Anyone hear about George Clooney's latest remarks?

[Jorath Calar]

Ehh, guys... okey guy and a girl... whatever... I probably could and should have explained better but I was going to class so I was in a hurry... but I mean have you ever heard a Hollywood actor who made a strong point, but not some blathering cliches made up by their marketing team and spoken to appear intelligent and to hide the fact they are just Clowns...?
I know it's effective when they say it, because they are actors but seriously, it doesn't mean anything...

[Donut]

Originally posted by khazadman: Of course Hollywood people should be allowed to say what they want. In the cases of clowns like Sean Penn and George clooney, it just gives them an opportunity to show how damn stupid they are.

And let's not forget Ronald Reagan and John Wayne.

[Grojlach]

By the way, in my curious search for information about the NRA a minute ago, I stumbled upon several sites claiming that this Charlton Heston guy made "inflammatory remarks regarding women, gays and lesbians, and African Americans; while at the same time trivializing the Holocaust" during a speech before the Free Congress Foundation in 1997.
If that's true, it doesn't automatically make Clooney's remarks any less of poor taste, but it does make them a lot more understandable, actually...

[ 01-21-2003, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Masklinn]

clowns like Sean Penn and George clooney, it just gives them an opportunity to show how damn stupid they are.

Stupid ? For saying they're not for war and not for guns ?

Riiiight.

Go war, go guns, all good stuff, and those who don't agree are such clowns ! Yaya

Oh btw you all misunderstood Clooney's message, you should have read between the lines : "Do not give a gun to a alzheimer diseased guy"

And that makes sense, really.

[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hollywood actors have a tougher legal hurdle to win a privacy or slander/libel case - which is why Enquirer and other rags can report untruths without fear of ramification. The legal theory is that one who's in the public spotlight is putting themselves up for public debate/ridicule. In order to win these cases a famous and/or political figure must prove you said the untruth with malice, meaning "with the intention to hurt them."

I have heard this all before Timber. This is the classic example of a double standard. Can anyone imagine how much hand wringing would have occured if it was Heston saying the same about.... Oh... Carter if *he* had that illness? This is yet another typical example of a Hollywood type talking out their A$$ because their mouth knows better.
So please explain how any and all of this morons comments were not said with malice?

So, if they have less rights than the rest of us regarding privacy, etc., is it fair to also take away their rights to express their politics - thereby limiting their access to the First, and most important (considering public opinion only), Amendment? Hoooooog - Waaaaaaash![/QB]

I agree here, bunk-holes like Clooney *need* the right to free speech, just so us normal people out here can see him for the idiot he is, and, just as is the case with other jack-a$$es (like the KKK or Black Panthers). However, the first reaction shouldnt be the limiting of his free speech, make your reactions at the box office and movie rental stores. Once this flake isnt marketable any longer, the studios will lose him like a bad habit. Thats, whats called the repurcussions from stretching the spirit of your right.
All that can be said about this instance is that it is a classic example of a pusillanimous comment, where a coward hides behind fame and politics to belittle a person with a degenerative disease. And his reasoning? Because he heads the NRA..... George Clooney, what a low life piece of amoeba scum.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Grojlach: By the way, in my curious search for information about the NRA a minute ago, I stumbled upon several sites claiming that this Charlton Heston guy made "inflammatory remarks regarding women, gays and lesbians, and African Americans; while at the same time trivializing the Holocaust" during a speech before the Free Congress Foundation in 1997. If that's true, it doesn't automatically make Clooney's remarks any less of poor taste, but it does make them a lot more understandable, actually...

I sort of doubt what you say about Charlton Heston, since it is common knowledge that he was a supporter of Martin Luther King I have seen documentaries on the History Channel showing him standing and marching side-by-side with Dr. King. In 2001 he received the Martin Luther King Jr. Award from the Congress of Racial Equility and if I remember correctly he was a Member of the ACLU. I somehow don't think they would have given him an award like that, had he made a speech castigating Blacks and women.

My guess is that the sites you happened to stumble on where somewhat left bent and are some how trying to smear is name over his stance concerning firearms!

[ElricMorlockin]

I agree Sir T. The "problem" with Heston, is his affiliation, with the left wing hated NRA. 'Ain't it amazing how simpleton that is? And to think, the left is the group, who always blast their trumpets about being for the rights of "the little guy". The NRA membership is made up *of* the little guys by *VAST* majority. But we can't go around *trusting* people to responsibly practice their rights now can we?
Thats what is truly amazing. We *can* trust a murderer to be released after serving their "life" sentence, we *can* trust abusive parents with custody of their children again, we *can* trust drug addicts to not relapse and continue a life of crime to support their habit(s), we *can* trust people who spike trees in order to kill and maim lumberjacks, we *can* trust the PETA crowd to not *actually* be all about illegalizing the consumption of meat and dairy products, but we *can't* trust people, of whom the great majority have absolutely no problems with society or the law in general, because they own a firearm.
The real answer is, it depends upon which rights we are talking about. With some, if you have any affiliation with the NRA, you are to be demonized *period* by any ways or means necessary. Sad but true.

[ 01-21-2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: ElricMorlockin ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by ElricMorlockin: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hollywood actors have a tougher legal hurdle to win a privacy or slander/libel case - which is why Enquirer and other rags can report untruths without fear of ramification. The legal theory is that one who's in the public spotlight is putting themselves up for public debate/ridicule. In order to win these cases a famous and/or political figure must prove you said the untruth with malice, meaning "with the intention to hurt them."

I have heard this all before Timber. This is the classic example of a double standard. Can anyone imagine how much hand wringing would have occured if it was Heston saying the same about.... Oh... Carter if *he* had that illness? This is yet another typical example of a Hollywood type talking out their A$$ because their mouth knows better.
So please explain how any and all of this morons comments were not said with malice?

So, if they have less rights than the rest of us regarding privacy, etc., is it fair to also take away their rights to express their politics - thereby limiting their access to the First, and most important (considering public opinion only), Amendment? Hoooooog - Waaaaaaash!

I agree here, bunk-holes like Clooney *need* the right to free speech, just so us normal people out here can see him for the idiot he is, and, just as is the case with other jack-a$$es (like the KKK or Black Panthers). However, the first reaction shouldnt be the limiting of his free speech, make your reactions at the box office and movie rental stores. Once this flake isnt marketable any longer, the studios will lose him like a bad habit. Thats, whats called the repurcussions from stretching the spirit of your right.
All that can be said about this instance is that it is a classic example of a pusillanimous comment, where a coward hides behind fame and politics to belittle a person with a degenerative disease. And his reasoning? Because he heads the NRA..... George Clooney, what a low life piece of amoeba scum.[/QB][/QUOTE]Look, Elric, I'm not gonna take up for Clooney's comment, because it was obviously a case of foot-in-mouth disease. And, because I don't have any particular love for the guy, though I do think he's alright and fairly down-to-earth by Hollywood standards (from what little I know about him).

[edit:] I'm also not gonna bash the NRA, because like all polemico groups it has its good and bad points, and its poignant, insightful, and embarrassing moments. I think my stance on the gun debate has been fairly fleshed out here in the past, and without more being said on the topic at this point I truly can't be bothered to delve into it all again.[end edit]

That said, your bile towards him is obviously the result of more emotion than intelligence. You dislike folks who bash the NRA so much you can't even articulate why. For that reason, I point out that if you're allowed to blather along so stupidly, George Clooney sure as hell can. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 01-21-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: For that reason, I point out that if you're allowed to blather along so stupidly, George Clooney sure as hell can. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm highly offended that you give him carte blanche to blather along! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: That said, your bile towards him is obviously the result of more emotion than intelligence. You dislike folks who bash the NRA so much you can't even articulate why. Fort that reason, I point out that if you're allowed to blather along so stupidly, George Clooney sure as hell can. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

LOL! Good show Timber. Blather on you say, fair enough your entitled to your opinions too in my book, even when they are at my expense.
But, you are of course on to something, though, not what you may be thinking you are. I can articulate more than fine about my reasoning for backing members' of the NRA, I gave a sorry example of it already (sorry in the sense of how others think about trust for instance). That actually says volumes Timber, and I'm not even an NRA member! Although, the more goofy reaction from the left I hear, the more it makes sense to join. Personally, I will always trust someone fathoms more, who says you have the right to do something, more than someone who says they want to do something *for* me. How's that for "blather"?
Emotion does in fact come into play in this debate Timber. The Alzheimer thing hits very close to home in several instances. Not to mention the local chapter is a customer of mine, and a benificiary of my yearly charitable contributions/time. In addition, I know a great many people who *ARE* members of the NRA, and to date, I know of NONE, that even *remotely* come close to the espoused definement by the, "know absolutely nothing about the issue" left. Talking about emotion versus intelligence, well now Timber, the proof is in the pudding (as again, given by examples in a previous post about trust).
Comments like those of Clooney's, aren't the exception, they're the rule from *that* crowd. So, if I am so unclear about *my* stance on the NRA, please tell me why the left fears that group so much? Could it be, that they have no talons sunk into it, thus no control over the membership at all?

:edit: TL, just read your comments about not getting into the debate again. Your additional comments are RIGHT ON THE MONEY about groups etc. IMO. :Edit:

[ 01-21-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: ElricMorlockin ]