Comments on: Is everyone in Hollywood really this stupid?

By: casey

casey — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:33:31 +0000

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.

By: Ben Franks

Ben Franks — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:41:12 +0000

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

By: Geoff Dodd pi

Geoff Dodd pi — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:58:37 +0000

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.

By: Nephos

Nephos — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:29:07 +0000

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.

By: dmom

dmom — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:03:49 +0000

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.

By: prayingmanless

prayingmanless — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:06:23 +0000

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.

By: casey

casey — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:18:06 +0000

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.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:28:44 +0000

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?

By: Lincoln

Lincoln — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:21:40 +0000

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***

By: casey

casey — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:55:20 +0000

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.