Coulter Oscar predictions

[lazs2]

MT...  thank you for proving my point... the top grossing films are not the gay liveral socialist agenda ones.   Yet... the gay liberal socialist ones continue to be made and promoted all out of proportion to what they should be if profit were the motive.

momus...  you claim you "don't know" if hollywood has a liberal gay socialist bent?  I think that the conversation is over since I believe that you are being dishonest or very stupid.   and besides...  mighty is doing an excellent job..  I will let him do the heavy lifting since I lose interest when I know the other person is not being truthful.

lazs

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Mighty1
Momus-- I love it! You say I need to keep giving you facts because you can't or won't look them up for yourself but when I do give you examples you dismiss them and throw insults.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by having the inane and flimsy nature of your own argument pointed out to you. You think that seven films out of uncounted hundreds is the basis for your theory? Fine, but be prepared to be ridiculed for it. If you're so sure  that there are many many more examples that prove your argument then list them. You've been asked to do so more than once and you still haven't come up with the goods. It's your argument, it's up to you to back it up.

You then say even if people believed the same way that I do they are wrong.

That something is commonly believed does not automatically mean it is true; you do understand that don't you?

You don't try to disprove our statements other than by saying we don't provide you with enough proof.

If you think that a list of seven films is a convincing basis on which to condemn an entire industry as biased or as holding a specific agenda when that industry releases many hundreds of productions every year that don't fit that criteria then you are truly beyond help.

You try to sound intelligent but you come off as just another closed minded liberal who will never even consider anothers point of view unless it fits into you deluded little world.

Wow, and you are the one complaining about personal attacks? My intelligence or lack of the same isn't at issue here. What is at issue is your insistence that there are many other examples of the type of movie to which you refer coupled with your refusal to actually name them. It's patently obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about but prefer to keep digging rather than face up to the fact. How can you call me closed minded when I'm the one asking you to provide examples that we can discuss thus giving you a chance to give weight to your argument.

Let's make this simple for you.

You don't believe that most of hollywood has a left wing mentality. Fine! That's your opinion.

If we are to judge by the output of the movie industry then yes, since only a small fraction of films released would seem to be adressing issues that you would label as "liberal".

I and many others see it a different way. That should be fine too since that is OUR opinion.

And as soon as you express that opinion in a debate you need to be able to defend it. YOU are accusing most of Hollywood of leftism and of following a liberal agenda when it comes to film making. YOU therefore should be able to provide examples as to how you arrived at that opinion. If a list of seven films is all you have then you are being irrational since that is no way a representative sample by which to judge an output of many times that number.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by lazs2
momus...  you claim you "don't know" if hollywood has a liberal gay socialist bent?  I think that the conversation is over since I believe that you are being dishonest or very stupid.   and besides...  mighty is doing an excellent job..  I will let him do the heavy lifting since I lose interest when I know the other person is not being truthful.

No Lazs, I said I don't know because I don't know. I have never seen statistics on the voting habits or sexual preferences of Hollywood employees. Since you obviously have why don't you post them? Maybe you could throw Mighty1 a bone while you're at it and post a list of all these hundreds of gay/socialist themed moves that Hollywood is apparently producing every year?

[lazs2]

Ok... I have seen polls in the past I will try to dig em up.  I don't think anyone here except you "don't know" if hollywood has a gay liberal socialist bent or not tho and I think you are being dishonest.

I think one quick thing that would prove my point is the money that is raised for liberal democrat socialist candidates and the speakers for them compared to money that is raised for mainstream or conservative candidates..

sooo... lets see just how deep your dishonest streak is.... do you think hollywood outwardly supports more gay liberal socialist leaning candidates or more conservative candidates?

Can you name a dozen or so hollywood conservatives?  Ones who threatened publicly to leave the country when klinton was elected?   For every Tom Selek there are 100 rosie odonnels.

lazs

[Mighty1]

Why should he bother?

You don't care what is presented you will still find fault without any proof of your own and end your brilliant non-factual statement with a idiotic statement about how you are right and the rest of the world is wrong and insult us.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by having the inane and flimsy nature of your own argument pointed out to you. You think that seven films out of uncounted hundreds is the basis for your theory? Fine, but be prepared to be ridiculed for it. If you're so sure that there are many many more examples that prove your argument then list them. You've been asked to do so more than once and you still haven't come up with the goods. It's your argument, it's up to you to back it up.

How many examples are enough for you? Hmmm? How many will it take before you don't just wave your condescending hand at the thought that you are wrong?

My guess is even if I presented every movie made you would still say you were right.

Besides I have better things to do with my life than to sit here and give you a review of hundreds of movies.

I gave you enough examples that even a child could see the pattern. But hey if you need help understanding feel free to go to the nearest grade school and let one of the kids explain it to you.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... I have seen polls in the past I will try to dig em up.  I don't think anyone here except you "don't know" if hollywood has a gay liberal socialist bent or not tho and I think you are being dishonest.

Go for it Lazs, as I said, I have no idea as to the figures, or what you think they signify.

I think one quick thing that would prove my point is the money that is raised for liberal democrat socialist candidates and the speakers for them compared to money that is raised for mainstream or conservative candidates..

That's great. When you've posted the figures perhaps you can explain how this political leaning is being translated into actual movie output, you know - that subject that I was actually adressing?

sooo... lets see just how deep your dishonest streak is.... do you think hollywood outwardly supports more gay liberal socialist leaning candidates or more conservative candidates?

Like I said above, I have no idea. Enlighten me please. Once you've done that, please tell me what it has to do with a supposed bias in movie making subject matter that you have so far failed to demonstrate even exists on any significant scale.

Can you name a dozen or so hollywood conservatives?  Ones who threatened publicly to leave the country when klinton was elected?   For every Tom Selek there are 100 rosie odonnels.

Not off the top of my head. Is that significant? My movie knowledge is pretty much confined to the actual content of the moves I watch, which is why I'm stuggling to think of more than a small fraction of films I've seen or heard of that have content one could describe as left wing, pro-gay or just generally liberal. Perhaps when you've finished going proving whatever you think you're proving you could actually address that point, for the second or third time of asking?

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Mighty1
I gave you enough examples that even a child could see the pattern. But hey if you need help understanding feel free to go to the nearest grade school and let one of the kids explain it to you.

You get 10/10 for throwing your toys out of the playpen, but 0/10 for not actually addresssing a single point previously addressed to you. Go you!

All you have done here is post a list of seven films that as proof of a certain agenda on the part of "most of Hollywood" (your words). However, when pressed you yourself clearly think that that is not itself sufficient proof since you yourself posted:

These are just some of the most recent there are a lot more..

Great. What are all these films? What proportion of the output of the movie industry do they represent? Is it a proportion significant enough to represent the clear bias you claim? None of these questions are unreasonable in the context of the discussion. Why have you got such a problem with answering them? Could it be because if you answered them it would demonstrate that your argument is a nonsense? That's what it looks like from here.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Top Grossing Films of 2005 (with subliminal message as interpreted by the Right)

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)  - (Liberals lose the Senate yet still fight for the right to rule)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of Christian values and morality)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of Christian values and morality)
War of the Worlds (2005)  - (Government means nothing, the little guy will win in the end)
King Kong (2005) - (A sweeping condemnation of inter-racial bonding)
Wedding Crashers (2005) - (Makes fun of the bonds of matrimony, lightly disguised push for gay marriage.)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - (Puts down all conservative stereotypes including Bankers, Gluttons, TV executives and Gum Chewers.)
 
Batman Begins (2005) - (Teacher goes bad)
Madagascar (2005)  - (Running away is a good thing)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)  - (Anti-marriage, anti-gun)

Top Grossing Films of 2005 (with subliminal message as interpreted by the Left)

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)  - (Liberals lose the Senate to a bunch of liars yet still fight for the right to rule)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of Christian values and morality)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - (An attempt to force Christianity down the throats of our children.)
War of the Worlds (2005)  - (Guns don't help)
King Kong (2005) - (A sweeping affirmation of inter-racial bonding and how it is usually killed in the end by the white man.)
Wedding Crashers (2005) - (Makes light of gay marriage, pushes the right wing monogamous agenda.)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - (Puts down all liberal stereotypes including midgets, Gluttons, TV executives and Gum Chewers.)
Batman Begins (2005) - (Guns don't help)
Madagascar (2005)  - (Shows the plight of the animals and how freedom in Africa will overcome all obstacles.)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)  - (If it weren't for guns this marriage might have a chance)

[Mighty1]

Originally posted by Momus--
What are all these films? What proportion of the output of the movie industry do they represent? Is it a proportion significant enough to represent the clear bias you claim? None of these questions are unreasonable in the context of the discussion. Why have you got such a problem with answering them? Could it be because if you answered them it would demonstrate that your argument is a nonsense?

Because there is not enough time in the day to answer all your questions nor do I have the desire to make any further attempts at proving a point you should have already gotten.

Originally posted by Momus-- That's what it looks like from here.

Maybe you should move to some place where you can get a better view.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Maverick
MT, I think your premise regarding War of the Worlds is incorrect. I see it as the Govt. cannot protect you, you are on your own to survive the situation. In actuality it's pretty darn accurate to real life in that respect.

I disagree entirely.

I see it as "If your government can't protect you no-one can protect you from Aliens except tiny little bacteria.  And, if you are one of those survivalists with guns and what-have-you a small man with a small child will come along and kill you because you have gone insane."

[Urchin]

Mighty.... you are getting pwned.  

Keep it up tho, I bet if you call him a dirty lying homostudmuffin commie amerihater you'll win the debate forevar!

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Urchin
Mighty.... you are getting pwned.  

Keep it up tho, I bet if you call him a dirty lying homostudmuffin commie amerihater you'll win the debate forevar!

somehow Urchin, I don't think we will have to wait too long?

[dynamt]

Ok Brokeback has had it's 15 mins....Pfffffffft....

Do you think Hollywood will let it rest. I don't.

No, not untill we scream that being a butt pirate is absolutely normal and should be promoted as a healthy lifestyle will they move onto the next item on the lefts agenda.

I saw a recent diversity training publication that stated that gays now make up 12% of the population...LOL The number keeps growing with no visible means of support.

[Sandman]

...and absolutely no statistics to counter it either.

[Holden McGroin]

It's fifteen minutes got about $75 million in box office.... for what 15 or 20 to make? not a bad ROI.  

Larry the Cable Guy says if John Wayne were alive today, he would have a patch over both eyes.