[civilian_number_two]

I'm surprised you didn't see a reaction coming. After all, saying that people who disagreed with the man's politics must have rejoiced (!) at his death is about as morally craven as the lie presented in the media (and later defended with some desperate handwaving) that folks in Palestine were rejoicing and partying when the planes hit the World Trade Centre (it was not long after revealed that the footage was archival and completely unrelated). I mean, the allegedly liberal news media may hate Muslims and it may call for war, but villainising a people with archival footage is evil, sick propaganda. That's what your nonsense bropughjt to my mind. Odd that you didn't think it was serious.

Anyway, glad to see that you have recanted, and that you thank us for pointing out your emo politics. You're welcome.

[J m HofMarN]

(Moore is an asshole. Take it from him ----> http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ )

Right I'll take it from a guy who got into a debate with Moore and is thus not at all biased. Also, he loses points for not titling his report "The Life and Lies of Albus MichaelMoore"

Anddont worry about it, I'm just glad the political deal can be over and the thread can go back to remembering a good actor who happened to own some guns.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 08 April 2008 - 09:06 PM

[barend]

Well that was actually pretty funny. I mean, slipping into a bonfire at a clambake is an odd way for a Jew to die.

It's an odd way for anyone other than a pyromaniac fisherman to die. And even then....

[Heccubus]

FREE GUN!

Too soon?

EDIT: Removed insane, sleep-deprived rambling. SHORTENED VERSION:
Heston was a good actor. "The Omega Man" rules. End statement.

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 09 April 2008 - 07:58 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Too soon? Too late! Everyone's made that joke already. I have to admit I already made that joke in this very thread.

[Slade]

I suppose he didn't die holding a gun so we can't literally do it... *sigh*

[Ghello]

Moore is an asshole, and you do know that most of his movies are just made up to make the Republicans look bad. Except the Westboro thing they did with the bus of gay people, that was awesome.

Anyways, Heston was a better actor then Clooney and Clooney's involvment in real world issues is annoying, just like any celebs (Bono, Cameron Diaz).

This post has been edited by Ghello: 10 April 2008 - 07:50 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, because actors, like Charlton Heston himself, shouldn't be allowed to involve themselves in "real world" issues. I'm sure I follow the argument, and it goes like this. Actors are not real people existing in the real world. Indeed they are fictional characters existing only in filmed entertainment, and so they should only be allowed to discuss fictional problems. That's why we hired the real person Ronald Reagan to be Governor of California and later President of the United Staes, rather than the actor who was in all those war movies.

[Slade]

... Reagan didn't actually do all of those things in those movies?!

[civilian_number_two]

I'm not sure I understand, Slade. The argument is that actors like George Clooney oughtn't to be tolerated when they speak about politics in their everyday lives. So therefore it is equally intolerable for Charlton Heston, and actor, to have become involved in politics, and for Ronald Reagan as well. I am sure there is nothing intolerable about acting in films with political content, but in any case that wasn't the complaint.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ- I think you're reading it wrong. The sentence has a subtext of:

Anyways, Heston was a better actor then Clooney and Clooney's involvment in real world issues is annoying, just like any [Liberal] celebs (Bono, Cameron Diaz).

So yes, if an actor wants to sick national guard troops on some kids at a protest, or hand out hand guns, or call an entire state legislature a bunch of "girly men" that's super. But as soon as that celebrity starts trying to end hunger in Africa or something they're in a world of fucking trouble.

[Ghello]

I didn't say I was against them being political, I say it's annoying when celeberities get into politics, don't be dick and start saying I hate liberals, those were the first two to come to mind, I didn't anything about Heston except he was a good actor, Im not for the NRA and I never knew he handed out guns or wanted to call in the National Guard to stop a protest. Bono is self-absorbed, talentless asshole is why I picked him, and Cameron Diaz is just a dumbass.

I like George Clooney but hearing about how the paparazzi is evil, this is bad, that's good gets annoying. He can keep doing it all he wants but celebs who constantly whine about something are the ones I lose interest in.

Calling the state legislature "girly men" is hilarious.

It's cool Bono donates to charity, but he could stop talking about it once and a while, whenever I see him it's never related to his band, but about something he's done, and he's always got a camera handy. You never see Bill Gates have cameras around him everytime he signs a check to charity.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah that's right, you never see Bill Gates when he gives money to charity, and he does that a lot. Different people do things different ways. Bono would like others to do as he does, so he makes sure people know what he's doing. One has to wonder why would a fellow do that? For the fame? No, got that. Money? No... Chicks? Hmm. I think a fellow like him might actually have altruism at heart.

But that's apparently beside the point. The point seems to be that when this talentless asshole (LOL!), whose music you appear not to like, does something other than produce the music you don't like, it annoys you. So I suppose he should be producing more music that you don't like?

I didn't know that Clooney's sin was that he disliked paparazzi. I thought you meant his political movies like THREE KINGS, SYRIANA or GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.

Anyway back on to the main topic, I don't think there's anything inherently ridiculous in a celebrity having opinons on the actions or politics of other celebrities, eg actors having comments to make about presidents, or president-actors having foreign policies and opinions on gun availability. Do you feel that once a person becomes famous for one thing, he should forsake all other potential pursuits or opinions?

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 11 April 2008 - 11:40 PM

[Ghello]

Why should I judge him for what movies he was in? Using that logic makes no sense.

Your Bono points debateable, he was famous in the 80s and then he came back outta nowhere with his latest CD, which was popular for like a few months, now all you hear about Bono is about how much money he gives away or him being knighted. I think if it weren't for him doing this he wouldn't be as famous, you can plead him being a sweetheart but I honestly don't think much people nowadays are good in anyway.


LOL!<--lol

[Heccubus]

Using that logic makes no sense.

And yours is completely sound? I think civ has a stronger point than you, really. I mean okay, I don't like celebrities getting all preachy about political issues either, but I also don't like much of anyone doing that. There's no difference between Bono telling us about AIDS and famine in Africa than there is hearing it from some dreadlocked hippie on the corner downtown. The only real difference is that more people will hear Bono. If he (or any other celebrity) can use his fame to help spread a message to more ears, then why not take advantage of that? To me it seems like he'd be wasting a massive amount of potential aid for that continent if he just kept it to himself. Granted, I still think he's kind of a douchebag rockstar asshole, but I also think he deserves credit for drawing attention to some noteworthy causes.

And why the fuck can't anyone just have a nice chat around here? If you want to debate go do it in the designated area. Seriously.

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 12 April 2008 - 01:36 AM