« The 'Holiday' Season starts ... | Main | Pause ... »
November 25, 2008
The new Hollywood Blacklist
... is hot pink.
Looks like the Anti-Prop 8 bigots have embraced their inner Joe McCarthy.
Posted by Darleen at November 25, 2008 06:37 AM
Comments
I will admit that among the myriad of Republican Senate losses thus year, I was unaware that Chad Griffin had been elected and would start holding Senate hearings on this issue. Then, I realized that was just Darleen getting history wrong AGAIN.
The problem, Darleen, with SENATOR McCarthy was not that he was a demagogue, although your side is blessed with them; it's that he was a Senator and used the power of subpoena and the implicit part of the Federal Government to destroy the lives of people (especially since the Government debated regulating Hollywood at the time, since the Hays Code had just been tossed). McCarthy mis-used the power of the State, which you decry when it comes to taxes, but seem less troubled by when it comes to slander.
As for Mr. Griffin and his ilk, private boycotts based upon a person's beliefs and especially their political contributions generally don't bother the American Family Association crowd, Darleen. I think Dr. King would be surprised that you opposed his Montgomery tactics.
Is it too much to ask that ANY of your historical pieces contain even a germ of accuracy?
Posted by: timb at November 25, 2008 10:12 AM
Already out is Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, who resigned after a flurry of complaints from prominent theater artists, including "Hairspray" composer Marc Shaiman, when word of his contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced.
This is nothing but terrorism AKA the “gayhad”.
Vote our way or lose your job, typical amoral liberal standards as the liberals who comment here confirm.
Posted by: ML at November 25, 2008 11:19 AM
Chad Griffin, a political advisor to Hollywood executives who says, "A dollar to the yes campaign is a dollar in support of bigotry, homophobia and discrimination. There are going to be consequences. Any individual who has held homophobic views and who has gone public by writing a check, you can expect to be publicly judged.
The incredible irony is they can pass judgment in public upon you, but you are not afforded the same rights.
I wonder how Chad would react to publicly being denounced as a sexually reprehensible, heterophobic.
I wonder who the real bigots are?
Posted by: ML at November 25, 2008 01:47 PM
Subtle distinctions like "government" and "private" can be hard for Darleen, timb. Same deal with "free speech" and "terrorism" for ML.
Posted by: Josh at November 25, 2008 08:14 PM
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
I told you that your BA doesn’t mean bunkum, you prove it when you don’t understand simple definitions.
Now what I wonder is why are definitions lost on our liberal friends, it is very common for liberals to not understand whether willfully or just from ignorance I don’t know.
Posted by: ML at November 26, 2008 06:29 AM
In the future ML, don't just stop at the first sentence on Wikipedia (although I imagine it was hard to sound out the "big words"), keep going
Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
Now, if ML could define terror, which should not be hard to do, even the US govt has managed to do it, then it maybe he could see the distinction of a person using public records to ridicule another and Eric Rudolph attempting to shut down abortion clinics by maiming nurses.
Or, ML, is it only terrorism when done by people you don't like?
'Cause, I'm just imagining if a bunch of conservative churches went through those "books" and fired members of their staff for donating to defeat Prop 8, then you'd sort of defend them.
After all, keeping "gayhad" supporters out of the church or boycotting Disney to protest "Gay Days" are acts of patriotic free speech.
Finally, ML, if being held up to public ridicule is so frightening, then why do you continue to comment here? Josh, Leah, and I regularly embarrass you.
P.S. When will you just admit you are a rabid, foaming at the mouth Homo hater?
Posted by: timb at November 26, 2008 07:43 AM
Josh, Leah, and I regularly embarrass you.
How will live with all the embarrassment?
Well I wouldn’t smoke around here, you, Josh and Leah make it an extreme straw-man fire danger.
It’s a straw-man forest.
Posted by: ML at November 26, 2008 08:07 AM
Do you even know what that means or will you have to run off to Wikipedia to look. Honestly, ML, you are too easy. You're like a random text generator. You called it terrorism and, when you can't defend it, you run back and fire off some bs you read on another blog.
Posted by: timb at November 26, 2008 09:34 AM
Here is a perfect example of a straw-man argument. The only argument that timb seems capable of making, much to my embarrassment.
'Cause, I'm just imagining if a bunch of conservative churches went through those "books" and fired members of their staff for donating to defeat Prop 8, then you'd sort of defend them.
Setup an imaginary position then imagine its mine, subsequently knock it down then point out what a hypocrite I am. And all the while its just figments of your own imagination and that is suppose to embarrass me somehow. Its pretty comical.
In the future ML, don't just stop at the first sentence on Wikipedia (although I imagine it was hard to sound out the "big words"), keep going
More of the same straw-man, imaginary position, imaginarily its mine then subsequently defeat it, easy stuff alright, if it wasn’t you would be a complete imbecile.
I already gave the definition of terrorism, of course to fully appreciate it you need to know what the word “terror” and “coercion” mean and some of these words have more than one definition so you may have to read them all to see which ones fit.
Example: Terrorism: the systematic use of terror ( fear, worry, frightening aspect ) especially as a means of coercion ( force, to achieve by force or threat ).
From: Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
Posted by: ML at November 26, 2008 10:42 AM
ML, your comments make me afraid that a lot of people in my country are crazed lunatics with IQs under 80. STOP THE TERRORISM ML!!1!1
Posted by: Josh at November 28, 2008 07:29 AM
Josh
I after I watched this video, I thought the very same thing.
Posted by: ML at December 3, 2008 11:02 AM