HollywoodHalfwits.com

March 7, 2003

I was surfing Larry Elder's site the other day and he had linked a site about the Hollywood left's stance on the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq. Here is the site.

www.hollywoodhalfwits.com

A couple of things.

1) Some of the headlines are a little misleading. For instance it has George Clooney saying we can't win a war anymore as a headline. If you read the article it clearly says that Clooney meant that no one will win in a war because of loss of human life and the loss of the international community, but if you just went by the headline it makes it sound like Clooney is saying we can't be victorious in any war.

2) About the supposed "blacklisting" against actors or actresses who speak out against Bush or the war. This is bullshit. If anything there is a blacklist against performers who speak out for Bush or the war. Hollywood is so left it's not funny and for SAG to come out with a pre-emptive threat against blacklisting is flat out preposterous.

3) Another thing is that while there are some celebrities who speak out against the war, they are entitled to their opinion. However they must also realize that if they choose to speak out publicly they must also be ready to bear the brunt of rebuttals.

Discuss?

March 7, 2003

I think celebrities should just keep their mouths shut. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS. Do what you're being paid to do, and don't make a fool of yourself by dealing with something you know nothing of.

By the way, when is Alec Baldwinn leaving the country?

March 7, 2003

I think celebrities should just keep their mouths shut. STAY THE FUCK OUT OF POLITICS. Do what you're being paid to do, and don't make a fool of yourself by dealing with something you know nothing of.

By the way, when is Alec Baldwinn leaving the country?

I can see where you stand on this AS.

You are going to love the site.

March 7, 2003

It saddens me to think that the left wingers think that they can change things by crying about them. If the President launches the troops, there's nothing you can do about it. You may not like it, but it will not change things. It is just a fact of life that some people need to be killed. Saddam is one of them. A true gangster who muscled his way into power, and now is just plain evil with evil intentions.

When we kill him, or kick him out, there will be much rejoicing in Iraq. And it will not matter what any movie star says. The liberated Iraqis will thank us.

March 7, 2003

Eh, I don't want to be any part of this "OMG! Celebs talking 'bout politics! Ban plz!" Frankly, I hope celebs get MORE involved in politics as it pisses people off (and that's always fun to watch). Not that I like the celebs, just the random chaos.

March 7, 2003

I don't mind them speaking out but they should

a)Know what they're talking about

b)Not think their opinion is worth more then anyone else

March 7, 2003

I don't mind the celebs speaking out. My problem is with the media who acts like what they have to say is important.

The only celebrities that have anything more important to say then the rest of us are those that actual get into politics like Fred Thomson, Reagan, Ventura, etc.

There are plenty of political analysts out there (for both the right and left) that we should be listening to instead.

March 7, 2003

Celebrities have worked their way up to achieve a position where some of the sheep will allow them to influence their opinion on things like world events.

It's their right to do that. If you don't like it, don't listen to them.

March 7, 2003

Celebrities have worked their way up to achieve a position where some of the sheep will allow them to influence their opinion on things like world events.

It's their right to do that. If you don't like it, don't listen to them.

That's why I blame the sheep.

March 7, 2003

When Seven Years In Tibet was released, some reporter asked Brad Pitt his opinion of the situation in Tibet. Pitt's reply is a classic and should serve as a lesson to any Hollywoodite who leaps into the political arena without any knowledge. My respect for Brad Pitt increased a lot after this. His answer to that question?

"Who cares what I think? I'm a fucking actor."

March 7, 2003

What I wouldn't give to hear more actors/actresses take that approach. Politicians know more about this stuff because it's their job to. If I ever hear a former boy bander try to preach about how to vote... I'll either laugh till my sides split or flip out.

March 7, 2003

They have their right to do so.

But they seem to want to ignore everyone else's right to not watch whatever show or movie they happen to be in.

March 7, 2003

I don't think anyone listens to celebrities. A recent poll showed only 7% of people think a celebrities opinion means anything.

March 7, 2003

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.sht...003/2/23/151110

Linked form the site.

"Janeane Garofalo: 'It Wasn't Hip' to Protest Clinton's Wars"

Comedienne-turned-peace-activist Janeane Garofalo offered a stunning admission on Sunday, explaining that she and her fellow anti-war protesters didn't stage huge demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan because "it wasn't very hip" to protest the former president.

Asked by "Fox News Sunday's" Tony Snow why peace protesters like herself didn't object to Clinton's wars, Garofalo explained:

"I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then."

Then she added, by way of explaining why the anti-Clinton protests never gelled, "It wasn't very hip."

Garofalo went on to claim that Hollywood actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins led protests against Clinton's 1998 Iraq attack, saying that "there was a lot of protest, just as there was against the first Gulf War."

A Lexis-Nexis search for December 1998, the month Clinton bombed the daylights out of Baghdad, failed to turn up a single report that mentioned either Sarandon or Robbins protesting the attacks.

A similar search for the month of February 2003 turned up 124 reports on Sarandon protesting President Bush's Iraq policy.

There you go, she basically confirmed that this is an anti-Bush protest first and anti-war protest second. She and many others where more than willing to keep their mouths shut when Clinton was in office bombing countries but now that Bush is in office it's "hip" to speak out. It's bullshit double standard partisan politics.

On the main site Danny Glover, star of Predator 2, Lethal Weapon, and Gone Fishin' called Bush a racist. Why is Bush a racist for wanting to rid the world of Saddam but Clinton was called teh "first black President" and what he did was worse than what Bush is planning to do. Bush wants to win, he wants the lives that will be lost to actually mean something, Cliton just dropped 150 bombs on Iraq, wiped Monica's chin, and walked away.

BTW, Brad Pitt is the man.

March 7, 2003

When Seven Years In Tibet was released, some reporter asked Brad Pitt his opinion of the situation in Tibet. Pitt's reply is a classic and should serve as a lesson to any Hollywoodite who leaps into the political arena without any knowledge. My respect for Brad Pitt increased a lot after this. His answer to that question?

"Who cares what I think? I'm a fucking actor."

Here it is:

"BY DWIGHT GARNER | HOLLYWOOD'S SUDDEN INTEREST in Tibet is deeply suspect, but Brad Pitt's motives seem pure. He didn't covet the lead role in French director Jean-Jacques Annaud's new epic 'Seven Years in Tibet' in order to make a political declaration. He wanted to make a professional one -- to prove that he could anchor a long, serious, probing film. And to his credit, in recent interviews he's actually sounded as if there's more inside his cranium than newly-mowed hay. 'Who cares what I think China should do (about Tibet)?' he told Time magazine. 'I'm a fucking actor ... I'm a grown man who puts on makeup.'"

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/1997/10/10tibet.html

March 8, 2003

Whilst I'd agree most of the actors arent the sharpest sticks in the wood, what really annoys me is that the loser who runs the site (probably from his shed in Alabama with a big sign out the front saying "Be a Man! Join the Klan!") equates that anyone who doesn't support George Bush and the war without question is an Anti-American traitor. Seeing as more than 50% of the people didn't vote for Bush in 2000, I guess in his eyes America is a pretty self lathing country. And at least those actors have some talent and ability, and can actually do something constructive rather than making a stupid website.

March 8, 2003

"I absolutely did. I did not support Operation Desert Fox. It's just that you didn't know me very well back then. Nobody really was interested in listening to me back then."

As opposed to now?

Sit down, Dreamer, sit down...

March 8, 2003

There you go, she basically confirmed that this is an anti-Bush protest first and anti-war protest second. She and many others where more than willing to keep their mouths shut when Clinton was in office bombing countries but now that Bush is in office it's "hip" to speak out. It's bullshit double standard partisan politics.

Oh yes, because Janeane Garofalo represents every single anti-war viewpoint.

Celebrity opinion isn't gospel, it's an opinion, no different than yours or mine. The only difference is because of their celebrity status it's more apt to be heard/published. That's all. To those who say they should "stay out of politics", I challenge you to do the same, since you're just as misinformed as they are.

By the by, I'm against violence. Period, unless it's under extreme circumstances (e.g. Milosevic). So yes, I was against Clinton's bombing of Iraq just as much as I'm against Bush's.

March 9, 2003

Oh yes, because Janeane Garofalo represents every single anti-war viewpoint.

What besides the Libertarian viewpoint, which is a totally different argument. Does Janeane Garofolo not represent.

March 9, 2003

There you go, she basically confirmed that this is an anti-Bush protest first and anti-war protest second.

Over near me, we have giant signs that say: "Fight Unemployment, Not Iraq."

No one cared about Clinton's wars because the economey wasn't going to hell.

March 9, 2003

The celebs just want attention. I lean to the Left and even I know that. Those who give them the attention they want deserve to have to listen to them.

March 10, 2003

There you go, she basically confirmed that this is an anti-Bush protest first and anti-war protest second. She and many others where more than willing to keep their mouths shut when Clinton was in office bombing countries but now that Bush is in office it's "hip" to speak out. It's bullshit double standard partisan politics.

Oh yes, because Janeane Garofalo represents every single anti-war viewpoint.

Celebrity opinion isn't gospel, it's an opinion, no different than yours or mine. The only difference is because of their celebrity status it's more apt to be heard/published. That's all. To those who say they should "stay out of politics", I challenge you to do the same, since you're just as misinformed as they are.

By the by, I'm against violence. Period, unless it's under extreme circumstances (e.g. Milosevic). So yes, I was against Clinton's bombing of Iraq just as much as I'm against Bush's.

OK, but where were all the protests when Clinton bombed Iraq or when we bailed out the Brits and the Frogs in Bosnia? There weren't many if any from the Left. Now that we have a Republican President and he chosses to enforce international law (the UN resolutions) that neither Clinton nor even the UN themselves were willing to enforce, Bush is the bad guy. Clinotn paid a little lip service to Iraq and helped in Bosnia without UN approval, he didn't even talk to them, he just did it, why does Bush have to go through them? Double standard. When Clinton bommbed Iraq he had support of Canada, France, etc... Why aren't they with Bush now? Double standard.

This is a partisan protest first, there is really no other way to explain why the Dems would be against this and not against Clinton's unproductive killings in Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

That is not to say that there were no people against Clinton's bombings, in fact many of the same people who are against this were most likely against Clinotn as well, but where the fuck were they in the 90s? No where to be found. They knew that Billy Jeff wouldn't go through with anything and that we now have an adult in the Oval Office and he will do what he says.

March 10, 2003

When Clinton bommbed Iraq he had support of Canada, France, etc... Why aren't they with Bush now? Double standard.

We aren't against the war, but we will do what the UN decides for now. France remains the problem. We do have ships in the Persian Gulf in case something comes up though. Assuming France will veto the resolution, we will stay out of it unless the US asks for our help. If it ends up being a hard and brutal war, then we will be there eventually, but why go in if the US can mop up in a week. Besides, most of our forces are in Afghanistan right now, we would have to pull them out of there first.

March 10, 2003

There you go, she basically confirmed that this is an anti-Bush protest first and anti-war protest second. She and many others where more than willing to keep their mouths shut when Clinton was in office bombing countries but now that Bush is in office it's "hip" to speak out. It's bullshit double standard partisan politics.

Oh yes, because Janeane Garofalo represents every single anti-war viewpoint.

Celebrity opinion isn't gospel, it's an opinion, no different than yours or mine. The only difference is because of their celebrity status it's more apt to be heard/published. That's all. To those who say they should "stay out of politics", I challenge you to do the same, since you're just as misinformed as they are.

By the by, I'm against violence. Period, unless it's under extreme circumstances (e.g. Milosevic). So yes, I was against Clinton's bombing of Iraq just as much as I'm against Bush's.

OK, but where were all the protests when Clinton bombed Iraq or when we bailed out the Brits and the Frogs in Bosnia? There weren't many if any from the Left. Now that we have a Republican President and he chosses to enforce international law (the UN resolutions) that neither Clinton nor even the UN themselves were willing to enforce, Bush is the bad guy. Clinotn paid a little lip service to Iraq and helped in Bosnia without UN approval, he didn't even talk to them, he just did it, why does Bush have to go through them? Double standard. When Clinton bommbed Iraq he had support of Canada, France, etc... Why aren't they with Bush now? Double standard.

This is a partisan protest first, there is really no other way to explain why the Dems would be against this and not against Clinton's unproductive killings in Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

That is not to say that there were no people against Clinton's bombings, in fact many of the same people who are against this were most likely against Clinotn as well, but where the fuck were they in the 90s? No where to be found. They knew that Billy Jeff wouldn't go through with anything and that we now have an adult in the Oval Office and he will do what he says.

I won't deny that there's double-standard with Bush. To say otherwise is just stupid. However, it seems that everytime a protest occurs or someone expresses a liberal viewpoint when a Republican President is in office, it's automatically discounted just because of the double standard.

I think the reason there weren't as many people publicly against Clinton's bombings of Iraq was that it was fairly hush-hush. It wasn't well publicized, particularly with the Dog the Wag Monica-gate super-scandal occupying most major media outlets. Does that make it right? No, in fact it actually makes it worse, since I definitely don't agree with Bush's actions in the least but at least he's being honest about it. Plus, in comparison, this is a MUCH bigger deal, since there's a lot more troops involved, and even if, like the Gulf War, it's an offensive squash on our behalf, the fact is it's still a war, which means people will die.

So, although there is a double-standard, this is also a "bigger deal" and is much more publicized. I think more people realize what's at stake since they can't joke about Bush and semen stains to ignore the issue.

March 10, 2003

I won't deny that there's double-standard with Bush. To say otherwise is just stupid. However, it seems that everytime a protest occurs or someone expresses a liberal viewpoint when a Republican President is in office, it's automatically discounted just because of the double standard.

I think the reason there weren't as many people publicly against Clinton's bombings of Iraq was that it was fairly hush-hush. It wasn't well publicized, particularly with the Dog the Wag Monica-gate super-scandal occupying most major media outlets. Does that make it right? No, in fact it actually makes it worse, since I definitely don't agree with Bush's actions in the least but at least he's being honest about it. Plus, in comparison, this is a MUCH bigger deal, since there's a lot more troops involved, and even if, like the Gulf War, it's an offensive squash on our behalf, the fact is it's still a war, which means people will die.

So, although there is a double-standard, this is also a "bigger deal" and is much more publicized. I think more people realize what's at stake since they can't joke about Bush and semen stains to ignore the issue.

What about Bosnia and Somalia? Especially Somalia, where we lost men and didn't even let the military finish its job? That is wasted life.

The majority of the people who will die in Iraq will be Iraqi soldiers, the coalition will lose some men and some civillians will die, vbut they will be dying for a reason, they will be dying to liberate a country, to free the oppressed, and to rid the world of a violent despot. Why can't some of you look past the "people will die" arguement and see that they will die and the world will be a better place for everyone, as opposed to Saddam killing people and making the world a worse place. You can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs. I know it's a bad anology but it is true. Millions of people died in WWII and in the end the world was a safer and better place for the rest of us. Their is a honor in dying for a cause, but Clinton stripped that honor from those 19 men in Somalia when he pulled the rest out. Clinton was responible for murder in that sense, Bush will be responsible for a liberation. There is a huge difference.

March 10, 2003

I think a lot of civilians will die there, which will make it look really bad. If Saddam is going to fight it out he's going to barricade a bunch of himselves in a few metropolitan areas and make the troops figure out which one is the real Saddam, while enlisting suicide bombers to take out US troops and not even caring about his own people.

March 11, 2003

I think a lot of civilians will die there, which will make it look really bad. If Saddam is going to fight it out he's going to barricade a bunch of himselves in a few metropolitan areas and make the troops figure out which one is the real Saddam, while enlisting suicide bombers to take out US troops and not even caring about his own people.

That very well may happen but the blood will be on Saddam's hands, not our's. He will have caused those people's deaths by hiding behind them. I wouldn't be suprised if he hadf his troops fire on the Iraqi people and blame us. He's a piece of shit and needs to be flushed.

March 11, 2003

Millions of people died in WWII and in the end the world was a safer and better place for the rest of us. Their is a honor in dying for a cause, but Clinton stripped that honor from those 19 men in Somalia when he pulled the rest out. Clinton was responible for murder in that sense, Bush will be responsible for a liberation. There is a huge difference.

You can't compare WWII to the upcoming action in Iraq because the majority of the deaths in WWII were of Jews in the Nazi death camps. Not soldiers. The U.S. could've saved them by bombing the crematoriums or railroads but chose not to. And anti-semitism still existed, and Nazism still existed. And both ideas are still popular today.

Speaking of pulling out though, why didn't Bush Sr. just "finish the job" with Iraq 10 years ago? Will the Iraqi people actually be liberated, or will they become another Afghanistan, where people are still poor, still suffering, having just traded one dictator for another? Also, what does it say if in the future all these countries are "liberated" solely because of direct, American military action? Do they owe us? Do they want us to liberate them? It's highly doubtful, but maybe the Iraqis like Saddam and they're not suffering at all? I've seen blanket statements but no exact figures on the oppressed Iraqis.

As for Somalia, I can't comment. I've never seen Black Hawk Down.

March 11, 2003

I think a lot of civilians will die there, which will make it look really bad. If Saddam is going to fight it out he's going to barricade a bunch of himselves in a few metropolitan areas and make the troops figure out which one is the real Saddam, while enlisting suicide bombers to take out US troops and not even caring about his own people.

I wouldn't go THAT far.

Iraqi soldiers tried to surrender to British troops while the Brits were having training exercises a few days ago. The Brits couldn't accept it and told them to go home.

The Iraq military does not WANT to fight. They'll surrender so fast the French might crack jokes about it.

Let's not forget --- they surrendered to TV news crews in '91.

-=Mike

March 11, 2003

Millions of people died in WWII and in the end the world was a safer and better place for the rest of us. Their is a honor in dying for a cause, but Clinton stripped that honor from those 19 men in Somalia when he pulled the rest out. Clinton was responible for murder in that sense, Bush will be responsible for a liberation. There is a huge difference.

You can't compare WWII to the upcoming action in Iraq because the majority of the deaths in WWII were of Jews in the Nazi death camps. Not soldiers. The U.S. could've saved them by bombing the crematoriums or railroads but chose not to. And anti-semitism still existed, and Nazism still existed. And both ideas are still popular today.

Speaking of pulling out though, why didn't Bush Sr. just "finish the job" with Iraq 10 years ago? Will the Iraqi people actually be liberated, or will they become another Afghanistan, where people are still poor, still suffering, having just traded one dictator for another? Also, what does it say if in the future all these countries are "liberated" solely because of direct, American military action? Do they owe us? Do they want us to liberate them? It's highly doubtful, but maybe the Iraqis like Saddam and they're not suffering at all? I've seen blanket statements but no exact figures on the oppressed Iraqis.

As for Somalia, I can't comment. I've never seen Black Hawk Down.

The death count for WWII does NOT include the Holocaust. The Soviets died like few others. I they included the Holocaust, the numbers would've been mind-boggling.

And, uh, if the U.S bombed the crematoriums and railroads, wouldn't Jews have been killed? Kind of a no-win situation. But, outside of the Middle East, where is anti-Semitism popular? And where is Nazism a popular philosophy?

Techically, Bush Sr. DID finish the job 10 years ago. He wished to liberate Kuwait and did so. He would've liked to get Hussein, but he was afraid of losing his coalition.

Where, on Earth, do you get the idea that the situation in Afghanistan has not improved A LOT? Girls can be EDUCATED NOW. That ALONE is a huge boon. Are they poor? Yup. Will be for a long while.

As for Iraqis wanting us to liberate them, let's not forget how quickly and routinely they surrendered in 1991.

-=Mike

HollywoodHalfwits.com

Recommended Posts

Guest Dangerous A

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Anglesault

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Dangerous A

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Silence

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest JMA

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest bob_barron

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Kahran Ramsus

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Jobber of the Week

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Kahran Ramsus

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest DrTom

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest BDC

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Mad Dog

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Vern Gagne

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Some Guy

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Spicy McHaggis

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Tim

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest kkktookmybabyaway

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest evenflowDDT

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Vern Gagne

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest TheZsaszHorsemen

Share this post