that profession. Entertainment and Media. They don't choose it because liberals do better there or because there are more people like them there, they choose it because it is creative, it is artsy, it is glamorous, and you can become famous and get hot girls or guys. Conservatives tend to go after business careers. I just don't meet a lot of conservative actors and directors and writers. Again, those are generalizations but true nonetheless.
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 In short, the answer is emphatically "no" to the question of are conservatives blacklisted in Hollywood. And, IMO, there are a couple simple, clear reasons for it. First of all, a lot of the money people in Hollywood are conservative, just not the stars you see on your screen who are 95% liberal (IMO). That is because far, far, far more artsy/creative types are liberal than conservative, and they follow that profession (meaning acting/writing/directing). So naturally, the vast majority of the actors and stars are democrats. The decision makers in Hollywood are business people and money people not creative types, and they are a cross section of conservatives and Jews, (this is of course very general and there are tons of exceptions). Jews often tend to be Democrats, too, but not all. Secondly, another big reason I don't think conservatives are blacklisted whatsoever is that far, far, far more important than politics to Hollywood people is the fact they are money grubbing whores. I have never seen any single group or profession that is as backstabbing and out for themselves. They will promote anything and produce anything and screen anything if they think they can make money off it (because they will lose their huge paying jobs if the projects they select don't make money). That is why there is so much crap, sex, violence, etc. on your screens, because people buy it not because they want to make that stuff. So they would never blackball a conservative actor or director or writer for political stances if they think that woman or man could make them money. Look at Arnold. And remember, the backstabbers are the agents and producers and executives, which aren't the real liberals you're seeing and speaking of. The scumbags are from both sides of the political spectrum. The reason for it, to me, is the same reason there is a clear liberal bias in the mainstream media. A much, much larger number of liberals simply choose that profession. Entertainment and Media. They don't choose it because liberals do better there or because there are more people like them there, they choose it because it is creative, it is artsy, it is glamorous, and you can become famous and get hot girls or guys. Conservatives tend to go after business careers. I just don't meet a lot of conservative actors and directors and writers. Again, those are generalizations but true nonetheless. 62676[/snapback] Gee, sounds like a real fun business to be in.
Captain America Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 For what it's worth: 1. I am a bleeding heart liberal, and proud of it. 2. I work in Hollywood in the film industry and know a significant amount about films. 3. I dislike Michael Moore, and always have. I hate his personality, and for the most part, I dislike his movies and find them not only vastly overrated but boring and manipulative. 4. Fahrenheit 9/11, if you have not seen it, is likely not what you think it is. 5. I actually saw it, and hate Bush, and still didn't like it as a film at all, although it had its moments. On a scale of 1-10 I would give it, at the very best, a 6. 6. It's still not what you think it is and you need to see it to have any opinion of it whatsoever. 7. It's more dissimilar than similar to his earlier films, excluding the fact that he edits it for his own personal stance (which he never denies) and it's misleading as hell. 8. You have to see it to have any opinion on it whatsoever. 62544[/snapback] I wonder if the high profile hollywood libbers realize thier taxes are going back up.If they really think its ok then why didnt they take the option of paying more taxes?
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I wonder if the high profile hollywood libbers realize thier taxes are going back up.If they really think its ok then why didnt they take the option of paying more taxes? 62792[/snapback] I'm sure the vast majority gladly would if that meant GW was gone.
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I'm sure the vast majority gladly would if that meant GW was gone. 62806[/snapback] I think his point was that what are they waiting for. If they would so gladly pay more taxes, they can always send more than they are scheduled to anytime they want. But that would cut in to their Champagne, caviar and limo money. What a bunch of fuggin' hypocrites.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 I think his point was that what are they waiting for. If they would so gladly pay more taxes, they can always send more than they are scheduled to anytime they want. But that would cut in to their Champagne, caviar and limo money. What a bunch of fuggin' hypocrites. 62807[/snapback] So why don't you voluntarily pay a lot more taxes than you are supposed to or scheduled to or legally bound to, or are you a "fuggin' hypocrite", too? Boomer the mutt-brain suggested that they should just pay more taxes because that is what they want, which is so moronic it's amazing I decided to respond to him. But I did, saying they gladly would pay what Kerry has said they would have to pay (meaning accept his tax cuts for those making over 200K) IF that meant he was elected.
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 So why don't you voluntarily pay a lot more taxes than you are supposed to or scheduled to or legally bound to, or are you a "fuggin' hypocrite", too? Boomer the mutt-brain suggested that they should just pay more taxes because that is what they want, which is so moronic it's amazing I decided to respond to him. But I did, saying they gladly would pay what Kerry has said they would have to pay (meaning accept his tax cuts for those making over 200K) IF that meant he was elected. 62816[/snapback] No I'm not a fuggin' hypocrite. Being the good conservative I am, I feel I'm already sending too much money to the government. I'm not complaining about the President's tax cuts. I fell they are working. But of those who are complaining, how many of them are revolting and sending what they would have been paying prior to the cuts. None, I would imagine, hence the hypocrite comment. The government makes it very simple to do that. Nice try Kelly.
Captain America Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 So why don't you voluntarily pay a lot more taxes than you are supposed to or scheduled to or legally bound to, or are you a "fuggin' hypocrite", too? Boomer the mutt-brain suggested that they should just pay more taxes because that is what they want, which is so moronic it's amazing I decided to respond to him. But I did, saying they gladly would pay what Kerry has said they would have to pay (meaning accept his tax cuts for those making over 200K) IF that meant he was elected. 62816[/snapback] You say that but you dont know it to be true, of course the hollywood types are very principled if its in thier favor, they also live in fear of a greater power.My My name calling you are losing control and soon to be losing the election, and you know it
alg Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 Moore made some good points going after corporate looters, but he is out of his element in trying to understand corporate profit motives. He loses it when his POV is shown to be nothing more then an idea that companies exist for no other reason then to give their money to employees. He fails to comprehend the idea that future jobs rely on future profits. Overall, I would critic Moore's entry on the scene as a positive - increasing a certain awareness. And then he went a blew it by jumping into the political areana with a series of half-truths eventuating in lies. His reasoning goes as follows (saw Bowling not F911): GWs family knew OBLs family. They are both involved in Saudi oil. Therefore they must be friends and, ultimately, part of the world conspiracy of US oil companies to take over the world. Moore started off having something to offer. Then he began to pander to the far left wing of politics - the group who's conspiracy theories, paranoia and general hatred of the right have the ability to actually imitate the brain capacity of pre-huminoid life forms on earth.
blzrul Posted October 9, 2004 Posted October 9, 2004 story Well the notoriety may have gone to his head - now they're trying to get F911 on PPV just before the election. I guess he could get rich off it but I really don't see it influencing the vote - unless the "slacker generation" has PPV. Fact is, many people who see it are already against the war and Bush. However, the move does have value in that neocon heads will explode, which is always amusing.
Paco Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 You know...I heard some woman the other day comment that Michael Moore is like herpes. "Just when you think you've got your life back, it plows it's ugly head back into it." Look, we get it. He's a pest at this point. Honestly. He can keep popping up all he wants...as long as people will stop referring to his movie like this: "...making it the highest-grossing political documentary ever." It is not a documentary. It's just not. I've read places where even HE says it's not a documentary. Please stop disrespecting documentaries. Please. Thank you in advance.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 You know...I heard some woman the other day comment that Michael Moore is like herpes. "Just when you think you've got your life back, it plows it's ugly head back into it." Look, we get it. He's a pest at this point. Honestly. He can keep popping up all he wants...as long as people will stop referring to his movie like this: It is not a documentary. It's just not. I've read places where even HE says it's not a documentary. Please stop disrespecting documentaries. Please. Thank you in advance. 63052[/snapback] I've said this before and I will say it again, it's a documentary because that is the only classification of films that it fits in. It is not a feature film because there are no actors or scenes or directing or original soundtrack or anything that makes it a feature film. It's not a "traditional" documentary but the fact is, it's a documentary until the people that decide these things, and not you, come up with another category.
checkmate Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Actually...it's been a while since I've had to pull out my Michael Moore debunker ring, but if I recall correctly, this speech was skewed, edited, and misrepresented in some fashion. Not so much what he said, but to whom and when and under what circumstances. I could be wrong here, but I remember this was another challenged moment in the film. 62669[/snapback] Paco--I hope you are right. If he said anything close to that, he should resign. His base is the religious right anyways.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 No I'm not a fuggin' hypocrite. Being the good conservative I am, I feel I'm already sending too much money to the government. 62820[/snapback] Even while we're at war? It seems to me that a real 'good conservative' would be wanting to spend only the money he has on hand, and not making commitments that would overextend the budget. But the word conservative has undergone a pretty ugly evolution, so use it as you like.
Chef Jim Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 Even while we're at war? It seems to me that a real 'good conservative' would be wanting to spend only the money he has on hand, and not making commitments that would overextend the budget. But the word conservative has undergone a pretty ugly evolution, so use it as you like. 63292[/snapback] I'm not quite sure what you're referring to but it appears that you're talking about what the President has done with our current budget. If you are I said that I was a good convervative, not the President. The tax relief act was a conservative move, all his spending is not.
Recommended Posts