Who'd you rather hang out with?

[schnitzel_bob]

Mel Gibson or Sean Penn?

[Alchi]

Mel Gibson once called my nation 'savages with sharp teeth that eat horses'.
Sean Penn can suck it.
I'd rather be alone forever than with any of them.

[Dark_Swordmaster]

Can we get a pro-con list going? I don't know much about Sean Penn's insanity.

[RAY16]

Can we get a pro-con list going? I don't know much about Sean Penn's insanity.

He's just a bit of a stuck up douchey activist type. I'll give him credit for seeming fairly genuine about it, but he could do with acting like less of a high-horse riding cocknut.

[Rhenna]

Given these two choices, I'd opt to hang with Gibson without a second thought. I strongly suspect that *if* you can manage to keep him more or less sober, he is probably a reasonably decent person. Probably...

I don't think any amount of social management will compensate for, among other shortcomings, the unbridled narcissism of Penn. Well, nothing less than a medically-induced coma. Or, in a pinch, me fracturing his skull. That wouldn't be a problem.

As for Gibson's alleged "savages with sharp teeth that eat horses" comment; is there any possibility that he may have been correct?

[Smapdey]

Mel Gibson. Just got to get him drunk, drive him to the local Jewish community center, and film the results. I'll sell the resulting videotape for a million dollars.

[Alchi]

As for Gibson's alleged "savages with sharp teeth that eat horses" comment; is there any possibility that he may have been correct?

Yes, apart for the horse bit.
But it still hurts.
You wouldn't like to be called retarded, fat nation that's rubbish at everything they make, except war. A cultural degradation disease that is infecting the whole world with your no-brainer tv-shows, movies, music that is bland and generic and kitch - oh god the kitch. You elected G.W. Bush - TWICE. Your food's disgusting, your women are ugly and obese, your beer is piss, your cars are a disgrace and you shoot at people for no reason. You believe in god - literally as written in bible and support those views with shouting and weaponry. You are the only people who think that socialized medicine is evil and will bankrupt 'the greatest nation there is', while other somehow manage to stay afloat. And above all, you think you are the best.

I mean you wouldn't like to be called like that, you'd probably sue someone, who would call you like that. Even if it would be truth.

[Smapdey]

A lot of Americans say those things about this shitshow of a country. It's totally cool to say because it happens to be the truth.

[Lehesu]

Well, when you're in front, all everybody else sees is your ass.

[Fatty]

A lot of Americans say those things about this shitshow of a country. It's totally cool to say because it happens to be the truth.

Yup

[Rhenna]

Alchi, it was just a simple question. While not meaning to impose any demand for someone to abridge their reply, I would have thought that an equally simple response of "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. OK, perhaps not. Actually, I was fishing for, rather clumsily, your thoughts as to why Gibson would make such a comment.

Now, since you've asked, I'll provide an answer to your somewhat more involved question towards me. I can only reply by explaining that, not being someone who is given to bouts of depression and self-loathing, and, being quite secure in both my belief in God and love of country, if someone were to make the sort of comments you outline in your post, and then ask if I would dislike them sufficiently enough to consider "suing," (presumably for libel?), my reply would be "no."

Given the strength of my convictions, and especially the nature of the venue in which the comments originated, I wouldn't grant them more than a very brief lifespan in my head, much less serve as a trigger for legal action. Such comments, directed merely at myself, simply just wouldn't matter. They wouldn't even remotely constitute the sort of mental baggage I would choose to lug around with me on a moment-to-moment basis. Not a brief answer, to be sure, but I wanted to be as clear as I could, after not acheiving that goal in my original post.

It never ceases to amaze me as to why actors, musicians, comedians and other entertainers and celebrities seem to think that anyone is even remotely interested in their personal opinions on anything outside of their particular profession. They are, of course, certainly entitled to have an opinion, and to express it. But, for those who presume that their personal outlook is somehow more enlightened, passionate and meritorious than that of the common man, are, at least for me, incredibly vain, arrogant and pompous.

Now, I could see myself listening intently to Penn as long as he is discussing acting and/or directing. If he drifted off onto something else, (and I'd bet the house that wouldn't take long), I'm not saying I'd automatically get up and leave. But, at that point, Penn better not be in "OMG, this is so important, because, you know, I'm Sean Penn" mode. If so, I'm gone, and will likely be seen discussing baseball with the bartender. Celebrities privately fired-up about an issue? Fine. Knock yourself out. Celebrities leveraging their notoriety in an attempt to impose their viewpoint on the masses? Fail.

Finally, and most importantly, my apologies to schnitzel_bob for my participation in driving his thread into a ditch. (Alcohol, in this case, was *not* a contributing factor.) I can only hope he doesn't elect to sue. Let us return to the topic.

[Smapdey]

Nope. Too late for that Rhenna, you've made the thread interesting.

Celebrities have the money and the fame to make their own opinions and their own causes known. Apart from this, they're pretty faces. This just makes them do something productive with the money that they don't deserve. We might not always agree with their opinions, but since they have a voice we don't, when we do agree, we might as well be thankful that they're raising public awareness on the issues we care about. After all, they've done something we couldn't do, simply because they have the money and the name recognition.

I think specifically of someone like Christopher Hitchens, who was already a respected journalist before he really went off on the militant atheism. Most religion is retarded, and now someone with a voice is spreading the enlightenment.

Or, Ronald Reagan. The man wasn't qualified to be governor except for his many, many roles as a sergeant in World War 2, and yet he was president, and while some people think he was a genocidal shitheel, others think he's some sort of Republican saint. Either way, he only got to share his political opinions because he was already famous, otherwise no one would have given a shit.

[Alchi]

Alchi, it was just a simple question.
<...>Let us return to the topic.

Do you by any chances work in middle-management?

Anyway I just want to point out, that last part of my post was sort of a joke about how americans seemingly sue everyone for anything.


About celebs having opinions.
First of all, they are humans and like every human they tend to get involved in the world around them. It just so happens that everything they say gets televised. Although I'm pretty sure, that they could just live in their ivory tower and not care about outside world and I would probably do that myself. But I think they just want to do something meaningful. And again they make money directly out of their renown. So saying something important during certain social events raises their stock a bit.
But most importantly, I think they're just normal people, having their opinion about something. They sometimes get it right, sometimes not, just like people around you. I'd rather ask other question - why are you annoyed by them? Maybe it's because they disagree with you, or maybe by being ecomentalists they destroy your fantasy image, influenced by their movies/etc, of them being macho bad boy, charming lady, strong-willed hero. That's bit selfish :)

[farsimon]

Sharp teeth are probably very useful when eating them horsies.

[schnitzel_bob]

Finally, and most importantly, my apologies to schnitzel_bob for my participation in driving his thread into a ditch. (Alcohol, in this case, was *not* a contributing factor.) I can only hope he doesn't elect to sue. Let us return to the topic.

As usual, Rhenna, your contribution has enlivened the forum and your tangent provides a rich topic for discussion.

What if an actor happened to have a Master's degree in International Relations or something (this is hypothetical, I can't think of any who do)? Would it be irresponsible for him or her to speak out on, say, nuclear proliferation?

[Dark_Swordmaster]

GOD DAMNIT!

Thought this thread was going somewhere but then it TL:DR'd!

[Rhenna]

I'm very familiar with Chris Hitchens. He strikes me as a decent person, and he can be both quite interesting and entertaining. If I could speak with him personally, I'd tell him the same thing I'd tell any atheist, that I believe that the fervent conviction that God doesn't exist is not unlike a "religious" belief, in itself. I'd also tell him I hope that he recovers from his illness. I don't really think the first comment would gain any traction whatsoever; I'd like to believe he would accept the second as being sincere.

I was just short of ten years old when Reagan was sworn in as president. So, he was in office almost until I graduated from high school. I understand now that the fact that Reagan was so well known, (from his acting career), was advanced at the time as a reason not to elect him as governor of California, as that sort of exposure as an actor didn't fit the traditional narrative of who is entitled to hold high office. As to how Reagan may have advanced his political views at that time, I have no knowledge of.

Being the early '60s, everyone wasn't subjected to the sort of information overload we endure today. Warhol hadn't invented the "15 minutes of fame" device yet, but, Reagan had a gift of communicating quite well with both the written and spoken word. In some ways, it may well have been a marvelous time to be alive. Somehow people managed to not only function, but they actually lived full and complete lives without 24/7, worldwide connectivity. (Not to mention, the joy of having original "Twilight Zone" and "Outer Limits" episodes!) Personally, I've fond memories of Reagan as president. I'd like to think if he was just beginning a transistion into politics today, he'd find some dignified, classy way of spreading his message.

I wouldn't say that celebrities running their mouth about their personal passions annoys me. As I mentioned previously, I wouldn't allocate any neurons to store that nonsense. I mean, I'm cognizant of when I experience such an event, but I'd say that five seconds later, (about the length of time it takes to conjure up a good mental "who effin' cares?"), I've cleared the radar in some way or another. As you might imagine, unless it is beyond my control, I don't spend too much time watching late-night television. If I were an author, musician or actress, I suppose I *might* make my agent happy and talk to Leno about my new novel/album/film.

However, I'd rather be hit by lightning, reduced to pure carbon, right there on Jay's couch, than to presume the audience would be delighted to hear me pontificate on some totally unrelated matter. The lightning strike would make a pretty good You Tube clip. Good for about, well, fifteen minutes...

Maybe I can help you out there, schnitzel_bob? Let's say Harrison Ford was being interviewed, presumably about a new film he was appearing in. Fine. Let's say the subject of Ford being a (long-time) pilot came up, not something he is especially well-known for. And, let's assume he then began discussing the unnecessary hazards he experienced as a pilot flying in and out of some particular airport. I'm OK with that. If he starts discussing his trip to Tierra Del Fuego, his pottery collection, or how cute his three Jack Russell terriers are, he just blew himself up for the night in this household.

Instead of hypotheticals, let me look for something that I just recalled...

OK, I (mostly) like Jethro Tull. That might be a bit hard to deal with, I know, but... Hey, I'm only human. Now, a few years back, I used to hear Ian Anderson of JT do Public Service Announcements on the subject of DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) while driving home from work each night. Anderson had a nasty encounter with this condition, so if I believe that, while not a physician, he certainly has room to speak on the subject should it come up in the course of an interview.

http://www.j-tull.com/musicians/iananderson/dvt.html

Incidentally, I'm not entirely certain Anderson is someone I'd invite over for dinner. But, I don't suffer from an inability to differentiate between the performer and the person. I've always been able to appreciate the former, and, if called for, overlook the latter. In this particular case, I certainly would wish the man well.

Now, for a bit of contrast, we have Ms. Sheryl Crow. I don't know what level of Druid Tree Hugger© Crow has attained, if any, but I'm guessing that what we have here is a case of someone who feels they deserve a podium and microphone for their pet passion for no other reason than that their name is _________________ and that all of you better pay close attention.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/04/23/crow.html?ref=rss

I would submit that the only way that you, myself or anyone else within this forum would receive this sort of publicity would only be if it was a very slow newsday, and they wanted to run a "Whack Job of the Week" segment. Sheryl most definately isn't being invited for dinner.

As to "enlivening" the forum? I dunno. There are a bazillion threads in here where my posts were apparently the Black Swan, the kiss of Death, the dirt hitting the lid of the coffin. Everyone has a role to play, I suppose.

Thats all I have, guys, I've given this waaaaay too much of my time, and poor schnitzel_bob's thread has had a half-dozen electrons sheared off. (And, I know that ain't allowed.) Not to mention I'm *supposed* to be working.

Two new names to discuss, s_b, and somebody else step up.

[schnitzel_bob]

Stalin or Hitler?

Oh, and regarding Reagan, I think the man was nothing but a mouthpiece who didn't have a thought of his own during the presidency, but he was a terrific orator, and that is part of being a good politician.

[MrBored]

Hitler, no doubt.

[Smapdey]

Damn it, Rhenna, it's hard to argue with you when you act all calm and logical and shit. What is up with that?

Okay, so it's probably harder to argue with you because I agree with you, but mostly because I find celebrities talking about anything to be fucking annoying. My grandmother, who lives with me, loves to watch the most horrible show in the entire canon of programs on television, yes, Entertainment Tonight. Whenever I hear the stars talk about anything, I have to bite down on my belt. Especially when they talk about the movies and TV shows that they're in. I would rather listen to them talk about something else than have to listen to them gab about their actual work.

Of course, then I hear their thoughts on the real world, and after they finish explaining how awful it is in "DER-FER", I wish mass murder would move someplace they could pronounce. Of course, now it happens to be in this not-so-far-away land called "the border" and that gets completely ignored. Did you know people are getting drawn and quartered in Juarez?

The dude who built my house did a pretty damn good job. Why doesn't he get interviewed on TV? Probably because he doesn't make that kind of money. Oh dear, I'm moving towards a discussion on that fourth branch of government, The Media.

I wish that the writers who come up with the things we watch were interviewed on TV as opposed to the idiotic and often talentless "stars" we're forced to swallow. A great many of these people cannot act (although apparently they can adopt an orphanage a week), they're simply a pretty face. Occasionally they seem to use their money for the right reason though, and that's hard to hate. A lot of people wouldn't give a shit about Haitian Earthquakes if George Clooney didn't shove it down everyone's throat.

As for Ronald Reagan, I was two when he left office. What I know about the man is learned from reading recent history and from my Good Father, who got to interview the guy once.

Reagan's legacy in Africa and South America are enough to damn him to a hell that doesn't exist. After reading about what his actions did to two continents, it isn't hard for me to in my own mind try him for genocide and find him guilty as an enabler, if not just guilty.

Granted, the man's mind was totally blown by the time he left presidency and so a lot of the shit that happened is either the result of insanity or someone else's actions. He often talked to Gorbachev about alien invasions (Gorbachev himself has said in not so many words that he realized Reagan was insane and this scared the shit out of him), and Ronnie attempted to salute my Good Father when his handlers led Mr. Reagan away from the room. The video was taken from him (good father) and heavily edited out of his hands. Apparently Reagan tried to talk about the importance of a missile defense system during a recruitment video for his fraternity (TKE, if you happen to care).

I want to have a religious debate, so I'm starting another thread. Feel free to join in, if you dare.

[Rhenna]

Damn it, Rhenna, it's hard to argue with you when you act all calm and logical and shit. What is up with that?

Ummm... Why is it necessary to argue? I'm not looking to rumble with anyone.

[schnitzel_bob]

ANYWAYS...

I'd rather meet Stalin. Hitler was a demagogue, but he ran Europe's economic powerhouse into the ground with a series of strategically foolish decisions. He's history's ultimate loser.

Stalin took a largely rural, peasant economy and turned it into an empire successful enough to really scare the shit out of the West from the 30s through the 50s not for it's military might (though that helped) but because Western leaders feared that the Soviet model might be better. Stalin also seemed to have some kind of credo that he was following, brutal though it must have been. Hitler just seems crazy in retrospect.

[Smapdey]

Ummm... Why is it necessary to argue? I'm not looking to rumble with anyone.

Because I'm a contrarian prick who longs for debate and you're capable of providing a well-thought out and lettered response.

ANYWAYS...

Hitler got very, very lucky a number of times, and apart from killing the Jews, his overall goal of a united Western Europe fighting against the threat of communism is probably palatable to at least some people, the idea sounds good on paper if you don't know what other bullshit the Nazis were engaged in.

History's ultimate loser is Hannibal.

[Alchi]

Hitler, purely because of self-preservation instinct.
Stalin was a god damn paranoiac.
He executed or moved to Gulags all but the most dedicated and trusted Red army officers, because he feared an uprising against him.

Hanging out with stalin would lead to premature death by hanging upside down under a bridge in Moscow.

[IcedEarth]

Hitler, purely because of self-preservation instinct.


Not sure it was so much that as it was horse shoes up his ass. I watched a mini-documentary on the many failed attempts on Hitlers life. Most of them were just by pure fucking blind luck. He SHOULD have died long before he actually did. The most notable of those attempts was covered in the movie Valkyrie. Haven't seen the film yet but now I'd like to.

[Alchi]

And WW1 should have been over by christmas, or so they said.
That said - that's one more reason, the guy was obviously blessed (doesn't matter by what).

[LittleChief]

Ghandi or Churchill?

[Fatty]

Churchill. I would be able to eat.

[schnitzel_bob]

Churchill was a terrific orator, but I don't get the sense that he was a truly extraordinary man. He was the right man for the time, but he was also appalingly bad at strategy and had a keen sense of self-promotion.

I know much less about Ghandi, but he seems like someone who rose above the human condition more than Churchill. That said, I'd much rather drink with Churchill.

Ultimately Churchill seems like he'd be funner to hang around. But Ghandi would have a more lasting impact.

[Alchi]

Churchill, he's fat, so he's bound to be all-round fun chap.
Ghandi, I like meat - fuck you.

[Smapdey]

Depends on which Ghandi I'd get to hang out with. Younger lawyer Ghandi in South Africa would be a lot more fun than old starving Ghandi.

But Churchill would be fun to get wicked drunk with and talk about all of the ANZAC forces that were killed a Gallipoli. So I think I'd like to do that, and must pick Churchill.

[King Speedy]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hUqhilguoPs/StAGKVKm1lI/AAAAAAAAF5g/L4PfetUquwA/s400/winston-churchill-2-picture2.jpg

Is there really any question?