Roman Polanski

[highfigh]

If I were to say that Charlton Heston is a crazy, senile old coot and therefore shouldn't be allowed near a firearm, would it be fair to say the same about all NRA members? Do you think I should have to prove that statement? Of course I should.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to pick on Mr. Heston or the NRA, which is comprised of millions upstanding citizens; I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

Of course, you can make such accusations all you want. I'm just saying that broad sweeping statements which stereotype a group of people are not going to convince any free-thinking, intelligent reader unless you come up with supporting evidence.

Someone could say that Christianity is full of degenerates due to the high profile cases of some Roman Catholic clergy being involved in serious sexual misconduct, or televangelists fleecing their flocks and living high on the hog. As a Christian, I would take grave offence to such accusations.

What it boils down to is, if you make such accusations, don't expect to be taken seriously as a moderator. Goodman's question was perfectly valid.

Charlton Heston is dead and he wasn't crazy, he had Alzheimer's. Which is exactly what I want in a gun owner.

The NRA does have good, normal people in their ranks but they also have a lot of people who don't have a clue what the statement on their belt buckles, flags and window stickers means. They go around saying "...The right to bear arms" and end it there. When asked about the rest of it, I usually hear crickets.

I was raised Catholic and the history of the RC Church is why I'm among the ranks of "lapsed Catholics". I wouldn't be a member of a televangelist's church if they paid me.

We need more than one party and all groups can't be in total agreement but I'd like to see the vitriiol toned down a bit. This much divisiveness is really bad when one side needs to other when something needs to be done.


All of this disassociation from one group or another reminds me of something I heard a long time ago, about a guy who learned that someone would be talking with his mother. He said "Please don't tell her I'm a lawyer, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse". Another job could be substituted fro 'lawyer', but....

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Well, you have a position of authority around here, and on most forums I frequent moderators stay above the fray. This gives them moral authority (not your case). Sweeping, factless, quasi racist and hate inducing statements , like the one goodman quoted above, do not require to be disproved but should be disavowed... QUOTE]


Sorry but I can prove my statement about hollywood with so many examples that it is hardly worth the effort. And you sir are inserting words into my post that I never said. Of course there are good people in the industry, but I can provide countelss examples of hollywood degenercy that it would fill a book. Infact, it has filled a couple of them starting with Medveds book on the very subject.

 

[JerryLove]

Sorry but I can prove my statement about hollywood with so many examples that it is hardly worth the effort. And you sir are inserting words into my post that I never said. Of course there are good people in the industry, but I can provide countelss examples of hollywood degenercy that it would fill a book. Infact, it has filled a couple of them starting with Medveds book on the very subject.

Are we still talking about your post on page 1?

Because hollywood is mostly filled with a bunch of degenerates who have no morals and do not believe in a higher power. Therefore, there is no right wrong or anyone they have to answer to. I am sure there are some in hollywood who would not defend this slime, but you won't hear a peep from them via the lamestream media who is immoral as well.

This paragraph is full of so many equivocable words, it would be nigh-impossible to defened or repudiate.

One would first have to define "Hollywood". For example, are all movie actors "hollywood", or only those based in California? What about foley artists? Are we discussing the geographical "hollywood" or the movie industry, or some portion of the movie industry? How related must someone be (is Quincy Jones "hollywood"?).

Once we figure that out, we need to figure out what a moral is. I doubt there are many completely amoral people alive and outside prison (actually, I doubt there are that many in prison either). So I have to assume that you were using hyperbole, which means we would need to define what you meant to discuss it.

Then there's "believe in a higher power". I assume you are discussing true agnostics (does a spiritualist or Buddist believe in a "higher power")? I suppose we could at least determine that by survey, once we had determined who "hollywood" was.

So that should about cover hollywood, on to one of my favorites.

The US seems quite filled with people who are certain that the media is a left-wing conspiracy. Interestingly, they know this because the media has told them so many times.

I suppose they say that the greatest trick the devil played was convincing people he didn't exist. The only conspiracy in the media seems to be the one to push conspiracy theories. Bluntly, they are not competent enough to do any more than repeat crack-pot theories... mostly because it's all that interests the ADHD population.

This case is a good example. Do you know why you know so much about the crime committed and about the people who oppose extradition? Because the media tells you so.

OTOH, I'm not about to argue that the media is moral, though like my earlier comment, I'm sure almost all memebers of it have some morals they adhere to at least loosely.

People, in general, are stupid, lazy, prone to panic, greedy beings well willing to place their wants above the needs of others. That's true *everywhere*. Do you have a book of campaigners for causes in Hollywood? Not this cause, but feeding children, stopping the spread of AIDS, ending genocide? No major cause seems to have any trouble finding actors to line up to coulenteer their time to help.

If you go looking for someting, you are likely to find it. I think you are looking for degeneracy... whatever that can be defined as.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I don't need to defend my statements any further then the proof that the industry allowed an admitted child rapist to show his films. They distributed and allowed his work to be shown after the fact in hopes that they could profit from it. There is nothing more imoral and degenerate then that. As a collective group they had a moral responsibility to stop this pedophile from profiting futher until he had at least served his just sentenance according to law. They chose otherwise and turned a blind eye.

Where was the outcry from all the moral and decent people in hollywood to ban anything from this scum from being shown?

You want a few facts well here are a couple for you. Why is it that hollywood keeps pushing filth on our children and our families when it is family friendly films that are the top money makers? This can be proven with box office records. Are they really stupid at business or do they have an agenda?

Why is any religious person more often than not portrayed as evil or bad in most movies? There are many, many examples of this. Not many examples of positive religious role models in movies from hollywood.

And the latest trend out of hollywood is portraying our military in a bad light. It is always some evil military plot that is the cause of the evil.

I could go on but you get the point.

 

[JerryLove]

I don't need to defend my statements any further then the proof that the industry allowed an admitted child rapist to show his films.

Tell me how the guy who worked the camera on Titanic did so.

Heck, tell me how Arnold Schwartzenegger did so.

They distributed and allowed his work to be shown after the fact in hopes that they could profit from it. There is nothing more imoral and degenerate then that. As a collective group they had a moral responsibility to stop this pedophile from profiting futher until he had at least served his just sentenance according to law. They chose otherwise and turned a blind eye.

OK. Let's discuss "collective group".

Have you watched any of his movies? Have you watched any movies from an distributor of his movies? Have you had money in any bank that invested in any stock the benifited any company that distributed his movies?

Then you are, by your own standard, guilty.

Where was the outcry from all the moral and decent people in hollywood to ban anything from this scum from being shown?

I provided you a link from Schwartzenegger. Why would someone out-cry for something going the way it should (he's arrested). Why would someone add the press to the victim she doesn't want when it doesn't effect an outcome?

You seem to be criticizing people for making sound judgements, and not wasting time railing to get what they already got.

You want a few facts well here are a couple for you. Why is it that hollywood keeps pushing filth on our children and our families when it is family friendly films that are the top money makers? This can be proven with box office records. Are they really stupid at business or do they have an agenda?

That's not a fact, that's a question. I would, however, be interested in seeing how you feel "hollywood" is forcing your choldren to watch filth.

That said: if you don't like the movie don't go. If no one likes the movie, they won't make more. It does take money to make anything.

Why is any religious person more often than not portrayed as evil or bad in most movies? There are many, many examples of this. Not many examples of positive religious role models in movies from hollywood.

Define "many". Shall I start with the Charelton Heston movies, move through basically every King-Arthur movie (except perhaps the last one), then cover every movie about clergy changing lives from comedies like "sister act" through to tragedies like "to kill a priest". Then I can hit almost every religions movie ("The Ten Commandments", "The Passion of the Christ") and supernatural movies ("The Seventh Sign", "Left Behind", "The Rapture", "Constantine"). The list goes on and on and on.

But again, you went looking to find something and so you found it.

And the latest trend out of hollywood is portraying our military in a bad light. It is always some evil military plot that is the cause of the evil.

Most recent movie with millitary people I saw was GIJoe. Before that was Transformers.

Heck, let me just take a look at the current movies on Google.
GI-Joe. Mentioned. Good Guys.
Inglorious Bastards: Haven't seen it, I understand it to be about a bunch of millitray guys trying to save the world by killing hitler. Good guys.

Hrm. Not that many out there right now. Going through my favorits list (again from Heartbreak Ridge to Blackhawk Down to Saving Private Ryan), I don't see it. Even when I manage to find examples of it, it's either "The other guy's millitary" like "Enemy at the Gates" or (usually with Vietnam movies) groups within rather than the whole ("A Few Good Men", "Full Metal Jacket", "Apocolypse Now", "Dr.Strangelove", "Catch 22", "The Guns of Naverone", "Bridge over the river Kwi"). Then there's some of my fac TV shows. Right now NCIS. Classically including "Black Sheep Squadron" and "Hogan's Heros".

Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of vets in hollywood, and many many more who have donated thousands of hours to our vets. You disrespect their good work with your generalizations.

Perhaps you should look at the quote at the bottom of your own posts. It's from the famous President and Hollywood actor: Ronald Regan

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Two people is hardly an outcry from the majority of people in hollywood.

Your digging far back for the some of the military films. Also, some of those films you mentioned do not exactly make our military look good. And to use your words, you went looking for something and found it, but it is not the norm for this crowd.

You also missed totally the point about family films. It is a fact that family friendly films make the most money, but yet they keep pumping out junk that fails at the box office . Either they are completely clueless when it comes to making money or they have some other reason to make the films.

Of course there have been some good films, and I never said there wasn't, but the list of films that exhibit what I said is staggering.

Yes Mel's movie about Christ was amazing film making, but he is a rouge filmmaker that had to do it on his own. Same goes for Sly with his latest Rambo.

This is also getting too far off topic and could be another thread where I would elaborate much, much further. I am not going to do it any more here.

 

[goodman]

Being a moderator does not bar me from having an opinion. Sorry if you don't like it, but that is my opinion. Last I checked we are still allowed to have those in this country. If you think my statement is incorrect then by all means prove it wrong.

It is not wrong to have a low opinion of a person for something that he did. It is wrong to defame entire classes of people, "Hollywood" and the "mainstream media," as you did.

 

[Alex2507]

It is wrong to defame entire classes of people ...

... even the French?

 

[jeffsg4mac]

It is not wrong to have a low opinion of a person for something that he did. It is wrong to defame entire classes of people, "Hollywood" and the "mainstream media," as you did.

I have a low opinion of the media and hollywood for the actions. Are there good people in both? I am sure there are and I am not talking about those people, but It is about time they take the industry back. Same goes for DC.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I have a low opinion of the media and hollywood for the actions. Are there good people in both? I am sure there are and I am not talking about those people, but It is about time they take the industry back. Same goes for DC.

I'm catching a whiff of "conspiracy theorist"...

 

[JerryLove]

Two people is hardly an outcry from the majority of people in hollywood.

Since I wasn't arguing an outcry that's immaterial to my point. Where is the outcry to keep Manson in jail? Where's the outcry to not shut down yellowstone? People don't tend to protest when things are going their way.

Your digging far back for the some of the military films. Also, some of those films you mentioned do not exactly make our military look good. And to use your words, you went looking for something and found it, but it is not the norm for this crowd.

Both *current* films with military personnel in them have the military as the good guy. No one with a counter-claim has listed any at all... therefore my list is better than there. Given that you've offered nothing in way of support, I don't feel it's appropriate to put in the work to be more comprehensive.

You also missed totally the point about family films. It is a fact that family friendly films make the most money, but yet they keep pumping out junk that fails at the box office . Either they are completely clueless when it comes to making money or they have some other reason to make the films.

They pump out junk in every genre... so this conspiracy theory lacks even correlation to the facts at hand, much less actual support.

Of course there have been some good films, and I never said there wasn't, but the list of films that exhibit what I said is staggering.

Yes Mel's movie about Christ was amazing film making, but he is a rouge filmmaker that had to do it on his own. Same goes for Sly with his latest Rambo.

This is also getting too far off topic and could be another thread where I would elaborate much, much further. I am not going to do it any more here.

How about this: Offer a statistic that supports a single one of your claims.

Now to track down the anonymous coward who decided to neg-rep me without owning up to it....

 

[Davemcc]

Back on track, this guy is an admitted rapist, pedophile and escaped felon. When he gets back to the U.S., he should be subject to the penalties that all child rapists face, including but not necessarily: incarceration; sex offender registry and/or; chemical castration.

 

[JerryLove]

To begin with, I suspect that fleeing voids the plea-bargain.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

They pump out junk in every genre... so this conspiracy theory lacks even correlation to the facts at hand, much less actual support.

How about this: Offer a statistic that supports a single one of your claims.

Now to track down the anonymous coward who decided to neg-rep me without owning up to it....

There have been a couple of books on the subject. Michael Medveds "Hollywood vs America" covers it pretty throughly.

I am not going to make a list of films in this thread.

Was not me. I would never neg rep someone no matter how wrong they are

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Back on track, this guy is an admitted rapist, pedophile and escaped felon. When he gets back to the U.S., he should be subject to the penalties that all child rapists face, including but not necessarily: incarceration; sex offender registry and/or; chemical castration.

You will get no argument from me there

 

[highfigh]

To begin with, I suspect that fleeing voids the plea-bargain.

I'm not sure of the statute of limitations for this crime but I also don't know why some countries won't ship a dirtbag who would do this back to where he committed the crime.

IMO, he had another place where he could live, so he didn't care about the deal or being considered a fugitive from justice. He worked out the deal so he could remain free and once that was done, he skipped. His lawyer(s) should be held for their part in this scam.

 

[tcarcio]

Well he lost round one. The Swiss have denied him bail today so he can't run and hide like he did before.

 

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure of the statute of limitations for this crime but I also don't know why some countries won't ship a dirtbag who would do this back to where he committed the crime.

French Law prohibits extradition of French citizens.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Well he lost round one. The Swiss have denied him bail today so he can't run and hide like he did before.

I have new respect for the swiss

I still don't like their cheese though!

 

[highfigh]

French Law prohibits extradition of French citizens.

I know that, but I don't understand why they don't look at a criminal as a criminal, regardless of where the crime was committed. I guess he may not have been actually convicted of the crime, especially if there was no trial.