930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Herr Professor Doktor Doom on September 12, 2004, 11:57:00 am
-
<img src="http://www.nobodydied.com/images/911-607x355.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Get ready to be called unpatriotic and almost terrorist by a surprisingly high number of board members.
-
I expected to see "paid for by kerry for president" or something in the corner.
-
regardless of who paid for it or didn't, it's the truth.
-
I'm completely intrigued by this. Where did you find it?
-
http://www.nobodydied.com (http://www.nobodydied.com)
pass it on!
<img src="http://www.nobodydied.com/images/kiawmdsf600x442.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Hasn't happened yet..
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Get ready to be called unpatriotic and almost terrorist by a surprisingly high number of board members.
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Get ready to be called unpatriotic and almost terrorist by a surprisingly high number of board members.
Nah, we'd rather talk about Spain giving in to the terrorists. Thats much funner.
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Get ready to be called unpatriotic and almost terrorist by a surprisingly high number of board members.
Nah, we'd rather talk about Spain giving in to the terrorists. Thats much funner. [/b]
Is Spain in the "axis of evil" too now? bomb those damn spaniards!
-
i guess vince foster was just collateral damage.
-
one suicide, deemed a murder by a small minority of rabid conspiracy theorists who get their edumacation from talk radio... versus 1000+ deaths under Bush. Hmmm, I think the point still stands.
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
edumacation
<sigh> education, education
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
edumacation
<sigh> education, education [/b]
<sigh>, sarcasm, sarcasm
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
one suicide, deemed a murder by a small minority of rabid conspiracy theorists who get their edumacation from talk radio... versus 1000+ deaths under Bush. Hmmm, I think the point still stands.
I'm probably on your side here, but can you explain this statement in a little more detail?
-
hitman, Venerable Bede was referring to Vince Foster's suicide. He's a guy who headed the travel office under Clinton, and he was clinically depressed. A lot of right-wing conspiracy theorist types think it was something more sinister. They also believe aliens landed at Roswell.
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
hitman, Venerable Bede was referring to Vince Foster's suicide. He's a guy who headed the travel office under Clinton, and he was clinically depressed. A lot of right-wing conspiracy theorist types think it was something more sinister. They also believe aliens landed at Roswell.
would like to explain vince foster's role in whitewater too?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
would like to explain vince foster's role in whitewater too?
no, I'd rather not talk about sleazy real estate deals in Arkansas. That's the whole point of the title of this thread, which you apparently miss... right-wingers are so morally bankrupt that they somehow think Clinton's shady real estate deals were worse than Bush's lying to get the country into a war which has killed 1000+ Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
the only explanation I can find for this astonishing lack of perspective is that such people are just mentally incapable of grasping large-scale horrors, so instead focus on minor shenanigans like Clinton's oval office cigar tricks.
none of which, I again must emphasise, killed tens of thousands of innocents.
-
but the point still remains. . .you claim no one died when clinton lied, i merely pointed out that indeed someone did die. . .be it by suicide (hmmm, i wonder what got him depressed?) or via murder. i'm not one to debate that issue. . nevertheless, vince foster was in the middle of a clinton lie, and is dead. unless you have proof that he is still living?
talk about morally bankrupt, lying is still lying. . as markie is fond of saying: pot, kettle, black. you can't pick and choose which morals are worth upholding and which aren't. . . that's up the catholic church. :)
-
are you crazy bede?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but the point still remains. . .you claim no one died when clinton lied, i merely pointed out that indeed someone did die. . .be it by suicide (hmmm, i wonder what got him depressed?) or via murder. i'm not one to debate that issue. . nevertheless, vince foster was in the middle of a clinton lie, and is dead. unless you have proof that he is still living?
I'm not sure how you can allege that Clinton is responsible for the death of Vince Foster, unless you're using Cheney's famous "It can't be dis-proved" argument.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i guess vince foster was just collateral damage.
What does Courteny Love's murder of Vince Foster have to do with any of this?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
vince foster was in the middle of a clinton lie, and is dead.
vince foster wore pants, and is dead.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Get ready to be called unpatriotic and almost terrorist by a surprisingly high number of board members.
Nah, we'd rather talk about Spain giving in to the terrorists. Thats much funner. [/b]
Is Spain in the "axis of evil" too now? bomb those damn spaniards! [/b]
Maybe it will be enough if they you just bomb José Maria Aznar and the rest of the Popular Party who lied to the whole country for electoral purposes. That is sad, but very much in line with the Republican Party acts, lies, lies, and lies.
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
hitman, Venerable Bede was referring to Vince Foster's suicide. He's a guy who headed the travel office under Clinton, and he was clinically depressed. A lot of right-wing conspiracy theorist types think it was something more sinister. They also believe aliens landed at Roswell.
Thanks DD. That's what I thought was being referred to, but wasn't positive. I also enjoy how right-wingers get so caught up in little shit, and will continue to harp on that, and not see the big picture. I guess getting blown by another woman while being married, and lying about it (which let's face it, any man would do, and there's evidently never been a republican who had character flaws) is just as bad as taking the whole country down because you invaded someplace that had nothing to do with 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
right-wingers are so morally bankrupt that they somehow think Clinton's shady real estate deals were worse than Bush's lying to get the country into a war which has killed 1000+ Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.
& this only includes civilians:
body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
Who knows how many *soldiers* have died:
casualties (http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp)
and we vilify serial killers for only killing 20-30. ;)
-
talk about morally bankrupt, lying is still lying. you can't pick and choose which morals are worth upholding and which aren't.
In Congress, the impeachment was overseen by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois),
whose own eight-year affair had ruined another woman's marriage. Hyde brushed this off as a "youthful indiscretion"; it happened when he was in his forties.
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) also led calls for Clinton's head; he once called the president a "scumbag." Burton advocated the death penalty for drug dealers and helped push mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing through
Congress. He steadfastly supported mandatory minimums until his son was arrested--twice--for possession with intent to distribute. At that point Burton forgot about law and order and got his son a polite slap on the wrist. To be
clear, I'm talking about Burton's "real" son. He also has an illegitimate son from a long-term affair.
Bob Dole. Newt Gingrich. Bob Livingston. All moralizing impeachment supporters; all adulterers. John Fund, the Wall Street Journal editorial writer who crusaded for Clinton's impeachment, got himself into a weird love triangle with a woman and her daughter, and after impregnating the daughter helped her get an abortion. And let's not forget Bob Barr, another Bible-thumping impeacher. Barr's second wife was his secretary; he had her unknowingly arrange his trysts with his mistress, who later became his third wife. This was after he encouraged the second wife to get an abortion. But Bob Barr never committed perjury! At his divorce proceedings, confronted with repeated questions about the abortion and his affair, he simply refused to answer.
-
Clinton wasn't impeached for fooling around. He was impeached for perjury - for lying under oath.
Details, details, details.......
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Clinton wasn't impeached for fooling around. He was impeached for perjury - for lying under oath.
Details, details, details.......
Good thing Bush wasn't under oath when he outlined his rationale for going to war.
-
Very good thing State of the Union addresses aren't under oath. Seriously. We could impeach every president.
By the way, I heart Brennser!
-
If he was lying - he is the most brilliant con artist ever.
He not only fooled the entire U.S. intelligence community, he also hoodwinked British intelligence, German intelligence, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc...
Wow! W is a fucking superhero with mind control powers.
Maybe coke is still his kryptonite.
Originally posted by grotty:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Clinton wasn't impeached for fooling around. He was impeached for perjury - for lying under oath.
Details, details, details.......
Good thing Bush wasn't under oath when he outlined his rationale for going to war. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
If he was lying - he is the most brilliant con artist ever.
Maybe he is then:
"So what happened? How did Bush & Cheney get it so wrong? There are only two possibilities. Either they didn't understand the intelligence they were given, or they willfully cherry-picked through the intelligence in order to make the strongest case possible for war. In other words, they were either incompetent or dishonest. Either way, Bush is responsible."
-Bill Press
Bush Must Go
*that's* the reason he will not get my vote. It wouldn't matter if he was democrat, repub, libert, communist, or martian.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
Maybe he is then:
"So what happened? How did Bush & Cheney get it so wrong? There are only two possibilities. Either they didn't understand the intelligence they were given, or they willfully cherry-picked through the intelligence in order to make the strongest case possible for war. In other words, they were either incompetent or dishonest. Either way, Bush is responsible."
-Bill Press
Bush Must Go
dude, i wouldn't take my political opinions from bill press, that would be like me taking my opinions from rush (which i don't, although some of his ties were nice). . .anyway, the either/or proposition has been thrown out the window by derrida and the deconstructionists.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
If he was lying - he is the most brilliant con artist ever.
Well he didn't fool everyone base on this documentary, which is a must see IMHO
<img src="http://www.truthuncovered.com/images/uncoveredlogosm.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
dude, i wouldn't take my political opinions from bill press[/QB][/QUOTE]
**************************
I agree & I don't. It's just a nice concise summary of what I view as the bottomline. And I had to give him credit.
Bush is ultimately responsible for making a poor misguided decision to go war. A war that has killed 1,000s, including over 1,000 Americans since Bush declared 'victory'. And he's showing a startling inability or unwillingness to clean up the mess that he made.
There's no getting around the argument here. He either lied or made a HUGE mistake. CEO's get fired for less. So should a president.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Clinton wasn't impeached for fooling around. He was impeached for perjury - for lying under oath.
Details, details, details.......
that still in no way compares to being responsible for killing tens of thousands, and your insistence that it does again illustrates my point that conservatives are unable to grasp big issues.
I guess I'd better repeat it again to get it through a couple of the thicker skulls here: nobody died when Clinton lied. Perjury over a BJ still doesn't kill anyone.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
If he was lying - he is the most brilliant con artist ever.
He not only fooled the entire U.S. intelligence community, he also hoodwinked British intelligence, German intelligence, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc...
Wow! W is a fucking superhero with mind control powers.
Maybe coke is still his kryptonite.
Changing the subject a bit, but:
ggw, you seem intelligent and thoughtful. Our opinions on the upcoming vote differ. Much like mine do with many other people I know. The question I have that I can't get answered from any of them regarding their intent to vote for Bush though is WHY?
Throw out party affiliation. What are the good reasons for voting for him? I'm being serious & want to have a balanced thoughtful process on this. But I can't come up with ANYTHING. I'm not normally strongly affiliated with any party or even usually very political. This just has me so intensely concerned.
Why are ~ 50% of Americans actually going to vote for him?
-
I think perhaps the answer is, as Mankie and Markie have been saying all along...is that Americans are stupid (or at least 50% of them).
Damn, it hurts to have to admit that Mankie was right about something.
Originally posted by grotty:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
If he was lying - he is the most brilliant con artist ever.
He not only fooled the entire U.S. intelligence community, he also hoodwinked British intelligence, German intelligence, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc...
Wow! W is a fucking superhero with mind control powers.
Maybe coke is still his kryptonite.
Changing the subject a bit, but:
ggw, you seem intelligent and thoughtful. Our opinions on the upcoming vote differ. Much like mine do with many other people I know. The question I have that I can't get answered from any of them regarding their intent to vote for Bush though is WHY? Throw out party affiliation.
Are there good reasons for voting for him? I'm being serious & want to have a balanced thought process on this. But I can't come up with ANYTHING. I'm not normally strongly affiliated with any party or even usually very political. This just has me so intensely concerned.
Why are ~ 50% of Americans actually going to vote for him? [/b]
-
Originally posted by grotty:
Why are ~ 50% of Americans actually going to vote for him?
just to nitpick, make that 50% of people who actually vote
-
I don't think he made a misguided decision to go to war. There are plenty of people - on both sides of the proverbial political fence - who acknowledge that, at the time, the intelligence on Iraq pointed to continuing WMD programs.
The argument against going to war, at the time, was not based on the belief that there were no WMDs in Iraq, it was based on the belief that increased inspections would be enough to contain Iraq. That fact seems to be conveniently forgotten and people act as though the rest of the world was claiming that the WMD didn't exist.
Alternatively, many people who spend the majority of their time talking about Bush being a complete and utter moron who can't utter a complete sentence, conclude that Bush was lying and, despite having an IQ below 100, that he was able to pull of the greatest con job in U.S. political history, fooling Gore, Kerry, and every last one of his fiercest political opponents, as well as German intelligence, who concluded that Iraq could have a bomb in three years, and British intelligence. Even Chirac stated that Iraq was building weapons.
The problem, in my opinion, was not in those "reasons" for war, but in the absolutely horrible execution of the war. The administration went with the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz "war on the cheap" philosophy rather than the Powell "overwhelming force" method, which would likely have avoided the casualties we are seeing now.
So if you want to lambaste Bush for mismanagement of the Iraq war, go right ahead. You won't get an argument from me.
But when people continuously parrot trite crap like "Bush's war for his Daddy" they simply come across as partisan crackpots who are no different than those who found Vince Foster's death to be just one of a hundred murders committed by Clinton.
That's why Bush is still showing strength in the polls. It's not that Bush is unabashedly loved by the majority of Americans, it's that the misguided, misinformed nonsense being spewed forth by the activist left frightens people away from Kerry.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
CEO's get fired for less.
You know I agree with you, grotty....
But, CEO's actually get bonuses and/or huge exit packages for fucking up this much....It's sick.
-
Please show me where I "insisted" the two were comparable acts.
I'll save you the trouble -- I didn't.
Comprehend much?
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
that still in no way compares to being responsible for killing tens of thousands, and your insistence that it does again illustrates my point that conservatives are unable to grasp big issues.
I guess I'd better repeat it again to get it through a couple of the thicker skulls here: nobody died when Clinton lied. Perjury over a BJ still doesn't kill anyone.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by grotty:
Why are ~ 50% of Americans actually going to vote for him?
just to nitpick, make that 50% of people who actually vote [/b]
Good pt - polls can only measure intent and numbers currently registered.
That's why I think (hope) that Kerry will actually win more easily than expected. There have to be many other people out there like me that normally don't get too imvolved, but feel that it's absolutely necessary this year. And will vote at all cost.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
It's not that Bush is unabashedly loved by the majority of Americans, it's that the misguided, misinformed nonsense being spewed forth by the activist left frightens people away from Kerry.
I don't get that...I'm not saying you're wrong, because something's not working as it should on the Kerry campaign, but I don't get it. Even if the anti-war rhetoric is one-sided, how does that frighten someone away from Kerry?
Personally, my vote against Bush has virtually nothing to do with Iraq. Though I believe the way the administration keeps using the fight against terrorism for the reason to have gone in (since the WMDs didn't show up) is pathetic, ill-conceived and calculated, it's all the other stuff I have problems with. I think GW is more evangelical than most believe or even consider in terms of how he makes decisions & policy on domestic and international policy. There is very little room for 'freedom' of any stripe in his plan.
-
I personally believe (and I know I am not the only one) that Kerry is doing poorly because Dems are not good at staying on the offensive. They seem to think that people will see through political attacks against Kerry. If you look at how Carville and Stephanopolous ran the 1992 campaign, they were always reacting right away when anything new came out. They did not just sit back and let the Bush Sr. campaign dictate everything. Kerry needs to stop running around playing up the good soldier bit and actually run an active campaign. Clinton had much more potential campaign disasters than Kerry has had but escaped much better than Kerry is.
GGW, I remember you saying before the primaries were over that Kerry-Edwards was the ticket that could knock off Bush. Is it really the left that is causing the ticket not to work in your opinion?
-
Someone here may find this of interest:
RATED R: REPUBLICANS IN HOLLYWOOD How do confirmed conservatives function in the liberal stronghold of show business? That question is examined in this documentary by a former Democratic speechwriter, Jesse Moss. He produces a number of outspoken right-wing entertainers, including Patricia Heaton of "Everybody Loves Raymond," the comic Drew Carey and, of all things, a game-show host, Pat Sajak.
AMC, Tuesday at 10.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
It's not that Bush is unabashedly loved by the majority of Americans, it's that the misguided, misinformed nonsense being spewed forth by the activist left frightens people away from Kerry.
I don't get that...[/b]
And is this any different than the left's "Anyone But Bush!" slogan.
Are we really choosing sides to vote for the best of the worst?!?!
Now I've got a headache...going for a walk with the dogs... :D
-
It's the only explanation I can come up with. Honestly, Bush is clearly a political disaster and I'm as surprised as anyone that the polls keep showing him ahead. I figured this election as a cakewalk for Kerry.
The only logical reason I can see is that the other side has shot themselves in the foot with their constant foaming at the mouth. You know -- like posting pictures that could be seen as celebrating the fact that bin Laden is still a fugitive. They oversimplify every issue and pump out rhetoric that puts the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to shame.
Being that there are only two options in the election, people conclude that the Devil they know is better than the one they don't know, who appears to be supported by a rabid Left. (I'm not saying that the left is by definition rabid, just that there is a very vocal segment that is rabid that frightens a lot of people away.)
Moreover, while people aren't thrilled about Bush's handling of Iraq, all they see is the other side crucifying Bush while offering no glimpse of how they would handle al-Qaeda or Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea -- which are real threats. This leaves many with the impression (so well exploited at the RNC) that the Dems would do nothing - that they would cut and run from Iraq and would do nothing to curb terrorism or the proliferation of WMD by rogue states unless they got the go ahead from the UN (is there a more ineffectual body in the world) or the arrogant French. (I'm not saying that view is correct, just pointing out how people arrive at that view.)
Likewise, there is a constant prattle about a police state and the always lovely comparisons to Hitler. Most people don't see any police state and they are turned off by the Hitler comparisons.
Despite that all, I still say Kerry will win. If he doesn't, he only has his own side to blame (and the guys from Diebold, of course).
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
It's not that Bush is unabashedly loved by the majority of Americans, it's that the misguided, misinformed nonsense being spewed forth by the activist left frightens people away from Kerry.
I don't get that...I'm not saying you're wrong, because something's not working as it should on the Kerry campaign, but I don't get it. Even if the anti-war rhetoric is one-sided, how does that frighten someone away from Kerry?
Personally, my vote against Bush has virtually nothing to do with Iraq. Though I believe the way the administration keeps using the fight against terrorism for the reason to have gone in (since the WMDs didn't show up) is pathetic, ill-conceived and calculated, it's all the other stuff I have problems with. I think GW is more evangelical than most believe or even consider in terms of how he makes decisions & policy on domestic and international policy. There is very little room for 'freedom' of any stripe in his plan. [/b]
-
i'm sticking with my 'kerry loses the popular vote and wins the electoral' theory. and it should not be that close
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
[QB]
Moreover, while people aren't thrilled about Bush's handling of Iraq, all they see is the other side crucifying Bush while offering no glimpse of how they would handle al-Qaeda or Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea -- which are real threats. This leaves many with the impression (so well exploited at the RNC) that the Dems would do nothing - that they would cut and run from Iraq and would do nothing to curb terrorism or the proliferation of WMD by rogue states unless they got the go ahead from the UN (is there a more ineffectual body in the world) or the arrogant French. (I'm not saying that view is correct, just pointing out how people arrive at that view.)
But just what has Bush done to handle Iran or North Korea? There is solid proof that they have nuclear programs up and running, and there was this proof and an actual threat that they are willing to use them, before we launched into Iraq. All we heard about Iraq was that Hussein used WMD's on his own people before. Yeah, like a long damn time ago.
In my own opinion, Iraq was launched based on a calculated venture that we could get in and out without much problem, similar to Desert Shield, because the war in Afghanistan wasn't really getting us bin Laden. And a poor case was made that it had to do with terrorism.
I may be a Democrat, but I hate how most went with the President on this one. And the reason seems to be as apparent as "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If they didn't, they would be called unpatriotic and unsupportive and weak on terror. Now that they have, they have shot themselves in the collective feet.
-
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
that still in no way compares to being responsible for killing tens of thousands,
But they were only towel-heads anyway.
Besides, when that sparkiling, middle eastern, democratic-showplace that is the 'future Iraq' is finally completed they'll be falling all over themselves thanking us.
-
Originally posted by King Dons:
Besides, when that sparkiling, middle eastern, democratic-showplace that is the 'future Iraq' is finally completed they'll be falling all over themselves thanking us. [/QB]
The majority already are.
-
nice attitude :mad:
plus once the US leaves the more radical militias in the outer reaches of iraq will take over the country and it becomes afganatistan over again
-
For it is written:
<img src="http://www.buddhado.com/archives/BuddhaBush.jpg" alt=" - " />
"Inside of every rag-head there's an American waiting to get out."
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by King Dons:
Besides, when that sparkiling, middle eastern, democratic-showplace that is the 'future Iraq' is finally completed they'll be falling all over themselves thanking us. [/b]
The majority already are. [/QB]
are those the ones throwing flowers at us?
-
<img src="http://b3ta.adennak.com/hawkingbush.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Who you gonna call? (http://www.arabpestcontrol.com/)
-
Originally posted by King Dons:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
that still in no way compares to being responsible for killing tens of thousands,
But they were only towel-heads anyway.
Besides, when that sparkiling, middle eastern, democratic-showplace that is the 'future Iraq' is finally completed they'll be falling all over themselves thanking us. [/b]
This is either the best of sarcasm ever, or you actually believe this.
Do you plan on being alive to see this?
-
To expand on the AMC special on Republican hollywood-types, from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/arts/television/14stan.html):
September 14, 2004
TV REVIEW | 'RATED R: REPUBLICANS IN HOLLYWOOD'
In Search of Hollywood's Anti-Republican Conspiracy
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood," a documentary tonight on AMC, examines politics in the entertainment industry at a time when the White House and Congress are in Republican hands, conservatives dominate the Supreme Court, Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor of California and Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" triumphed at the box office. Now it turns out that even the avant-garde filmmaker Vincent Gallo supports George W. Bush.
If there is a blacklist, where is the sign-up sheet?
There is no studio ban on Republicans, of course, but certain conservatives have been dining out for decades on what they describe as a Hollywood witch hunt. The film's director and narrator, Jesse Moss, once a Democratic aide in Washington, interviews all the usual suspects, like Michael Medved, a former film reviewer who parlayed his pariah status into a nationally syndicated radio talk show, and John Milius, the director of "Red Dawn" and "Conan the Barbarian" and a sought after screenwriter who says that his right-wing views have hindered his directing career. "I should have made 20 more films," he says. (Is there a filmmaker in Hollywood who wouldn't say the same?)
Mr. Milius may not get the opportunity to direct many more big-budget films, but it is probable that the director of "Day After Tomorrow," a global warming disaster movie that flopped at the box office, will not either. Mr. Gibson, on the other hand, certainly has a shot.
Market forces, not Marx, rule the studio system.
Still, it is always enjoyable to hear conservatives bemoaning discrimination in Hollywood - they sound like the beautiful blonde who complains that her looks intimidate men. It is true, of course, that in the more rarefied show business communities, Republicans are a despised minority. So are fat people, older actresses and first-time novelists.
What the film raises, but underplays, is the evolution in political fashions over the last 20 years. Conservatives have a cachet now that they did not in the pre-Reagan days, when Charleton Heston was a lone gun spokesman.
It is true that more Hollywood celebrities embrace the liberal causes of the environment, abortion rights and gun control than speak out in favor of tax cuts. But the best-known Hollywood liberals, people like Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon, belong to an older generation.
The conservative revolution that swept in with Ronald Reagan (and helped impeach Bill Clinton) has made inroads even in Malibu. People like Mr. Milius and Mr. Medved are reliving old slights. There are younger celebrities who do not really know what it is like to be dismissed as ridiculous.
Patricia Heaton of "Everybody Loves Raymond" describes a dinner party at which other guests were appalled when she said she voted for George W. Bush. That kind of creaky Hollywood elitism has not prevented her from winning Emmys or starting an antiabortion advocacy group, "Feminists for Life."
The documentary is most interesting when it looks at the evangelical movement in Hollywood, particularly young actors and writers who belong to "Act I," a kind of support group for Hollywood Christians. One young woman explains that in the aftermath of Sept. 11 it is now acceptable to talk about "God" in Hollywood but that the word "Jesus" causes people to back off.
Dean Batali, a writer on the sitcom "That 70's Show," discusses his efforts to sneak Christian values into a show that is basically a spoof on sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
But perhaps the most obvious sign that things have changed in Hollywood is the confession of Mr. Gallo. "My fantasy is not that the Republican Party would look more like me," the shaggy young director says. "I wish I looked more like George Will."
THE AMC PROJECT
Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood
AMC, tonight at 10, Eastern and Pacific times; 9, Central time.
Directed, written and produced by Jesse Moss of Mile End Films.
-
Originally posted by hitman:
Originally posted by King Dons:
Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
that still in no way compares to being responsible for killing tens of thousands,
But they were only towel-heads anyway.
Besides, when that sparkiling, middle eastern, democratic-showplace that is the 'future Iraq' is finally completed they'll be falling all over themselves thanking us. [/b]
This is either the best of sarcasm ever, or you actually believe this.
Do you plan on being alive to see this? [/b]
that was definitely sarcasm!