Author Topic: Coulter Oscar predictions (Read 5002 times)

Momus-- · « **Reply #210 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:40:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Momus... what is "popular culture"? it is not me and my friends or even yours.... It is media including hollywood... you are destroying your own arguement if you admit that "popular culture" pushed a gay awareness or... agenda for one.

Reading comprehension trouble Lazs? Or is it that you don't like what you dragged up and are now trying to change the meaning? It's quite clear what the author is implying here, which is that the media, hollywood, popular culture, call it what you like, was behaving reactively rather than proactively around the subject of homsexuality.

Quote

you then go on to say that... while Americans were uncomfortable with leftist ideas... Hollywood threw as much of it at them as they could get away with (make a buck) again.... simply what I have been saying.

Where did I say that? Oh look, I didn't say that. You are just being desperately dishonest. The quote I actually used indicated that Hollywood would only portray homosexuality as long is it reflected " the social condemnation of homosexuals."

Quote

You seem to be admitting, at least in part, what I and others are saying.... that regardless of the money... the left finds these topics to important to ignore... that they will push them at every opportunity.

No Lazs, that's just wishful thinking on your part, much like most of your case to date. Furthermore you haven't even come close to proving it yourself as evidenced by this thread. I'm sure that if you keep repeating it to yourself you'll come to believe it though; that much is so far apparent.

Urchin · « **Reply #211 on:** March 15, 2006, 01:34:53 PM »

He *already* believes it.. the point of a proof by repetition is that if he repeats himself often enough, other people may come to believe it as well.

Leslie · « **Reply #212 on:** March 15, 2006, 02:07:48 PM »

Lazs ain't trying to prove anything, he's stating his opinion. It's you guys making a debate out of it.

You must have inside knowledge.

Les

lazs2 · « **Reply #213 on:** March 15, 2006, 02:19:48 PM »

urchin.... and yet.... you have claimed my arguement if false and that I am merely repeating myself over and over by....

by saying that 3 times and never once adding anything else to the discussion.... you do realize that is what you are doing right?

momus... Of course I realize what the author is saying but he is addmitting that the "popular culture" is leftist and then trys to argue that they are responding to a leftist "demand" in the public...

Only problem is... no pole has ever shown that the public is leftist. Just the oppossite.

lazs

Urchin · « **Reply #214 on:** March 15, 2006, 02:30:06 PM »

Lol lazs... I'm not the one making a claim here, brainiac.

You "Hollywood is commie."

Momus "prove it."

You "dont have to."

Momus "yea you do."

You "Fine.. Hollywood is commie. There, I proved it."

Momus "That isnt proof, thats you saying what you said already."

You "I DID prove it. Hollywood is commie. There! I proved it TWICE."

lazs2 · « **Reply #215 on:** March 15, 2006, 02:39:54 PM »

urchin... you are not following the drift of the thing. You are not saying that I am simply repeating the same thing hoping it will stick when that is in fact exactly what you have done 4 times in a row.

you claim I said things that I have not. you refute not one of my points or sources... you don't refute my rebutals to momus and ....

most of all... you seem to not even notice that hollywood is left leaning. I can't come up with one example of anyone even in the business not admitting that...

I have not seen you or momus admit it either. We can't even get past that.

The whole thing started when coulter accurately described the kinds of films that hollywood honors... she then accurately pointed out the agendas in said films and you guys pretty much said..... "well...yeah but... that is just a coincidence and nothing to do with their agenda."

I say you are blind or dishonest or both.

lazs

Urchin · « **Reply #216 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:00:39 PM »

Your argument is that some amorphous entity called Hollywood only produces movies that promote some kind of homosexual agenda. At least, I think that is where you started. IIRC, you then modified your case to include "commie" at some point.

It was then "proven" that Hollywood was promoting a "left gay commie" agenda by publishing an exhaustive list of 7 films.

After it was pointed out that 7 films isn't exactly a large enough sample to draw a conclusion about the population (namely, movies), you resorted to "Its obvious" and "I googled it, and there are 56 million hits".

Neither of those arguments actually prove anything.

It would be like me saying (which I said earlier, but apparently you weren't paying attention) that the US invaded Iraq just for oil. If you don't believe that you are either blind or dishonest. I can't think of one person other than you who can't admit that it is true. Heck, I even googled it and there are 58 million hits.

I even tried looking up "american invasion depose saddam" and I only got 109,000 hits, and most of those were saying "only a fool would think america invaded Iraq to depose Saddam".

I really think you are being dishonest here lazs...

Shuckins · « **Reply #217 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:52:39 PM »

If you haven't check out Krusher's link to political campaign contributions you need to do so. That is...if you truly have an open mind about the topic.

I dare say that, after looking at the first couple of pages, at least 80% of Hollywood's celebrities donate heavily to Democratic candidates or "special interests" and give nothing to Republican candidates.

That 80% may not be conclusive enough for some of you but would be pretty damning evidence of bias if it were being used in a civil rights lawsuit involving any other major business or corporation.

Urchin · « **Reply #218 on:** March 15, 2006, 05:27:33 PM »

Ok, now show me how who "they" contribute to affects the movies "they" make.

Remember... EVERY movie that hollywood makes is pushing some "homosexual communist" agenda.

I guess I really am blind... I'll tell you the past couple movies I saw (admittedly, only parts of), and you can tell me what homocommie subliminal message I must've missed.

I just got done watching part of "The Weatherman", and yesterday I saw a bit of "The Man".

So please, tell me what the evil commiestudmuffins in Hollywood were trying to brainwash me with, since I must've missed it.

Shuckins · « **Reply #219 on:** March 15, 2006, 05:59:33 PM »

Urchin,

You're missing the point. Is that accidental or intentional?

Certainly Hollywood produces a wide variety of movies with a plethora of themes; some are family oriented and some social and political in nature.

It's the ones they have chosen to honor that are revealing about the nature of the Hollywood elite. Of those nominated for best picture of the year not ONE was in the top ten in terms of viewer popularity.

Don't give me that bull about them choosing to honor the pictures for their artistic quality. It was the political message, pure and simple, that earned those films their nominations.

Some of the things said by Hollywood's finest prior to and during the Oscars themselves are very revealing as to their intentions. Little phrases such as "groundbreaking" or "this is our maverick year" are quite illuminating.

A maverick is a rebel against conformity. That raises the question "What are they rebelling against?" An objective analysis might well conclude that they were rebelling against the "social and political conformities" of the "heartland" with which they seem to be so at odds.

There has been a considerable backlash against the Hollywood elite in middle America and in the conservative press during the last couple of years because of the vitriolic political statements made during the Oscars. Consequently, the number of viewers has begun to drop off. Nevertheless, entertainment's finest continue to search for new ways to parade their beliefs before the public.

The campaign contributions reinforce the view that many Americans have of Hollywood actors, which is that of self-absorbed, elitist, socialistic, biased snobs.

Rolex · « **Reply #220 on:** March 15, 2006, 06:20:55 PM »

I'd just like to see Hollywood, or Anywood, make one or two good movies before I die of old age. It's all mostly crap, with crappy themes and crappy plots with crappy actors delivering crappy dialogue - crappily.

midnight Target · « **Reply #221 on:** March 15, 2006, 06:26:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins

Don't give me that bull about them choosing to honor the pictures for their artistic quality. It was the political message, pure and simple, that earned those films their nominations.

There is absolutely no way for you to know that.

But consider this... Maybe the impact of the films was increased by the content thus adding to the artisic quality. A similarly filmed story about a straight love affair might not have had near the impact of Brokeback Mountain. Or are you contending that the content of the movie contributes nothing to the quality or impact?

Shuckins · « **Reply #222 on:** March 15, 2006, 10:00:33 PM »

MT,

Content is the crux of the matter. Think about what you just said. Brokeback Mountain was nominated for Best Picture exactly because of its "content."

People of my acquaintance who have seen it are at a loss to explain the acclaim it has garnered. These are people who are highly educated, of varying backgrounds and political ideologies, and have impeccable taste. One stated, "As far as having the qualities necessary to be nominated for an Oscar it comes up short. It's only a B-rated love story. It is actually just a vehicle for carrying a message."

They all reached pretty much the same conclusion...Hollywood's denizens would never have given it serious consideration for an Oscar had it not been for it's "content."

I have a problem understanding why some are so reluctant to admit that Hollywood airs its agenda at the Oscars. They haven't exactly been subtle about it.

midnight Target · « **Reply #223 on:** March 15, 2006, 10:08:54 PM »

I have no trouble admitting that leftist messages have been sent by Hollywood. The point is that it is hardly a regular occurance. It is all about the money. <--- period!

Of course rightist messages have been sent also. (The Longest Day.. Green Berets.. etc.) Then of course there are the messages about great hairy apes who climb buildings with scantily clad women... those are really the most common.

Shuckins · « **Reply #224 on:** March 15, 2006, 10:21:44 PM »

Green Berets...yeah...no problem there...definitely a pro-war movie.

The Longest Day??? I would REALLY like to know what type of political message it had. It was more documentary than political statement.

The Green Berets is nearly 40 years old...The Longest Day is even older.

Hollywood hasn't made a pro-war movie since the Duke died.

One of the friends I mentioned in my previous post said that King Kong was a better chick flick than Brokeback Mountain....but he's rather opinionated.

King Kong...the world's biggest womanizer. Wonder what his political affiliation is....