Dr. Ross tells the Democrats to stop bending over.
March 13, 2006 8:56 PM Subscribe
Dr. Ross tells the Democrats to stop bending over. Clooney: " ... [I]t drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.' Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty."
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- loup
The Dems definitely need to grow a pair. They have the uncanny knack of seeming to be the last to know about some shift in the Zeitgeist. They could have so much momentum behind them if they really threw themselves into the fight, but instead, they come across as fatally cautious. With many exceptions, such as Russ Feingold's heroism today. But that should be standard operating procedure. Our country is in danger.
posted by digaman at 9:08 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by digaman at 9:08 PM on March 13, 2006
people always assume that, because i hate george bush, i must be a democrat. but i'm not, because they're such pussies. they're not nearly as destructive as bush is, but they piss me off too, just in different ways.
posted by wakko at 9:10 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by wakko at 9:10 PM on March 13, 2006
I would marry him if I weren't straight Male, Hell I still Might, Gawd we need him to run for SOMETHING.
posted by Elim at 9:39 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Elim at 9:39 PM on March 13, 2006
Feingold/Clooney? Won't happen, but dear fellow Dems, especially those in Congress: 9/11 was 4 1/2 years ago. Bush is at 36%. Please act like an opposition minority party that has some guts, and that America can take seriously.
Yrs, bardic
posted by bardic at 9:46 PM on March 13, 2006
Yrs, bardic
posted by bardic at 9:46 PM on March 13, 2006
Count down to: Those celebrities should keep their noses out of politics!!
(Except Ahnold. And Reagan, of course. And maybe Mel Gibson if he agrees to run. Oh! and that nice Elisabeth Hasselback girl)
posted by fshgrl at 10:26 PM on March 13, 2006
(Except Ahnold. And Reagan, of course. And maybe Mel Gibson if he agrees to run. Oh! and that nice Elisabeth Hasselback girl)
posted by fshgrl at 10:26 PM on March 13, 2006
Haven't we buried this one already within the past couple of hours?
posted by marvin at 10:42 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by marvin at 10:42 PM on March 13, 2006
'Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.'
Nail-head, meet hammer. Hammer, nail-head.
posted by squirrel at 12:14 AM on March 14, 2006
Nail-head, meet hammer. Hammer, nail-head.
posted by squirrel at 12:14 AM on March 14, 2006
I like George Clooney. I always have. Perhaps I will recruit him for my new political party.
(I continue to think that would be a good idea.)
posted by blacklite at 1:47 AM on March 14, 2006
(I continue to think that would be a good idea.)
posted by blacklite at 1:47 AM on March 14, 2006
(the political party thing, I mean, not George Clooney.)
posted by blacklite at 1:48 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by blacklite at 1:48 AM on March 14, 2006
Maybe both, eh?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:28 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:28 AM on March 14, 2006
Unlike a lot of people, whenever Clooney opens his mouth, I find another reason to like him more. He makes the $5.00/year or whatever I pay to Rolling Stone worth putting with a year of crap when he shows up between the ads and says something cool.
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:42 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:42 AM on March 14, 2006
Maybe not as thorough as this speech, but these are very different times.
posted by briank at 5:01 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by briank at 5:01 AM on March 14, 2006
I like when people say what I have been thinking, but say it a hell of a lot better than I could have. Please, Liberals, take what he has said to heart and start being the squeaky wheel when it comes to all the crap that is going on. People won't like you better because you were nice and quite. At least give them a respectable reason to hate you...
And I include myself in my callout
posted by qwip at 5:33 AM on March 14, 2006
And I include myself in my callout
posted by qwip at 5:33 AM on March 14, 2006
It's a bizarre world when we praise a man for saying the obvious...
Yet, kudos for him, the king is naked!
posted by qvantamon at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2006
Yet, kudos for him, the king is naked!
posted by qvantamon at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2006
Clooney: " ... [I]t drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.' Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty."
Clooney for prez!
You know he'd win for sure. He'd certanly beat Bill Frist, who according to the Colbert Report is goin to be the next president.
posted by delmoi at 6:36 AM on March 14, 2006
Clooney for prez!
You know he'd win for sure. He'd certanly beat Bill Frist, who according to the Colbert Report is goin to be the next president.
posted by delmoi at 6:36 AM on March 14, 2006
Clooney's rant is all well and good. I agree with most of what he says.
But it's funny -- I don't recall him being so vocal in 2003 or 2004. It really wasn't until the later part of 2005 -- when Bush's popularity started going in the toilet, that Clooney suddenly started positioning himself as the great teller-of-truth-to-power. Hell, even the Dixie Chicks were way ahead of him (and suffered more for it). It seems a bit hypocritical of him to give a big "fuck you" to people who didn't stand up in 2003, when it's not like he was out yelling into bullhorns. (If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested).
posted by pardonyou? at 6:39 AM on March 14, 2006
But it's funny -- I don't recall him being so vocal in 2003 or 2004. It really wasn't until the later part of 2005 -- when Bush's popularity started going in the toilet, that Clooney suddenly started positioning himself as the great teller-of-truth-to-power. Hell, even the Dixie Chicks were way ahead of him (and suffered more for it). It seems a bit hypocritical of him to give a big "fuck you" to people who didn't stand up in 2003, when it's not like he was out yelling into bullhorns. (If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested).
posted by pardonyou? at 6:39 AM on March 14, 2006
Why does the clooney article on huffpo have a picture of Greg Gutfeld?
posted by delmoi at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by delmoi at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2006
By the way, asside from Barbra Boxer, what dems voted against the war itself?
posted by delmoi at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by delmoi at 6:45 AM on March 14, 2006
But it's funny -- I don't recall him being so vocal in 2003 or 2004.
He was afraid he'd get confused with Sean Penn.
posted by iamck at 6:51 AM on March 14, 2006
He was afraid he'd get confused with Sean Penn.
posted by iamck at 6:51 AM on March 14, 2006
I endorse what Clooney says. But just yesterday I finally got around to reading my Sunday NYT Mag. The article about Mark Warner and other Dem presidential hopefuls was depressing. At every level, Congressional to Presidential, it all comes down to money; there are a lot of strong candidates who aren't getting the backing they deserve because no one believes they can raise enough money to run a powerful campaign.
So I appreciate Hollywood folk speaking out and taking a prominent role in changing the cultural tide. But what they need to do a lot more of is to put more of their money where their mouths are, and donate some of the prodigious wealth they have made from us to organizations and candidates that are going to represent their convictions.
I know many already do, but any progressive, liberal, or Democrat with any money at all needs to ante up like never before. The Republicans draw on their vast business wealth for contributions to campaigns and PACs. Democrats could be getting a lot more support from the wealthy in the entertainment industry.
posted by Miko at 7:13 AM on March 14, 2006
So I appreciate Hollywood folk speaking out and taking a prominent role in changing the cultural tide. But what they need to do a lot more of is to put more of their money where their mouths are, and donate some of the prodigious wealth they have made from us to organizations and candidates that are going to represent their convictions.
I know many already do, but any progressive, liberal, or Democrat with any money at all needs to ante up like never before. The Republicans draw on their vast business wealth for contributions to campaigns and PACs. Democrats could be getting a lot more support from the wealthy in the entertainment industry.
posted by Miko at 7:13 AM on March 14, 2006
Clooney doesn't have the first clue about Democratic Party politics. Republicans have been winning elections for 40 years in part by labeling Democrats unpatriotic and/or soft on crime. Sometimes the labels are fair, sometimes the labels aren't, but no matter what, Democrats have a practical and well-founded desire to minimize the impact of those accusations. Democrats who win tough elections go out of their way to appear patriotic and tough on crime.
posted by MattD at 7:18 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by MattD at 7:18 AM on March 14, 2006
Clooney for prez!
If Diebold promises to deliver Ohio for Clooney, then he'll win for sure.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:21 AM on March 14, 2006
If Diebold promises to deliver Ohio for Clooney, then he'll win for sure.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:21 AM on March 14, 2006
Actually, I retract what I said above. A search of Google Groups revealed that he was on record before the war with a pretty consistent message. He wasn't exactly marching in demonstrations, but he did at least take a public position. Makes me view his Huffington post with a bit more respect.
Carry on.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:31 AM on March 14, 2006
Carry on.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:31 AM on March 14, 2006
So I appreciate Hollywood folk speaking out and taking a prominent role in changing the cultural tide. But what they need to do a lot more of is to put more of their money where their mouths are, and donate some of the prodigious wealth they have made from us to organizations and candidates that are going to represent their convictions.
They can only give $2,000 per candidate per year.
posted by delmoi at 7:50 AM on March 14, 2006
They can only give $2,000 per candidate per year.
posted by delmoi at 7:50 AM on March 14, 2006
Everyone's a hero when it comes to telling other people what to do.
Remember in Clooney's Oscar speech where he touted Hollywood's giving the Oscar to Hattie McDaniels in 1939?
Now think about all the rolls for black women that Clooney has created in his own films.
Talk is cheap.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:04 AM on March 14, 2006
Remember in Clooney's Oscar speech where he touted Hollywood's giving the Oscar to Hattie McDaniels in 1939?
Now think about all the rolls for black women that Clooney has created in his own films.
Talk is cheap.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:04 AM on March 14, 2006
Sometimes the labels are fair, sometimes the labels aren't, but no matter what, Democrats have a practical and well-founded desire to minimize the impact of those accusations. Democrats who win tough elections go out of their way to appear patriotic and tough on crime.
Well then the Democrats are at fault for letting the Republicans frame the debate.
posted by squirrel at 8:14 AM on March 14, 2006
Well then the Democrats are at fault for letting the Republicans frame the debate.
posted by squirrel at 8:14 AM on March 14, 2006
At every level, Congressional to Presidential, it all comes down to money; there are a lot of strong candidates who aren't getting the backing they deserve because no one believes they can raise enough money to run a powerful campaign.
and you don't think that is a big part of the problem? fuck both parties for thinking (and making it such that) its a matter of who can more effectively BUY the election.
as for clooney, while i admire what hes saying, its certainly been said before and its upsetting that our current cultural/political climate is such that a celebrity seems to carry more weight on the issue than a non-major party politician or even a democratic "outsider".
posted by teishu at 8:29 AM on March 14, 2006
and you don't think that is a big part of the problem? fuck both parties for thinking (and making it such that) its a matter of who can more effectively BUY the election.
as for clooney, while i admire what hes saying, its certainly been said before and its upsetting that our current cultural/political climate is such that a celebrity seems to carry more weight on the issue than a non-major party politician or even a democratic "outsider".
posted by teishu at 8:29 AM on March 14, 2006
...where he touted Hollywood's giving the Oscar to Hattie McDaniels in 1939?
Yeah. Who, as I recall, was reduced to playing a rascist stereotype of a black maid in a movie that glorified the slaveholding days of the South. Not exactly Hollywood's finest hour, particularly since they made her sit at a special table on Oscar night.
posted by unreason at 8:36 AM on March 14, 2006
Yeah. Who, as I recall, was reduced to playing a rascist stereotype of a black maid in a movie that glorified the slaveholding days of the South. Not exactly Hollywood's finest hour, particularly since they made her sit at a special table on Oscar night.
posted by unreason at 8:36 AM on March 14, 2006
delmoi, here are the vote results for the use-of-force authorization in the House and Senate.
posted by hilker at 8:40 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by hilker at 8:40 AM on March 14, 2006
They can only give $2,000 per candidate per year.
Well, duh, that's why I said candidates and organizations. Direct donation to a candidate is only one way to advance a cause. Donating to 527s and advocacy groups is another good way to go. Setting up a foundation is another good way to go. Donating to a non-profit publication that supports your point of view is a good way to go. Donating to every single Democrat you can support at every level, from municipal to state to national, will make a huge difference. Candidates emerge from localities, and Democrats have not done well encouraging public service from the ground up. If you think the $2000 limit is all anyone can do, rethink.
fuck both parties for thinking (and making it such that) its a matter of who can more effectively BUY the election.
I'm not saying it's a good situation or a system that is well designed. I'm just saying it's the only way it's going to happen. If you've ever worked on a campaign, you'll be shocked at the sheer expense of it. Copier paper, poster printing, phone lines, staff, internet and computer workstations, plane fare and car rentals for appearances; these aren't free. There is simply no way to get the kind of attention you need to get elected without incurring expenses.
posted by Miko at 8:44 AM on March 14, 2006
Well, duh, that's why I said candidates and organizations. Direct donation to a candidate is only one way to advance a cause. Donating to 527s and advocacy groups is another good way to go. Setting up a foundation is another good way to go. Donating to a non-profit publication that supports your point of view is a good way to go. Donating to every single Democrat you can support at every level, from municipal to state to national, will make a huge difference. Candidates emerge from localities, and Democrats have not done well encouraging public service from the ground up. If you think the $2000 limit is all anyone can do, rethink.
fuck both parties for thinking (and making it such that) its a matter of who can more effectively BUY the election.
I'm not saying it's a good situation or a system that is well designed. I'm just saying it's the only way it's going to happen. If you've ever worked on a campaign, you'll be shocked at the sheer expense of it. Copier paper, poster printing, phone lines, staff, internet and computer workstations, plane fare and car rentals for appearances; these aren't free. There is simply no way to get the kind of attention you need to get elected without incurring expenses.
posted by Miko at 8:44 AM on March 14, 2006
WaPo reports on a gathering of Republican party activists:
Most of the activists said they would support any Republican who wins the nomination. Their biggest concern was finding someone who can beat the Democrats. "I'm for any Republican who can get elected," said Craig Capehart of Dallas, Texas. "It would be nice if they also had policies that would be good for the country."
God bless the wimpy Dems for sitting tight on their behinds.
posted by forwebsites at 8:56 AM on March 14, 2006
Most of the activists said they would support any Republican who wins the nomination. Their biggest concern was finding someone who can beat the Democrats. "I'm for any Republican who can get elected," said Craig Capehart of Dallas, Texas. "It would be nice if they also had policies that would be good for the country."
God bless the wimpy Dems for sitting tight on their behinds.
posted by forwebsites at 8:56 AM on March 14, 2006
They can only give $2,000 per candidate per year.
Well, duh, that's why I said candidates and organizations.
You can't stack private wealth -- including that of movie stars -- against big business. Entirely different orders of magnitude.
posted by dreamsign at 9:58 AM on March 14, 2006
Well, duh, that's why I said candidates and organizations.
You can't stack private wealth -- including that of movie stars -- against big business. Entirely different orders of magnitude.
posted by dreamsign at 9:58 AM on March 14, 2006
Entirely different orders of magnitude.
True, but it can't hurt to encourage people with fat wallets to do everything they can.
posted by Miko at 10:11 AM on March 14, 2006
True, but it can't hurt to encourage people with fat wallets to do everything they can.
posted by Miko at 10:11 AM on March 14, 2006
Now think about all the rolls for black women that Clooney has created in his own films.
Talk is cheap.
Yeah, because "Good Night and Good Luck" was just screaming for a powerful black female lead.
posted by Amanojaku at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2006
Talk is cheap.
Yeah, because "Good Night and Good Luck" was just screaming for a powerful black female lead.
posted by Amanojaku at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2006
Because Kang will save us! Not the dreaded Kodos!
(Actually I did, but no one reads my comments, thankfully)
I like Cloony. But Democrats? Why? ‘Cause they’re not beholden to corporate sponsors or special interest groups like those lousy Republicans?
It’s like telling someone they need a stiffer piece of rope to shoot pool with.
“Don’t use nylon rope you idiot! Use hemp rope! It’s all-natural!”
posted by Smedleyman at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2006
(Actually I did, but no one reads my comments, thankfully)
I like Cloony. But Democrats? Why? ‘Cause they’re not beholden to corporate sponsors or special interest groups like those lousy Republicans?
It’s like telling someone they need a stiffer piece of rope to shoot pool with.
“Don’t use nylon rope you idiot! Use hemp rope! It’s all-natural!”
posted by Smedleyman at 11:34 AM on March 14, 2006
IMDB lists George Clooney as producer on 13 projects that have aired/screened so far. Other than a secondary part for Viola Davis in Far From Heaven I can't think a single black female role that had more than a just a few lines in any of Clooney's work. Since some of those projects were TV series that means that in hundreds of roles in his work he only found room for one semi-serious role for a black women. Looks a lot like Hollywood circa 1939 to me.
And Edward R. Murrow's most compelling work wasn't taking on McCarthy, since many, many print reporters had already turned against him. His real claim to fame was exposing the revolting conditions that millions of sharecroppers were still toiling under - defacto peonage, if not outright debt slavery. Murrow was always in the forefront in calling for racial justice and he paid a heavy price for it, too.
So there could have been several substantial black female leads in a movie about Murrow - Clooney just choose to tell a story with none at all.
posted by Jos Bleau at 11:43 AM on March 14, 2006
And Edward R. Murrow's most compelling work wasn't taking on McCarthy, since many, many print reporters had already turned against him. His real claim to fame was exposing the revolting conditions that millions of sharecroppers were still toiling under - defacto peonage, if not outright debt slavery. Murrow was always in the forefront in calling for racial justice and he paid a heavy price for it, too.
So there could have been several substantial black female leads in a movie about Murrow - Clooney just choose to tell a story with none at all.
posted by Jos Bleau at 11:43 AM on March 14, 2006
That's right, Jos Bleau. He *chose* to avoid telling stories about strong black women. Specifically. Those bigoted Hollywood liberals.
Wait, I haven't made *any* movies with strong black female leads - OMG IM TEH RASICT
posted by ralphyk at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2006
Wait, I haven't made *any* movies with strong black female leads - OMG IM TEH RASICT
posted by ralphyk at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2006
Tarontino could deliver Clooney's Oscar line with a straight face. But Clooney can only do so if no one looks at the body of his work as a producer.
Whatever his personal feelings, Clooney's films are whiter than the suburb where he grew up. Black women would have been seen there commonly, even if only as maids and nannies.
Everyone's a hero when it comes to speaking out and telling everyone else what to do - when it come time to act, that's something else. When Clooney's casting decisions as a producer catches up to his lines at the Oscars I'll take him seriously.
Until then - talk is cheap.
posted by Jos Bleau at 12:23 PM on March 14, 2006
Whatever his personal feelings, Clooney's films are whiter than the suburb where he grew up. Black women would have been seen there commonly, even if only as maids and nannies.
Everyone's a hero when it comes to speaking out and telling everyone else what to do - when it come time to act, that's something else. When Clooney's casting decisions as a producer catches up to his lines at the Oscars I'll take him seriously.
Until then - talk is cheap.
posted by Jos Bleau at 12:23 PM on March 14, 2006
“Everyone's a hero when it comes to speaking out and telling everyone else what to do...”
Really? Wooo Hoo! I’m a hero!
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2006
Really? Wooo Hoo! I’m a hero!
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on March 14, 2006
When Clooney's casting decisions as a producer catches up to his lines at the Oscars I'll take him seriously.
Let me get this straight. In order to commend someone for doing something you think is good, you must have done the same thing yourself? Otherwise, you're a hypocrite?
Just making sure I understand.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:12 PM on March 14, 2006
Let me get this straight. In order to commend someone for doing something you think is good, you must have done the same thing yourself? Otherwise, you're a hypocrite?
Just making sure I understand.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:12 PM on March 14, 2006
Why does the clooney article on huffpo have a picture of Greg Gutfeld?
posted by delmoi
Because it isn't by Clooney, it's a 'satire' piece by Gutfeld.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:34 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by delmoi
Because it isn't by Clooney, it's a 'satire' piece by Gutfeld.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:34 PM on March 14, 2006
GREG GUTFIELD: I AM A SPECTACULARLY UNFUNNY THIRD-RATE HACK DOUCHEBAG! THERE, I SAID IT!
posted by stenseng at 1:41 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by stenseng at 1:41 PM on March 14, 2006
Okay, so 3 recent films Clooney has produced or directed, chosen at random:
Good Night and Good Luck, about a bunch of white male journos bringing down the white Joe McCarthy - roles for strong black women: none
Syriana, about how the US and a bunch of rich, fat, white old men control the oil industry - roles for strong black women: hmmm, none
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, the made up life story of a white male gameshow host - roles for strong black women: ahhh, not so many
White male suburban actor makes films that are *not* about strong black women - shock horror! But nice try at a derail. I particularly like the line about "maids and nannies", implying not-so-subtly that he employed black maids and nannies himself. Seriously, do you genuinely feel aggrieved at Clooney being a MASSIVE hypocrite for not working his ass off to empower black women, or are you just being an enormous idiot? Can I admire and praise Rosa Parks without trying to bring about great civil rights change myself? Is there any point to me typing all of this, or are you going to dismiss me with a pithy put-down, in the same way you're trying to belittle Clooney by saying what a crime it is that he is not Martin Luther King, or something? Honestly, now? Come on, let's hear it, we're all fucking shitting our pants with excitement to find out.
posted by ralphyk at 2:25 PM on March 14, 2006
Good Night and Good Luck, about a bunch of white male journos bringing down the white Joe McCarthy - roles for strong black women: none
Syriana, about how the US and a bunch of rich, fat, white old men control the oil industry - roles for strong black women: hmmm, none
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, the made up life story of a white male gameshow host - roles for strong black women: ahhh, not so many
White male suburban actor makes films that are *not* about strong black women - shock horror! But nice try at a derail. I particularly like the line about "maids and nannies", implying not-so-subtly that he employed black maids and nannies himself. Seriously, do you genuinely feel aggrieved at Clooney being a MASSIVE hypocrite for not working his ass off to empower black women, or are you just being an enormous idiot? Can I admire and praise Rosa Parks without trying to bring about great civil rights change myself? Is there any point to me typing all of this, or are you going to dismiss me with a pithy put-down, in the same way you're trying to belittle Clooney by saying what a crime it is that he is not Martin Luther King, or something? Honestly, now? Come on, let's hear it, we're all fucking shitting our pants with excitement to find out.
posted by ralphyk at 2:25 PM on March 14, 2006
You know, he did act as executive producer Far From Heaven, which specifically addressed racism, and had strong roles for black characters, if not a lead role for a black woman. If your problem is that he hasn't produced a film with a strong role for a black woman, well, is there any reason to believe, considering his body of work, that he won't get around to it someday?
I mean, for the love of Christ, he's only directed two films, and only acted as the proper producer (rather than executive producer) on four films. Condemning his ouvre at this point for his casting decisions might be premature.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2006
I mean, for the love of Christ, he's only directed two films, and only acted as the proper producer (rather than executive producer) on four films. Condemning his ouvre at this point for his casting decisions might be premature.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:29 PM on March 14, 2006
Clooney is to such a racist, you boys. I mean Whoopie Goldberg as Edward R. Murrow was the natural choice! Bofo! Slam dunk! It would have won an Oscar for sure...
You know what else he hasn't done... he has not hired a single quadriplegic chinese lesbian. NOT ONE! What a fucking bigot.
And you don't have to look that hard. It was dead give away when he attended the Golden Globes in his Klan robes.
posted by tkchrist at 3:47 PM on March 14, 2006
You know what else he hasn't done... he has not hired a single quadriplegic chinese lesbian. NOT ONE! What a fucking bigot.
And you don't have to look that hard. It was dead give away when he attended the Golden Globes in his Klan robes.
posted by tkchrist at 3:47 PM on March 14, 2006
Do you appreciate the irony of all the hostility directed at someone who questions the real world significance of someone who says "it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty."?
But now that I think about, you're right. Its NOT George Clooney's fault that he makes the movies and TV series that he does, and that he makes the casting and directing decisions that he does. Clearly he's not involved in any way in his own career, and has no responsibilities therefore.
Thank you for your harsh invective and sarcasm - honest debate would only drag the innocent down along with the guilty, helping none and compounding error.
I was in error to think that saying things is easier than actually doing them. It must be the other way 'round.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:03 PM on March 14, 2006
But now that I think about, you're right. Its NOT George Clooney's fault that he makes the movies and TV series that he does, and that he makes the casting and directing decisions that he does. Clearly he's not involved in any way in his own career, and has no responsibilities therefore.
Thank you for your harsh invective and sarcasm - honest debate would only drag the innocent down along with the guilty, helping none and compounding error.
I was in error to think that saying things is easier than actually doing them. It must be the other way 'round.
posted by Jos Bleau at 8:03 PM on March 14, 2006
Boo fucking hoo. If your pithy snarks were really "honest debate", people would have responded in kind. You can't throw in barbs like that, and then, when you're called on them, suddenly back off shrieking "oh no, I merely wanted an honest debate, how cruel you all are".
Murrow's story could have been about several strong black women, but he deliberately chose the all-white version? Clooney came from an area with black maids and nannies? Give me a break.
posted by ralphyk at 10:19 AM on March 15, 2006
Murrow's story could have been about several strong black women, but he deliberately chose the all-white version? Clooney came from an area with black maids and nannies? Give me a break.
posted by ralphyk at 10:19 AM on March 15, 2006
Do you appreciate the irony of all the hostility directed at someone who questions the real world significance of someone who says "it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty."?
Considering that all my political heroes would undoubtedly agree that it is a duty to question the state, no, I don't see the irony.
I could be misunderstanding you, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:26 AM on March 15, 2006
Considering that all my political heroes would undoubtedly agree that it is a duty to question the state, no, I don't see the irony.
I could be misunderstanding you, though.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:26 AM on March 15, 2006
I was in error to think that saying things is easier than actually doing them. It must be the other way 'round.
Good Lord. And YOU don't feel the slightest sense of irony in saying this?
Since you seem so strongly opinionated about what other people don't do - Ok so what have you DONE. You against slavery? Have you freed a single slave? You HAVEN'T!?! Why then you must be for slavery!
Your argument is so childish the only thing it CAN evoke is sarcasm - though people did try to point this out to you, you were too busy wringing your hands to notice.
posted by tkchrist at 10:54 AM on March 15, 2006
Good Lord. And YOU don't feel the slightest sense of irony in saying this?
Since you seem so strongly opinionated about what other people don't do - Ok so what have you DONE. You against slavery? Have you freed a single slave? You HAVEN'T!?! Why then you must be for slavery!
Your argument is so childish the only thing it CAN evoke is sarcasm - though people did try to point this out to you, you were too busy wringing your hands to notice.
posted by tkchrist at 10:54 AM on March 15, 2006
sorry if it was linked above, but the LA Times has Arianna going to the wrong handler for permission.
Arianna really messed up--he would have written something--she didn't need to do a writearound, like magazines do.
posted by amberglow at 7:21 PM on March 15, 2006
Arianna really messed up--he would have written something--she didn't need to do a writearound, like magazines do.
posted by amberglow at 7:21 PM on March 15, 2006
« Older The Bible is perfect in all things. The value of... | . Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Democrats have become too weak, there's no way they're going to win in '08 if they don't change something soon.
posted by p3on at 9:02 PM on March 13, 2006