|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 27th, 2005 04:19 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
All the world's a stage! And all the aforementioned are players, imho. No more, no less. |
|
| Sep 26th, 2005 05:09 PM | ||
| Sacks | Why wouldn't they go after Hollywood? The whole point of the game is to get your little plastic hotels on every single property on the board thus taking total control over everything. You want your boys in charge because you believe you're the good guy and let's face it, Hollywood is probably going to be the most effective way to get all up in Jimmy McPublic's face and scream in his ear until he's on your side. Now all of this about Ol' Billy Boy being more qualified to tell me about some people getting blown up or gas prices than Sean Penn is really just a matter of opinion. In the end it's all just research and I believe whole heartedly that Spicoli could read some articles and facts just as well as O'Reilly can and I've got a fiver that says he could give it a much better delivery. | |
| Sep 26th, 2005 04:20 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
While not interested in protecting the hypocritical "limousine liberals", I don't really see how researching and reporting on something would make you an expert on the topic which is being researched and reported. Surely you would be more well-read on said topic, but intelligence/expertise is in knowing how to interpret the data ... i.e. I can report on new technology in the treatment of cancer but that doesn't make me an oncologist. P.S. Plus, I am against any slanting of the news be it liberal or conservative. Which means that I despise Micheal Moore and O'Reilly equally. P.P.S. While it is true that we all gravitate towards news sources which tend toward our political affiliation, I still try to keep and open mind and vary my news sources. |
|
| Sep 25th, 2005 12:02 AM | ||
| Ant10708 |
So how about that 'neo-con' scapegoating and fear of a coming facist/christian nation forming from the ashes of the beautiful country that Bush destroyed? Honestly who cares? If you feel distressed over this liberal scapegoating just walk into Barnes and Nobles and check out the dozens of books blaming the neo cons from everything from 9/11 to the artic being cold and it should level you out. But to answer your question again Bill O'reilly is more qualified to express his opinion on things because of his impressive career before he became the target for everyone's complaints about Fox news. Honestly does anyone watch him? He really isn't like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Granted Bill O'reilly isn't nearly as 'fair and balanced' as a conservative like Jonah Goldberg is in his writings but I don't see his show being where all the crazies on the religious right and the neo cons are getting their talking points from. I mean Jon Stewart I think really loathes where the cable news industry in this country has gone and I'm pretty sure he even respects and seperates O'reilly from the likes of Sean Hannity. |
|
| Sep 24th, 2005 11:50 PM | ||
| Ant10708 |
Bill O'reilly had a pretty impressive career before he became synonymous with Fox news so give the guy some credit. He has a career in educating and journalism. If Sean Penn has the same type of background then their opinions can be considered equally as qualified but as far as I know Sean Penn is just a talented actor. Why pick on Tom Cruise for being a 'hollywood liberal' when there are so many other more legit reasons to mock him. He is probaly one of the most outspoken supporters of Scientology and its more than just red state conservatives who views Scientology as slighty off. 'Cruise also claimed in an Entertainment Weekly interview that psychiatry "is a Nazi science" and that methadone was actually originally called Adolophine after Adolf Hitler, a well-known urban legend. For a response to what Cruise said in this interview from the Journal of Clinical Investigation see Tom Cruise is dangerous and irresponsible. In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine, Cruise claimed that "In Scientology, we have the only successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. It's called Narconon... It's a statistically proven fact that there is only one successful drug rehabilitation program in the world. Period." (While Narconon claims to have a success rate over 70%, no outside source has ever verified this claim, let alone declaring it the only successful program as a matter of statistical fact.)' So he is kind of the spokesman or atleast should be for the people in Hollywood who are alittle off but I don't see him as representing or even being a part of 'liberal hollywood'. He is more in the brainwashed/scientology section of hollywood. 'on July 13th, 2005, the city council of Paris vowed "never to receive [before the council or the mayor] the actor Tom Cruise, spokesman for Scientology and self-declared militant for this organisation"' hehe |
|
| Sep 24th, 2005 06:30 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: "Hollywood Liberal" scapegoating Quote:
Sean Penn looks down on the proletariat from his Hollywood mansion, while he drinks expensive wine and paints or something. One is a snob, and another is a "populist." Sad really. But Sean Penn still sort of sucks. 
|
|
| Sep 24th, 2005 11:57 AM | ||
| kellychaos | To clarify, these people's existence depends on a certain demographic of society. Art immitates life. Chicken before the egg. Scary, really, but they're out there. Perhaps someone you know? | |
| Sep 24th, 2005 10:54 AM | ||
| kellychaos | In both cases, their persona serves as their authority. For some people who are sold on the respective personas, that is enough. It's pretty pathetic, really. | |
| Sep 24th, 2005 10:29 AM | ||
| Miss Modular |
"Hollywood Liberal" scapegoating I work at a supermarket. Every so often, I go past the magazine aisle (not the checkout line) and see Newsmax or something or other. The last two covers of the magazine have had something related to "Hollywood Liberals"--Tom Cruise's face is splashed on the current cover that I saw. (As if he's completely representative of the Hollywood Mentatlity.) Why have neo-cons become so eager to take things out on Hollywood? Is it that they know they'd look completely stupid if they continued to take things out on Bill Clinton or Al Gore at this point? Can't they just be happy and content that they preside over all three houses? With that being said, I'm not saying there aren't celebrities that say stupid or ignorant things regarding current events. But how is Bill O'Reilly any more qualified to express his mind than Sean Penn? Really? |
|
