Is everyone in Hollywood really this stupid?

Matt Damon‘s in the news knocking Sarah Palin. Do these idiots not realize that the country is split 50/50 and that by taking sides in political debates and insulting the other side they’re alienating half their audience? What is wrong with them? I liked Bourne Identity and the sequels, but I’m avoiding the next Matt Damon movie like the plague. We don’t watch these actors’ movies because we admire their brains; we watch them because we like their acting (or their looks). No one wants to hear their moronic ideas about politics.

Be Sociable, Share!



21 Responses to “Is everyone in Hollywood really this stupid?”

  1. Scott says:

    “We don’t watch these actors’ movies because we admire their brains; we watch them because we like their acting (or their looks).”

    So wait, you watch his movies because you care about their brains, but you’re boycotting his next movie because you disagree with something he said? That doesn’t make sense.

  2. Scott says:

    Also, nothing he said is “knocking” Palin. Everything he said is either a) true or b) a legit question.

  3. casey says:

    Alright, Scott, so you don’t think he was being condescending talking about her religious beliefs and being the one that has the nuclear codes? It’s not that I disagree with the moron. It’s that he’s insulting me personally, not just Palin. He’s telling me that he’s smarter/better than me because he believes in molecules-to-man evolution (only someone who believes as he does about origins should be able to make life and death decisions). I’m the idiot, because I’m the one questioning authority.

  4. Kansas Bob says:

    I don’t agree with a lot (probably most) of the Hollywood types but if I let that dictate what I watched on TV or at the movies.. whoa.. shuddering at the impact on my life :)

  5. casey says:

    Well, I don’t see movies or TV as a necessity in my life. I’m perfectly happy without them. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my wording, but it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with their positions on the issues. I go to movies starring Tom Hanks, even though he’s done films like Philadelphia and Davinci Code. I disagree with Tom Hanks, but he hasn’t insulted me. Matt Damon explicitely insulted me.

  6. Kansas Bob says:

    I understand Casey.. guess I just don’t take these folks seriously.. for me to be insulted would be to give them more importance than they deserve.

  7. casey says:

    Yeah, I guess you’re right, Bob.

  8. Kansas Bob says:

    Now that is something I don’t hear much in blogworld :)

  9. Scott says:

    I think he more implicitly insulted you, I mean personally I don’t believe in a 6,000 year old earth, so I guess that didn’t set off any alarms. I’ll tell you though, taken on its face a lot of what we believe as Christians, taken from the view of an outsider does seem more than a bit silly/implausible. Knowing that and knowing the state of the heart of unsaved people it just doesn’t bother me. It can’t. It’s like blaming a person born blind for thinking the color orange is implausible. YOu can’t blame them. And I think that while Palin might be a nice woman, smart, canny and a great speaker, I don’t think she’s ready to be President.

  10. casey says:

    Yeah, it was more of an implicit insult, but it was very clear what he meant. Palin is a lot readier for the presidency than Obama, that’s for sure. There’s simply no comparison between “community organizer” and the positions of mayor and governor.

  11. Scott says:

    If all he was was a community organizer you might have a point. He’s been much more than that.

    And mayor of a small town and governor of AK (for what less than 2 years?) isn’t much preparation. If the shoe were on the other foot you know Republicans would be dinging her right and left on her experience. Republicans wanted to make this race about experience and now they’re backing down.

  12. casey says:

    What are you talking about, Scott? She’s the VP candidate, not the presidential candidate! The Democrats are running the least qualified candidate in history. Even Obama’s own running mate says Obama isn’t qualified to be President. The race is about experience, and Obama’s experience doesn’t amount to squat next to McCain’s. Palin and Obama have both been serving in public office for 12 years. The only difference is that Palin has actually had decision-making responsibilities. If we were talking about her as President I’d agree with you. She’s not qualified to be President yet. Let her serve as VP for 4 years, though, and she’ll be ready.

  13. Lincoln says:

    I think she’s more ready than half the Presidents we’ve had at this stage. Could she be worse than Jimmy Carter? Um, not unless your thinking has been affected by an 18 wheeler that just ran over your head.

    **Edited for niceness***

  14. Scott says:

    So the person that’s next in line for the Presidency shouldn’t be ready to be President? What kind of sense does that make?

  15. casey says:

    A lot more sense than the person who’s running for President not being ready to be President! I’m confident she would rise to the challenge if McCain was assassinated, if that’s what you mean. He’s going to be around for a while, barring some extraordinary event like that. His mother is still alive, for crying out loud.

  16. prayingmanless says:

    this may sound a bit simplistic but I think all jobs, even the Presidency, is a learn as you go job. It is a person’s mettle more than a personal agenda that interests me because he — or she — may be tested beyond previous experience, education or planning. I want someone with morals and character in office. I am sick nigh unto death of personable sweet-talkers who reveal base character flaws when in the hot seat.

  17. dmom says:

    Cheney was probably the most qualified VP we have had in the past half century and look how that turned out. I think as Christians we need to collectively look at the last 8 years that we embraced one of our own who was clearly not ready for the job. There is a reason our founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.

  18. Nephos says:

    I don’t have such a problem with the “last 8 years” because I didn’t expect Bush to be perfect (a fact he’s proven beyond doubt). My vote for him was not because he was “one of our own,” but because he was a better candidate than the other two guys (Gore & Kerry).

    I guess if you don’t expect much, it’s hard to be disappointed.

    As for our founding fathers wanting a “separation of church and state,” many of them were perfectly happy with (and were members of) a state-church (Anglican/Episcopal) that persecuted dissenting groups.

  19. Yes, that is basically a fact. Moronic. Remember Tom Cruise on Scientologists being ‘authorities on The Mind.’ Hullo? How little psychology that moron is aware of?! Actors from Hollywood prostitute themselves regularly for any ‘script’ likely to bring them and the film companies another ten million. Politically they herd themselves to ONE skewed side.

  20. Ben Franks says:

    One of the great things about the free market system that America has is that they aren’t forced to buy things they don’t want. So I find it ironic when conservatives complain about Hollywood when in reality it is the most capitalistic of all American institutions.

    Any thoughts?

    Ben

  21. casey says:

    Hi Ben, I don’t know how you could have missed it, but I was not complaining about Hollywood as an industry. I was complaining about Hollywood actors insulting their audience.