Blacklist Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe so?

no. maybe you could read exactly what has been posted without stating things in a baited fashion.

Baiting, eh? Did you not start the paragraph with: "and as this thread is about blacklisting hollywood, here's something to think about." You then say: "what are whitney houston and her husband bobby brown doing in israel?"

Add those two together, and it implies you are for blacklisting the two (former?) celebrities.

Thanks for clarifying that you are, in fact, not promoting a boycott of these people.

But then, if they're not being boycotted/blacklisted, and no one is calling for them to be... why do they belong in this thread?

 

Add those two together, and it implies you are for blacklisting the two (former?) celebrities.

no.


you chose to extrapolate that from a post where information was posted about two celebrities. what are you even wasting your time on that for? I SAY WHAT I SAY, BUDDY!! if i post info about deaths in iraq, does that mean i'm FOR the war or AGAINST it? just mentioning facts doesn't imply anything. i didn't say, .."and lets boycott whitney!"



maybe you could show some patience and a desire to see if there are in fact others who either share my opinion that they are at least ridiculous or that perhaps they think boycotting should be a valid action? you know, cheveyo, the world doesn't revolve around just the two of us. others might weigh in with their thoughts on bobby and whitney. and i wouldn't be surprised if some folks thought that at the very least the idea of the two of them in Israel is a little odd. who knows? maybe someone SHOULD boycott them? maybe someone should do something like an intervention to let them know that they're totally insane at this point. or you can try to use your mouse to click and close the thread yourself since that is your apparant goal rather than discussion.

if someone posts information, doesn't that just mean that they are posting information? aren't you the one who held that position not so long ago?


i think that political activism on the part of celebrities is a two way street. you live by the sword, you die by the sword. if martin sheen can't find as much work after his stance on the war, what actions should he be able to take to try to gain compensation? how do you quantify his (or anyone who may make the claim that they are being blacklisted) losses in financial terms?

 

or you can try to use your mouse to click and close the thread yourself since that is your apparant goal rather than discussion.

Why, because I agreed with Red Seven's commment made MUCH earlier that this thread is old and tired? Yeaah, that makes me moderator-envious.

if someone posts information, doesn't that just mean that they are posting information? aren't you the one who held that position not so long ago?

Yes, it is my stance, as a matter of fact. Perhaps I cut you off, Shizzle. Can you elaborate on why you think it is "odd" for a celebrity to have a photo op with a foreign leader? Is it any more odd than Ahnohld Shvortzenegger grinning at the camera with Republican buddies, the Bush's (Jr and Sr)?

Is it any more odd than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan making a guest appearance to sing with Elmo on Sesame Street?

Is it any more odd than Shirley Maclaine shaking hands in a photo op with His Holiness the Dalai Lama?

It's the nature of the business, and--as I said before--old news, meaning that celebrities and world leaders have been intermingling since the dawn of politics and show business. So I answer your question with: No, it's not odd at all.

 

Ooops, I mispoke. I meant to say that *I* was 'old and tired'.

 

Awww, crap. I misquoted a mod?!?! Isn't that a bannable offense?

 

well, see, i disagree, cheveyo. but that's a difference of opinion between us and i guess will warrant yet another request to close the thread from you in the next post.


i think ALL those things are odd. i think it's pretty strange that Arnold Schwarzenneger, Shirley Maclaine, and Whitney and Bobby are honestly under the impression that they have any more of a say in ther political proccess than you or me. Kofi Annan is just funny, though. how can you not laugh at that appearance with Elmo?

and "since the dawn of time?" if ONLY we had Sesame Street as a television institution for that long.

see, my point is that being correct is being correct, no matter WHO you are. if abortion is right, then it's right. eddie vedder and michael stipe need not be the ones to show me in irrefuteable proof terms why that is the case. or, incidentally, the converse case. and a society full of starf****** isn't exactly what i would say would qualify as being healthy or an example of independant thinking people. it's something that's rather problematic, IMO. it's a shortcut to discussion. why think? so-and-so says blah-blah-blah. yeah, i'll go for that. after all, they can sing, dance, act, etc.

it simply ridiculous. i'm not for boycotting people because of where they stand on things like the war. life is rather complicated. when you realize the absurdity of trying to achieve positive goals in a world that doesn't seem to be in control of itself anyway, you begin to realize how little consequence some boycotting activities have.

and, no, please don't ask for yourself to be banned, cheveyo!!!

 

well, see, i disagree, cheveyo. but that's a difference of opinion between us and i guess will warrant yet another request to close the thread from you in the next post.

Your snide comments aside, I'll gladly agree to disagree. That's what people do when the think freely, after all.

and "since the dawn of time?" if ONLY we had Sesame Street as a television institution for that long.

I'll tell you what. I won't misquote you if you don't misquote me. Remember that ""'s are called quotations. Everyone else can see what I wrote (and with no hidden or plainview insinuation, as opposed to your Whitney/Bobby comment). Why can't you?

Another question:

What are we talking about? This thread is labelled... wait, let me double check....

...yeah, it's labelled "Blacklist Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe So?" (note the quotation marks).

So right now we are discussing Whitney and Bobby grinning for cameras with Isreal's Sharon? That's great info. Thanks for passing it along. But if we're not talking about someone boycotting them for their actions, doesn't this belong somewhere else... a social thread, perhaps? My question, more specifically, is: What does this have to do with the topic?

Just curious.

 

Your snide comments aside, I'll gladly agree to disagree. That's what people do when the think freely, after all.

as far as snide comments go, cheveyo, when in rome...............................people in glass houses.................

I'll tell you what. I won't misquote you if you don't misquote me. Remember that ""'s are called quotations. Everyone else can see what I wrote (and with no hidden or plainview insinuation, as opposed to your Whitney/Bobby comment). Why can't you?

all apologies. you're right, BIG difference in the import of the statement about ...ahem....Elmo. you didn't say since the dawn of time. you said :

since the dawn of politics and show business.

how many thousands of years have politics been going on?

So right now we are discussing Whitney and Bobby grinning for cameras with Isreal's Sharon? That's great info. Thanks for passing it along. But if we're not talking about someone boycotting them for their actions, doesn't this belong somewhere else... a social thread, perhaps? My question, more specifically, is: What does this have to do with the topic?

Just curious.


no.

right now you're not looking at the other comments i made like:

see, my point is that being correct is being correct, no matter WHO you are. if abortion is right, then it's right. eddie vedder and michael stipe need not be the ones to show me in irrefuteable proof terms why that is the case. or, incidentally, the converse case. and a society full of starf****** isn't exactly what i would say would qualify as being healthy or an example of independant thinking people. it's something that's rather problematic, IMO. it's a shortcut to discussion. why think? so-and-so says blah-blah-blah. yeah, i'll go for that. after all, they can sing, dance, act, etc.

it simply ridiculous. i'm not for boycotting people because of where they stand on things like the war. life is rather complicated. when you realize the absurdity of trying to achieve positive goals in a world that doesn't seem to be in control of itself anyway, you begin to realize how little consequence some boycotting activities have

and...

i think that political activism on the part of celebrities is a two way street. you live by the sword, you die by the sword. if martin sheen can't find as much work after his stance on the war, what actions should he be able to take to try to gain compensation? how do you quantify his (or anyone who may make the claim that they are being blacklisted) losses in financial terms?


maybe you don't see the relevance of bobby and whitney. but in light of those comments i made that you have nothing to say about.....what are you complaining about not being on topic for? man, you REALLY don't want to discuss this stuff do you?

 

man, you REALLY don't want to discuss this stuff do you?

Discuss what, exactly. I've already said I don't see a problem with celebrities hob-knobbing with world leaders. I understand that you do, and I welcome you to voice your opinion.

I don't see anyone blacklisting people, though. Neither do I see anyone lashing out to boycott the Houston-Browns for their "odd" political affiliations.

But if you want to make a big deal about it, I'm sure someone here will bow to your ideals and agree with you wholeheartedly eventually.

 

it's not about bowing to my wishes, chev!!! it's not about bowing to ANYONE'S wishes, man!!! don't you see that? you (in all honesty, no sarcasm intended) DON'T want to see discussion on this thread. you want it to be closed. that's fine if it is. but you certainly don't show any interest in doing anything but complaining about your lack of interest in this thread. i don't know what to tell you. move along, i guess. i've made comments that were totally on topic. i mentioned the appearance of two people wil checkered pasts and no real political clout showing up in the middle east at a time when i wouldn't exactly expect it and i get nothing but grief from you. jeez!!! lighten up, man! but i'm absolutely 100% positive that you will respond to this in an effort to get the last word in, though. bank on it. post more of your thoughts about how you don't see the point of posting thoughts here anymore. if you wanna say something, fell free to ADD to the discussion here. if not, i'd suggest that you put your energies towards some other thread for a purpose other than having the final say. that being said..............




the "maybe so" aspect of the title of this thread is the thing that i think is the most interesting. people seem to be rather sure that their opinions are right. the thing about most opinions is that they can be proven to be inconsistant. the complexities of the world often show that maxims and absolute don't alwasy apply. complaining about the right to boycott and then finding a problem with that same sort of mentality being used AGAINST the causes that THEY agree with is the central issue here. people are all for trying to put a company that doesn't do the things they approve of OUT of business. but when that same sort of approach is applied on a smaller level (the individual), people complain about how wrong it is to blacklist. i just find it interesting.

 

Hmm, yes this thread did get way off topic, I suppose, so I guess I should take the non-hollywood stuff off elsewhere....

I was watching on E! channel, the premiere of THE ITALLIAN JOB. Someone kept yelling at Edward Norton from teh crowd about his statements he made in Europe at the onset of the war. I thought his comments were much, MUCH worse then what the Dixie Chicks said, yet the media has gone out of the way to supress what he said on friegn soil. Oh well, not like I will be seeing any of his movies anywya, so.....

 

Hey, the guy is going to do what Hollywood does best. You take a great non-American film, and YOU RUIN IT COMPLETELY BY BASING IT IN AMERICA WITH AMERICAN ACTORS!!!!

There is a REASON it's called the Italian Job. IT WAS SET IN ITALY!!! And Get Carter. Wow, that whole English thing just worked so much better in the Good Old US of A.

Forget what he said about the war in Europe. let's just nuke Hollywood now, before they make any more ill-concieved abortions of films. And why Michael Caine movies??? "Hey, I've got an idea, let's remake ZULU - with AMERICANS!" "Oooh, good idea, here's US$200,000,000, go hire some wooden actors like Mark Walberg."

Hollywood. Getting dumber with each passing year.

E_S

 

Forget what he said about the war in Europe. let's just nuke Hollywood now, before they make any more ill-concieved abortions of films.

*taps E_S on the shoulder* Uhm...too late for that, they're making a movie about Sk8er Boi.

 

they're making a movie about Sk8er Boi.


[the doors] this is the end......beautiful friend, the end. [the doors]

i only heard that edward norton had said some "things," but i never really saw what they were. i really like his acting, though. anyone know what his comments were? anybody got any quotes?

BTW, i'm glad to see that one of my predictions in this thread did not come true. my 100% comment was completely misgiven.

 

Hollywood. Getting dumber with each passing year.

Can't (and won't) argue with that!!

By the way, does anyone know what Ed Norton actually said? Just curious. I keep seeing his name thrown around, but no quotes.

 

Wow. I mean Wow! I just found out what horrendous, anti-American, traitorous things Ed Norton is quoted as saying. And I must say, I'm aghast! Or is it "a-gassed"? Maybe it's just last night's Taco Bell talking to me.

Anyway, here is what that liberal bad man is quoted as saying, according to Celiberal.com, the self-proclaimed celebrity liberal blacklist website:

"I almost forgot what it's like to be proud of my government."

"It's dismaying to see the unilateralism that the government is doing."

Oh the horror! What a terrible thing to say! That's not only traitorous, it's enflamatory and disrespectful to our beloved government! Off with his [career]!

 

Here is one thing said by Edward Norton, I will try to bring up more.

Edward Norton was in England recently to promote his film ?25th Hour.?

The actor has been a bit defensive about the use of some Ground Zero shots in the flick. Now it seems that when it comes to his film, Norton is concerned over political commentary, too.

He said, ?I think if I'd felt at any time that we were taking the story from the characters and their crises and turning it into a political comment on those events I would have been very uncomfortable about that.?

Apparently, Norton wasn?t all that uncomfortable when he and director Spike Lee attended the Berlin Film Festival. The two used the event to attack President Bush's policy on Iraq.

Lee advised attendees that ?America doesn't have the moral right to tell other people what to do. To say the whole world has to fall into line is you-know-what. I hope more people will rise up.?

Norton engaged in his own form of bashing. ?It?s nice being in Europe this week. Almost everyone in Germany and France is in sync with the governments. I almost forgot what it's like to be proud of my government.?

When you compare what the Dixie Chicks got caught up in, I think Edward Norton's were on the same level, but it seems the Right-Wing media that OWM believes run's everything has hardly said a thing about Norton anywhere.

 

Why was this music artist not boycotted (or even slightly ridiculed) for saying:

"I fear that our true motivation is about oil and our own flailing economy; about the failure to destroy Al Qaeda and about revenge."

"It is criminal to put our servicemen and women in harm's way and to put the lives of so many civilians on the line for the misguided frustrations of the Bush administration."

That was Dave Matthews, by the way. Perhaps it's because his music has a bit wider fanbase? But even the hawks have avoided him. Curious.

Or how about:
"He's [Bush] a sad figure: not too well educated, who doesn't get out of America much."

"He's [Bush] leading the country towards fascism," and added "he wouldn't understand the word fascism anyway."
-Larry Hagman

OR even:

"Bush is a ******* idiot."
-Jennifer Aniston (By the way, there have been NO calls for a boycott of "Friends" because of this remark in Rolling Stone Magazine... which I think is personally worse than what Martin Sheen said, which allegedly resulted in a calling for a boycott of his show, "The West Wing".)

Seems like even the boycotters/blacklisters are being somewhat selective in who they bash.

 

"Almost everyone in Germany and France is in sync with the governments."

LOL!!!

I thought dissent was healthy!!?? I thought people in the U.S. who are in sync with Bush are mindless saps. So why are France and Germany lauded for having a population that entirely falls in line with their government???

These dopes have no clue what they're talking about.

 

Ed Norton-

that's not traitorous. it's a well spoken opinion. i don't neccesarilly agree with it %100, but i see those comments as a fair assessment of things from his point of view.

Dave Matthews-

love him. "Under the Table and Dreaming" is a classic. great musician with opinions i can respect.

Larry Hagman-

i guess it's only fair that a Texas oil guy (or at least one on T.V.) should comment on Bush. gotta love actors from 80's soap operas passing judgement, though. if war isn't a needed or positive thing, i guess i can sure see the neccesity of "Dallas" and a culture more interested in who shot J.R. than knowing much about the real world around them. too bad the ratings for things like discovery channel programs or political discussion shows on public television don't compare to the show that is his claim to fame.

Jennifer Aniston -

roll another fatty with your husband and tell 'em bout it, Jen!!!

 

Cheveyo, in quoting Jennifer Aniston, said

"Bush is a ******* idiot."
-Jennifer Aniston (By the way, there have been NO calls for a boycott of "Friends" because of this remark in Rolling Stone Magazine... which I think is personally worse than what Martin Sheen said, which allegedly resulted in a calling for a boycott of his show, "The West Wing".)

What you probably didn't here, is that the issue of Rolling Stone Magazine where she said that, came out the week of September 7th, a good couple of day's before September 11th. What you probably dont' know is that she paid a TON of money to buy every unsold issue after 9/11, probably to save face and such after making that comment. Considering how brain dead Jennifer aniston has been in interviews and such, her comments don't suprise me at all.

The entire 'who said what worse' thing when you look at it, is pretty sad. THere have been a lot of things that were worse then what the DIXIE CHICKS said. THe problem is that many networks and studios have a vested interest in keeping the things said by George Clooney, Edward Norton, and company out of hte public mainstream. THey had no vested interest in doing so for the Dixie Chicks, and thus did not hestitate to bring upon them what came.

 

That makes sense, TripleB. After all, we know it's a ll a media conspiracy to wreak havoc on the whole of conservative thought. That, of course, is the real evil empire withn the United States of America.

 

Ah yes, of course, and with Rupert Murdoch as the form of satan. It is funny because anything that can be said against Murdoch can be said against Uncle Ted Turner a thousand times over. Liberals laughed at conservitives when we pointed out the blatant one-sidedness of CNN's reporting, and derided us for calling CNN the CLinton News Network. Now that the market has delivered a new indictment, liberals seem to have a hard time dealing with it, which makes it funny to watch.

 

TripleB, when did I even REMOTELY suggest the Right Wing Media Controls EVERYTHING?

 

Garofalo Series Canned, Conspiracy Theories Abound
Sun, Jun 8, 2003 10:39 AM PDT






LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Less than a week after ABC pulled the plug on Janeane Garofalo's proposed midseason comedy, "Slice o' Life," speculation is already building that the comedian fell victim to her liberal political views.

In a column in the Chicago Sun-Times, Bill Zwecker cites an unnamed source close to Garofalo who remains convinced that the show's failure was an example ''of a network bowing to the perceived power of the Bush administration. Janeane is convinced her politics and all the hate mail the right-wing lobby stirred up during the war is what is behind all this.''

Certainly ABC would never cop to anything so nefarious and the Disney-owned company blamed the show's failure on the usual generalities like creative disagreements and script problems.

Garofalo was going to star in "Slice" playing a producer on a newsmagazine stuck handling human-interest stories.

In her own life, though, Garofalo hasn't been nearly so touchy-feely, coming out as one of the most outspoken critics of the war with Iraq. This show of political advocacy has earned the actress an unceasing string of taunting from the conservative puppets on the New York Post's "Page Six" and threats and catcalls from other voices on the right.

Answering the title of Zwecker's column, "Did liberal-bashers cost Garofalo her sitcom?" a poster on the gopusa.com message board responds simply, "I certainly hope so. If it didn't, we weren't trying hard enough."