Hollywood vs. Terrorism
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Monday, August 21, 2006 23:06
VIEWED: 5166
PAGE 1 of 6
It's nice to know there are at least a few left in Hollywood with some sense. I hope these people don't get marginalized by their peers.
http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2006/Aug/EEN44e4f70356615.html
http://www.rocktownweekly.com/opinion_details.php?AID=5879&sub=Editori
al
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think for the first time, I actually agree with Hollywood activism. Sort of weird feeling, actually. Many of these celebrities are known to or have stated a leaning towards Republican. James Wood, Danny De Vito, Bruce Willis. Several of the others I think also.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What a non-event.
Is this what passes for "powerfully worded" political discourse these days? What did they sign the dang thing for? What do they feel they are accomplishing?
"We must support democracies and stop terroism at all costs." Are they suggesting that we support democracies at all costs? 'Cause we sure as heck fire don't support democracies at all, unless they elect the people we want them to.
And dang, "stop terrorism at all costs" means at all costs: costs, f'rinstance, to liberty, costs to human life, costs to American soldiers, costs to the constitution and our democratic traditions--nothing is too costly to sacrifice in the name of "stopping terrorism."
Without saying anything beyond "bad things are bad, up with good things" they've just agreed to 1984 (but only if it's absolutely necessary, of course 
).
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Without saying anything beyond "bad things are bad, up with good things" they've just agreed to 1984 (but only if it's necessary, of course
HK, the level of hysteria by which you and those of like mind babble on about a FICTIONAL threat while overlooking an ever more present REAL one is beyond me. Granted, w/ such attempts by our 'leaders' to corral everyone into accept some level of meddling into our lives as with Know your Customer legistlation for banks, which thankfully was shot down in Congress. I'll give you that one.
Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their praises. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AURaptor, your comments are approaching Kanemanian levels of irrelevance and inaccuracy. I have never "sung the praises" of any Bush-bashers. I respect Rue's research and Signy's clarity, for instance, but I don't enjoy or participate in simple Bush-bashing.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their prasies. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.
The Ugly Truth: Our President is an Imbecile thread? Barely read it, never posted there, because I think that kind of stuff is pointless. Getting up in arms about Bush's casual conversation to Blair seems a little hysterical actually. The whole "China is big" thing is something I might say; nobody has to be stupid to state the obvious, particularly when you're just blowing off steam after dinner.
I've been reading a lot of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lately and these men knew perfectly well the danger all governments pose to their citizens. Governmental power is a very dangerous thing, period, and must be kept in check always, not just when we feel safe and cozy and unasailable.
Even a president as recent as Eisenhower in '61 understood the grave danger of our "military industrial complex." If that guy were running in '08 I'd vote for him in a second. Do you think Eisenhower was wrong? Do you think the constitution is too limiting a document for a modern super power like ours?
Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism, though real enough, has been greatly exagerated by leaders on both sides of the aisle to secure their own power. I may have half-heartedly said something vaguely nice about John Kerry during the lead-up to our last miserable presidential election (and if so, for that, I humbly apologize), but I'm not a fan of either party, AURaptor. I dread Hilary's presidential ambitions more and more with each passing day.
AURap, can't you see that the Administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously either? Why would they leave our borders wide open if they did?
(Seriously, I haven't read your rationalization for that one anywhere. Do you have one?)
And I suppose you blame the local governments for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, but you gotta admit that FIMA and DHS were pretty ineffectual in any event, don'cha?
Your fears are simply being played on while our government keeps sinking all our money into their war of choice. Does that seem right to you?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hk leave me out of it...Thank you..Oh, I happen to agree with Aur. He summed you up perfectly. You are very transparent... Sorry AURaptor.
PS thank god Eisenhower couldn't run a third time what a douche. Fucking wimp. "military-industrial-complex" thank god for it! Jobs, jobs, jobs. It is the reason we are untouchable. And the reason you hate. Don't hate HK.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You agree with condemning Hezbollah AND Hamas?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think for the first time, I actually agree with Hollywood activism.
Cool.
Me too Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:AURaptor, your comments are approaching Kanemanian levels of irrelevance and inaccuracy. I have never "sung the praises" of any Bush-bashers. I respect Rue's research and Signy's clarity, for instance, but I don't enjoy or participate in simple Bush-bashing.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Had this been a crowd of stars speaking out against President Bush, you'd be singing their prasies. But alas, it's ONLY terrorism they're denouncing, so you casually dismiss it as dutiful drones gleefully handing over their freedoms to the big bad Alliance.
The Ugly Truth: Our President is an Imbecile thread? Barely read it, never posted there, because I think that kind of stuff is pointless. Getting up in arms about Bush's casual conversation to Blair seems a little hysterical actually. The whole "China is big" thing is something I might say; nobody has to be stupid to state the obvious, particularly when you're just blowing off steam after dinner.
I've been reading a lot of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lately and these men knew perfectly well the danger all governments pose to their citizens. Governmental power is a very dangerous thing, period, and must be kept in check always, not just when we feel safe and cozy and unasailable.
Even a president as recent as Eisenhower in '61 understood the grave danger of our "military industrial complex." If that guy were running in '08 I'd vote for him in a second. Do you think Eisenhower was wrong? Do you think the constitution is too limiting a document for a modern super power like ours?
Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism, though real enough, has been greatly exagerated by leaders on both sides of the aisle to secure their own power. I may have half-heartedly said something vaguely nice about John Kerry during the lead-up to our last miserable presidential election (and if so, for that, I humbly apologize), but I'm not a fan of either party, AURaptor. I dread Hilary's presidential ambitions more and more with each passing day.
AURap, can't you see that the Administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously either? Why would they leave our borders wide open if they did?
(Seriously, I haven't read your rationalization for that one anywhere. Do you have one?)
And I suppose you blame the local governments for everything that went wrong in New Orleans, but you gotta admit that FIMA and DHS were pretty ineffectual in any event, don'cha?
Your fears are simply being played on while our government keeps sinking all our money into their war of choice. Does that seem right to you?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Terrorism has not been greatly exaggerated to secure power. In fact it has weakened our president if anything. The president's term is finite. No exaggeration can extend his presidency, and even if it weren't, I would just look to New York City skyline to see the threat is much MORE than an exaggeration.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How to put this politely?
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Terrorism has not been greatly exaggerated to secure power. In fact it has weakened our president if anything.
WRONG!
It has been exaggerated and it has strengthened the Presidents agendas.
Exactly how has it "weakened" him?
911 made a great # of things possible or at least easier to pass through for this administration. It was a political blessing.
Talkin' to children Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
