Friday, October 8, 2010
Miscellaneous 30
1) According to statistics from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the deportation of illegal immigrants is actually UP under Obama (a full 10% higher than they were under President Bush). Interesting, huh? Of course, what's even more mind-blowing (though, no, not really) than this is the fact that a) the right refuses to give him credit for it and b) the left refuses to give him blame for it.....And they wonder why we hate them.......2) In the comments section under one of Cyd Charisse's dance number videos on Youtube ("Party Girl" 1957), a female contributor, RivaJane, "contributed" this little gem, "Fucking hell seriously, I think I just became a lesbian after watching that!" Ooh, huh?. Now THAT is what I'm talkin' 'bout!!!!......3) The Emmys honored Mr. (George) Clooney this year for his humanitarian work. Terrific, huh? Just what this individual needs, MORE APPROBATION. I mean, don't get me wrong here. The guy DOES do a lot of good/charitable work. But he's also a frigging horse's ass at times. Like when he won his frigging little Oscar. He goes up on stage and gives this totally self-congratulatory speech; a speech in which he not only pats himself on the back but the entire movie industry, too. "We were ahead of the rest of the country when it came to race relations, yada yada." YEAH, RIGHT. African-American and Latino actors (men AND women) have been treated like shit in Hollywood. Yes, they did give Hattie McDaniel the best supporting actress Oscar in 1939. But they also made her sit in a separate section and, BOOM, in that way, treated her just like any other minority. Couple that with the lack of good roles for these minorities (white people played the Indians, remember?), the fact that the few roles that they DID get were frigging stereotypes and, yeah, Mr. Clooney really did come off like a God damned idiot/stooge. But, sure, go ahead and stroke him all you want there, folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Latest poll from Florida
Kendrick Meek (D) 19%
Charlie Crist(I) 25%
Marco Rubio (R) 50%
Good bye to the worm Charlie Crist.
Hello to the future President of the United States.
Wait a minute here. I thought that Chris Christie was the next next President. Man, I just can't keep up with this.
Either one will be fine with me.
Will, not that I want to pick out curtains with Clooney or anything but cut the guy some slack. He's an actor for Christ's sake, you can't expect anyone to be all modest and humble after years of both men and women falling all over themselves when they see the guy.
The same goes for rock stars and athletes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not approving of this behavior its just how things work when someone is famous. Yeah, there are exceptions, my wife meet Kelly Preston when she was down her filming a movie and totally flipped when she sat with my wife and friends for a few minutes. But humans are a fucked up species and can easily start believing their shit doesn't stink.
Russ, Ann Coulter likes Christie, so, yeah, I guess that I'll have to pick Rubio......I'm probably just jealous, double b. He actually gets the women that you and I can only talk about......Kelly Preston, you say? Sign me frigging up!!
Going after illegal immigrants is NOT the answer. I don't approve of this approach.
Workplace enforcement is the answer. Of course demonizing brown people is a lot more effective in getting out the Republican base to vote... instead of going after their funders.
I don't give a damn about George Clooney's ego. However big it may be... it certainly doesn't need any "stroking" from me... although I do think he is a great supporter of Democratic causes and candidates. And was correct in what he said at the Oscars.
Another actor I believe deserves kudos for his support of humanitarian causes is Sean Penn.
Rusty, what the hell does your man crush on Marco Rubio have to do with Will's post? In any case, if I were able to vote in Florida my ballot would be cast for Meek. He's a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, so I'd have thought he'd be the guy Will would be rooting for?
On the other hand, perhaps I'd have to vote for Crist just so Rubio doesn't get in.
I don't approve of this approach, either, wd. I just brought it up to show the hypocrisy of both sides (Hannity should be commending the President, Olbermann should be criticizing him)......Clooney WAS NOT correct about what he said at the Oscars. Hollywood has a despicable history when it comes to treating minority groups......As for the Florida situation, I continue to support Mr. Crist. What I said about Rubio was just a jab at Ms. Coulter.
You can both watch Marco Rubio give his victory speech on the evening of Nov.2nd.While Charlie Crist goes back under his rock.
My "man crush" on Rubio is from working for his campaign this past summer while in Florida and being on a 10 person panel in Tampa who interviewed Mr.Rubio.Thats a bit unlike your man crush on Olbermann.
"Man crush on Olbermann." Now I KNOW you're talking to wd. LOL
Of course that was directed towards wd 40.
He has a crush on both KO and the beautiful Debbie Wasserman Schultz.What taste.I think he's also quite fond of Allan Grayson.
Moderates like Will are who we should blame if/when Rubio wins. I heard that the Independent vote will be split between Crist and Meek. It's a travesty that this split will allow another Republican hypocrite into office.
I believe Clooney's point was that Hollywood is often ahead of the curve, not that they are and have always been a 100 percent racism and bigotry free institution.
But, if you want to believe he's a self aggrandizing ass, have at it. I enjoy his movies and respect his activism for Democratic causes... He's not another of my man crushes.
It seems you like criticizing your fellow Democrats rather than going after Republicans.... Just recently you've gone after Alan Grayson, George Clooney and Joe Biden (on Truth's blog). Is this one of the things that makes you "moderate"??
To answer Rusty's question, yes, I'm an admirer of Rep. Grayson. I'm rooting for him to retain his House seat. His Republican challenger is a radical fundamentalist Christian who believe women should obey their husbands (regardless of what Will claims in his post on the subject).
WD,why would tell an outright lie about Webster?Are you a liar or just following Graysons talking point.Thats pretty typical stuff for you libs...just throw lies out and see how many stick.
Grayson's "taliban" ad now has hime behind in the polls,that would be good riddence to that fool.
I'm not a Democrat, wd. I'm an independent who tends to vote Democratic (though, yes, I'd be willing to consider a moderate pro-choice Republican)......An industry that for decades cast white people as Naive Americans and Hispanics (Eli Wallach/Paul Newman playing a Mexican bandito - just for example) and that currently ships women out to pasture before they even hit 40 could hardly be called "ahead of the curve", my friend. Not on my curve, anyway.......I brought up Mr. Biden not to denigrate him, necessarily, (I also praised him for his foreign policy advice to the President - hopefully, you did take some note of section, too) but to show you guys that it isn't always as black and white as you make it out to be and that, yes, liberals can flat-out be hypocritical, too. It's a little something called devil's advocacy.
Obie played golf for the 52nd time since taking office.Maybe hes going to go on the tour in 2012.
Rusty, why would YOU tell an outright lie about Webster? Are YOU a liar or just buying into the media spin? From the context of the video it is crystal clear what Webster believes. Wives should submit to their husbands... not because the husband asks them to (or asks God to make them), but because it is their (the wife's) responsibility.
I know I'm not lying, because that would mean I was saying something I knew not to be true. I believe what I said to be the truth because it is what Webster said. I base my conclusion on what Webster said, NOT on the Grayson ad. Anyway, I wrote a post on the topic for my blog. Read it if you require any further explanation.
As for George Clooney, I guess he's a liar too. As anyone with any sense knows, everything that happened in the past should be judged the standards of today.
I could care less what you wrote on your blog,but if you're quoting Webster as saying wives should submit to their husbands....you along with Grayson are liars...nothing more...nothing less.
I can't totally vouch for this Webster guy. Maybe he really is misogynist. But that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Grayson TOOK WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT. If in fact Mr. Webster is as bad as you say that he is, wd, then, yes, I'm sure that there are many other quotes that the Grayson camp could have legitimately used. I mean, come on here, virtually every single media watch-dog group has criticized this ad....And so should you. Like I said, it doesn't mean that you suddenly have to stop supporting him. It just means that you're criticizing him on this one thing.
As for George Clooney, I never said that he was a liar. I only implied that he was full of shit about Hollywood being ahead of the curve. And it isn't just about the past here. Today, as we speak, Hollywood continues to treat women (those over 40, especially) like shit. They don't write good roles for them and the roles that they do get are often stereotypes.
Rusty, I can't say I'm surprised. The fact is you simply don't care what the truth is. You're going to believe what you want to believe. No words were "taken out of context".
This is what Webster said: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, 'She should submit to me'. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, 'love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it' as opposed to 'wives submit to your own husbands'. She can pray that, if she wants to, but don't you pray it.
And he later clarified on Fox News: "I was talking about the idea of praying for your wife, but don't pray to her the verses that say 'submit to me' because that's her responsibility. You as a man, as a father, and as a husband have responsibility. So I was saying you focus on your responsibility, not on hers.
Webster was NOT saying the wife shouldn't submit, only that the husband shouldn't say that prayer, because it isn't the husband's responsibility, it's the wife's!
If nobody should submit then it wouldn't be anybody's responsibility would it???!
He said it. He believes it. I'm not putting any words in his mouth. Here are the links to the videos so you can see for yourself...
Grayson ad and full clip
Webster on Fox News
I'm not going to criticize Grayson on this "one thing" because there is nothing to criticize him for. Except perhaps, not expecting that all the media watchdog groups would get it wrong. So much for the "liberal media".
Pretty damn amazing....everyone but you and Grayson got it wrong....are'nt you two special.
Sorta like how much the supposed liberal media got totally wrong in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, en Rusty?
NO WMD's
NO imminent Cessna planes to bomb or spread chemical weapons.
No mobile Chem or Bio labs.
No mushroom clouds anywhere.
BUT none of the supposed Bush hating liberal media could see through the lies and deceptions spread by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove ET Al; right rusty?
But then again you are nothing more then a water boy for the right wing carrying their lies and deceptions as far as you can.
anonymouse...please dont try to re-write history...Clinton (both,)Kerry,Kennedy and assorted other dems also said Saddam had WMD's.The Brits and the Russians where also on board.
its kind of funny how you libs conveniently always fail to mention that fact.how many dems voted for using force?
your fairy tale is eight years old...its yesterdays news.
WD, in the speech, Webster says that "She can pray to that (the submitting part), if she wants to." IF SHE WANTS TO......I did, however, notice that, during the MacCallum interview, he did say that that was her "responsibility". In my opinion, the Florida media needs to ask Mr. Webster, "So, do you think that women should submit to their husbands?" It would in fact be helpful to the voters to get him on the record here......I still maintain, though, that what the Grayson camp did on this ad of theirs was pretty damn sleazy. There are some lines that you just shouldn't cross, and quoting somebody out of context is definitely one of them.
If the wife wants to -- she can say that prayer. Perhaps if she has a "problem" in that area she might want to ask for guidance.
However, whether or not she prays that prayer -- it doesn't change the fact that it's her responsibility to be submissive. It's in the Bible -- that's what Webster said.
In any case, NORMAL people view marriage as an equal partnership and would never suggest a woman be submissive to her husband -- even if she wants to. She shouldn't want to. If she does I'd say she has self esteem problems and any husband who encourages a "submissive" wife isn't doing her any favors.
So, nope, not "out of context". Not "sleazy". A legitimate warning from the Grayson camp regarding his extremist anti-woman opponent.
"However, whether or not she prays that prayer -- it doesn't change the fact that it's her responsibility to be submissive. It's in the Bible -- that's what Webster said."
So by Mr. Webster simply pointing out what the Bible says somehow incriminates him? That book has a HUGE following. Are they all incapable of holding public office? Sounds like your discriminating based on a persons religion. Profiling even, and that's wrong....
"In any case, NORMAL people view marriage as an equal partnership and would never suggest a woman be submissive to her husband -- even if she wants to. She shouldn't want to..."
What re-education camp would you be sending her to? Where's your liberal tolerance? We unwashed masses really need you intellectuals to guide us, I don't know how we've made it this far without you. I know with all you guiding our lives for us we can let go of fear and quit clinging to our guns and Bibles...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
~C. S. Lewis
My moral compass, wd, tells me that it's wrong to quote people out of context (especially considering that the speech from which the Grayson camp lifted these words was, at the very least, ambiguous). It also tells me that it's wrong to compare people to the Taliban, to Hitler, to Stalin, etc.. I mean, come on here, FDR (one of your political idols, I'm assuming) rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them into internment camps (one of the worst violations of human rights in our history), and I would never even begin to refer to him as "Taliban Frank".
Volt, I recently saw Mrs. Webster (supposedly the oppressed one) in an interview. She didn't sound like a person who thought that it was her duty to submit. But, hey, what does she know - she's only married to him, right?.........Let me just add. If Mr. Grayson thinks that this fellow here, Webster, is a proponent of "anti-woman" policies, I really don't have a problem with him putting this forth. But you simply cannot take isolated words out of a speech and try and tar and feather somebody with them. IT IS WRONG!
Will, my point is what IF she's does want to submit?
WD claims that's wrong and she "shouldn't want to".
I thought the feminist movement was to empower women to do whatever they wanted to? If this was it for her what's wrong with that?
Who would WD be to tell someone they're wrong?
Volt, as long as the woman doesn't feel compelled to submit by a threat of violence from the man (which clearly doesn't seem to be the case here), then, no, I really don't care at all how these 2 people choose to live......As for Mr. Grayson, he would be far better served to stick to the issues in a dignified manner (he also implied that Mr. Webster was a draft-dodger - did you happen to catch that?).
I said a marriage is an equal partnership and that a wife should not want to submit. This was, of course, just my opinion, BUT what I thought would be the opinion of the majority of Americans. I never said anything about "re-education camps". It sounds like you're all for wives being submissive. Perhaps you have one (a submissive wife) and believe that's the way it should be. Or perhaps you just fantasize about having one.
The founder of Webster's church, the "Institute in Basic Life Principles", says a wife, "has to realize that God accomplishes his ultimate will through the decisions of the husband, even when the husband is wrong", and "even advises a wife whose husband chastises her to say, God, thank you for this beating".
I think none of you understand what "out of context" means. Listen to all of what Webster said and discern the meaning. So he said a husband shouldn't pray a specific prayer... so the hell what??? IN CONTEXT what he was saying was that a wife SHOULD be submissive. It wouldn't be her responsibility otherwise, WOULD IT??????
If you lived in Grayson's district you'd probably vote for Webster just to punish Grayson for his "sleazy" ad... you know, the one in which HE TOLD THE TRUTH. Yes, it was hyperbole, but you know what... I wouldn't care (except for the fact that the ad backfired). If it had worked -- my response would have been "well done". Republicans have been fighting dirty for a long time. If a Democrat can win by "fighting dirty" (using hyperbole to TELL THE TRUTH)... then I'm all for it.
And, for the record, I'm totally and completely opposed to lying -- even though Republicans do it.
Will: as long as the woman doesn't feel compelled to submit by a threat of violence from the man (which clearly doesn't seem to be the case here)...
Of course it isn't the case here. She's brainwashed. That's what CULTS do!
wd, in the clip from which Grayson takes the isolated words from complete sentences (taking out of context purely defined) it isn't entirely clear WHAT Webster believes. It may be to you but it isn't to me. Yes, later he may have stepped into it a tad. But that was AFTER the ad came out.
Post a Comment