Hollywood and Democrats — Whiny Together
So let me get this straight…. when voters go to the polls and elect a President with a majority vote for the first time since 1988, the Democrats yell “fraud” and actually believe the exit polls over the actual votes cast by Americans.
…when voters overwhelmingly reject gay marriage on the ballot across the country, the head of one of the largest gay “rights” groups says he opposes democratic elections. (Which is convenient since he is an avowed socialist.)
And now these sour grapes from “Basic Instinct” director Paul Verhoeven on the piss poor box office of its sequel this weekend:
“Anything that is erotic has been banned in the United States,” said the Dutch native. “Look at the people at the top (of the government). We are living under a government that is constantly hammering out Christian values. And Christianity and sex have never been good friends.”
Oh give me a break. No one is banning anything in the USA. What planet do these people live on? The only people banning things, and killing creativity (literally) are the Islamists across the globe. Yet Hollywood and Democrats think that Bush is the terrorist? Good God.
But wait! There’s more!
Scribe Nicholas Meyer, who was an uncredited writer on 1987′s seminal sex-fueled cautionary tale “Fatal Attraction,” agrees, noting that the genre’s downfall coincides with the ascent of the conservative political movement.
“We’re in a big puritanical mode,” he said. “Now, it’s like the McCarthy era, except it’s not ‘Are you a communist?’ but ‘Have you ever put sex in a movie?’”
Let me bring these holier-than-thou elitists down to earth for a moment and tie it in with the 2004 election. When your product sucks (Basic Instinct, John Kerry), people will reject it. It is that simple. When you try to force feed a controversial issue through the court system (gay marriage) people will reject it.
The problem with Hollywood and the Democrats in this country is that they are so out of step with mainstream America, they have to yell “Cheaters, Liars, and Thiefs, Oh My!” every time they lose fairly and squarely.
It is really quite unbecoming. But that’s what defines sore losers. But it also proves that Hollywood and Democrats do not really want a vibrant free-market society. They want to tell us what to do, what to spend our tax money on, and how to think. If they don’t like how we vote — they go into their last bastion of hope — the court system. The next time you see an “anti-war” demonstration.. please note how many on the Left are also rejecting capitalism and democracy itself. They don’t want us to have a voice — they want socialist dictatorships. That’s why so many Liberals secretly want al-Qaeda and Iran and North Korea to defeat the United States in the global war against Western civilization.
**UPDATE** This is banning creativity….. Statue fatwa riles artists (hat tip: LGF). It’d be nice if LibDems and gays remember who their real enemy is….Islamic fundamentalism, not America.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
We went to see Ice Age 2. It’s a cute movie, btw. Better than looking at Sharon Stone’s saggy tits.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 3, 2006 @ 10:40 am - April 3, 2006
Puritanical are we Americans? How about bored to tears with the same crap produced ad nauseum yet expected to admire such bottomfed silicon-induced anorexic BS simply because sexually-disfunctional idiots convinced themselves they are ARTISTS.
The fact that directors (Stone w/alexander) manage to throw the ‘Americans are purtanical people’ excuse everytime their stupid movies flop represents just how sexually uptight is The Artist.
I’ve hung around enough Artists to know that they are NEVER, EVER satified; it’s no wonder why they are vacuous.
Comment by syn — April 3, 2006 @ 10:46 am - April 3, 2006
It’s not so much that Americans are puritannical when it comes to sex. It’s just that we want some good writing, acting, directing et al with our sex scenes. BI2 was just skanky to begin with.
Also – I guess that Dutch-born director didn’t stop to think that the use and availability of porn in this country has spiked since the 1990s, when Slick Willie was in the Oval Orifice. Even today, straight and gay porn is at an all-time high. So much for “puritannical” Americans. Hypocrites!
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2006 @ 11:14 am - April 3, 2006
Voter fraud no way!
Voter Intimidation, oh yes!
I voted here in Detroit, and i witness the Republican lawyers out in masses, intimidationg black voters, telling them they would go to prison, and different things like that, it was a sick display by republicans here in Detroit.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 11:15 am - April 3, 2006
Vera has a suggestion for Mr. Verhoeven’s next project: “Surely we can discuss this? – The life and murder of Theo Van Gogh”
Vera has no doubt Mr. Verhoeven is a strong supporter of free speech, diversity, and artistic vision, and as a fellow film maker and native of Holland, he would be the perfect person to show graphically how and why Mr. Van Gogh was shot and stabbed to death by Mohammed Bouyeri for insulting Islam and Muslims when he (Van Gogh) directed the film “Submission”.
What could be more noble than dying for your ‘art’?
I’m sure Mr. Verhoeven and Hollywood can’t be intimidated by a small, insignificant minority of religious radicals. Just look how they dealt with the Christian and Jewish communities with ‘Last Temptation of Christ” and “The Passion”. Nothing like a stern lecture on the rights of free speech and the benefits of religious dissent.
Vera is certain moderate Muslims will fully support Hollywood and Mr. Verhoeven once they become aware of this worthy project. I smell Oscar!
And should a Fatwa be forthcoming on Mr. Verhoeven from those ‘few’ opposed to his choice of material? Well, it’s Vera’s understanding that is why the Academy has an honorary Oscar that could be awarded posthumously. How noble.
Comment by Vera Charles — April 3, 2006 @ 11:27 am - April 3, 2006
You know GP, no matter how many times you repeat this outright fucking lie you are not going to turn it into the truth. He never said anything of the sort. You did. What he said was that the vote was “wrong”. This may be a difficult concept for your partisan-addled GOP sap-sucking brain to grasp, but just because a majority of people vote for something, that does not make it “right”. Right and Wrong are different concepts than Legal and Illegal.
You don’t like the head of HRC. Fine. “There is plenty to loathe”. But quit with the stupid distortions and fabrications of his words. Actions like these are why you no longer have much credibility as a reliable source of information or perspective. Congratulations, you are now the gay Bill O’Reilly. Problem is, there already is a Bill O’Reilly so you are now redundant and just another a member of the mindlessly bellowing Partisan Pachyderm herd.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 3, 2006 @ 11:32 am - April 3, 2006
Patrick — Wrong on so many counts.
1 – Matt Foreman is the head of the NGLTF (not the HRC) and is an avowed socialist.
2 – Here are Matt’s own words about how he feels regarding democratic elections….
“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.”
Interestingly, the original Reuters story about Matt’s feelings regarding immorality and elections has conveniently disappeared from the Internet.
Here is an MSNBC version of the story that hasn’t been censored yet
PS – Matt didn’t have a problem that the majority Shiites were being murdered in Iraq though, since he opposed the war in Iraq… oh, and capitalism.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 3, 2006 @ 11:41 am - April 3, 2006
“…And Christianity and sex have never been good friends.”
H-WHAT???!!! Didn’t seem to be a problem for Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, and Alexander Hamilton. I know of many Christian families who have three, four, or five children. How did that happen? Immaculate conception?
Look, Mr. Verhoeven, though I never felt compelled to see “Basic Instinct”, I’ve liked many of your movies. But your comment reflects how isolated you and much of Hollywood are from the average American and their lives. You’re talking about a sequel to a movie that was made fourteen years ago. Fourteen years. The tastes of the movie going public has changed, just as it had change from what it was fourteen years prior to the release of the original. I don’t think that viewers in 1978 would have liked the movie nearly as much as they did in 92. Plus, it’s not as if the industry is in a slump or anything. Since the key demographic viewer ship that typically makes a movie profitable movies are the 16 to 30 year olds, most of the original fan base has grown up, got married and “gasp” had sex just like you taught them, and had kids. Most Americans with little ones don’t get out to see movies often, and when they do, they don’t go to see a sequel with a has-been actress and no-name actors repeating the plot of the first, probably much better, movie. Plus taking a family out to the movies is allot more expensive now than it was fourteen years ago. The youth of today are spending their entertainment dollars on other things, or they wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it on their huge $2000 flat screen TV and entertainment system the Christian parents just bought.
And speaking of Sharon Stone; back in 92, she was the new up-and-coming hot commodity, replacing Kathleen Turner as the hot, sexy, experienced mature woman that many younger males lust for. Back then, she had the whole “Hey young stud. I’ll be your teacher!” thing going on. But time marches on, and no amount of plastic surgery can change that. She’s 50 now. 50!!! Yes, she may look great for her age, but now, fantasizing about having sex with her is not like having sex with someone who is a mom. It’s like having sex with someones Grandma! EEWE!!!
So anyway Mr. Verhoeven, why don’t you quit your job in the entertainment business, move out to the suburbs, get a job as a bank clerk or a pool guy, live with us for a decade, THEN go back and make some movies. They’ll probably do better because you will now have some idea who we are and what we like, and you’ll be in touch with the majority of America, instead of the stagnant, isolated, uber-liberal sycophants that currently constitute your circle of friends.
And you wonder why I didn’t stay in Hollywood!
PS. Peter, about porn and the internet…
Comment by sonicfrog — April 3, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - April 3, 2006
#6 – And to think that some people (no names – Not rubbing anything in; just remarking) used to try to tell me that Gryph was a “sane” or “responsible” critic whom I should “respect”. LOL
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - April 3, 2006
Read the article people. It pointed to some shocking realities
-the scripts aren’t there-
-the foriegn market doesn’t want it-
-more people are wanting more…normal movies all over the place-
Then look at the Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction timeline. The folks who were the target audience then are in their 50s and 60s so no one wants to see that from that age group and Sharon stone who hasn’t been a top caliber actress for a while has no legs to drag people into the theaters who are younger
Physician heal thyself
Comment by Larry Bernard — April 3, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - April 3, 2006
What I was trying to say, in a nut shell, no one wants to see Sharon Stone’s middle aged tuna!!!
Comment by sonicfrog — April 3, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - April 3, 2006
Gee, Sonicfrog, after that statement, nothing else needs to be said!
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - April 3, 2006
I voted here in Detroit, and i witness the Republican lawyers out in masses, intimidationg black voters, telling them they would go to prison, and different things like that, it was a sick display by republicans here in Detroit.
Unfortunately, voter fraud IS a crime punishable by law.
It probably made several of them think twice about the applicability of misrepresenting themselves as someone else in exchange for a pack of cigarettes or a few dollars.
At any rate, the problem can be neatly solved by requiring all voters to show a form of photo ID that verifies name, address, and citizenship.
Would you consider that “intimidation”, Robert?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - April 3, 2006
Also, from what I understand, Basic Instinct 2 seems to substitute naked shots of Sharon Stone for such things as a plot, coherence, etc.
But I suppose blaming Americans’ “puritanical” attitudes towards sex is better than admitting you made a really crappy movie.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - April 3, 2006
#7 — Thanks from the rest of us, but the fact hasn’t been made that’s hard enough to penetrate Gryph’s wall of self-satisfied prejudice.
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - April 3, 2006
By the way, I think it should be known that not only is Sharon Stone a friend to the gay community, she’s a sane and wickedly-funny friend.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - April 3, 2006
There’s a difference between writing or producing something the market doesn’t support and censorship. Sheesh.
Earlier today I read the remark by a writer in England who was talking about marketing her newly completed novel. She figured that her book had too much sex and not enough violence for the US market. Maybe she’s right, (and genre issues may mean that she is right even though Romance is getting more explicit all the time). That seems to be the “common wisdom”… that the US market tolerates violence over sex and the European market tolerates sex over violence.
But how can someone talk about erotic content being “banned” in the US with a straight face when they’re discussing a movie that was released to theaters here?
If they can’t reach the audience… who has the problem?
Comment by Synova — April 3, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - April 3, 2006
But how can someone talk about erotic content being “banned” in the US with a straight face when they’re discussing a movie that was released to theaters here?
The same way they can sniff each other’s farts and call each other “courageous” for releasing movies that are pro-abortion, gay-positive, anti-death penalty… . Yeah, it must take a big load of courage to make a movie that supports the views of 99% of the people in the movie industry.
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - April 3, 2006
#18 – Right as always, V the K. And those “courageous” Hollywood types ran for cover right when “The Passion of the Christ” came out and buried the competition. Same thing with “Narnia.”
If Hollywood wasn’t so arrogant and condescending, maybe they’d find time to make films that we actually ENJOY watching, thereby boosting their profits.
Instead, they’re still smelling the same old farts.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - April 3, 2006
North Dallas, wow you were not even here, but you think you know what was going on.
I watched what these lawyers were doing, there were no signs of Fraud or anything of that sort, that’s why they have two different voting sheets that allow people who don’t have identification, to vote and if they were not eligiable, it won’t be counted.
It was clear intimidation, i think i might know what it was, since i watched it happen.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - April 3, 2006
Wow Robert, so we only have your word for it, eh?
Unless you care to post a link to a police or court report?
Meanwhile, Democrats across the nation committed (a) actual voter fraud and (b) physical vandalism and sabotage of permitted Republican get-out-the-vote efforts in the 2004 elections… leading to court cases in Minnesota and serious convictions a few months ago in East St. Louis, among other places.
If you push me to Google the articles for you, I can – you could probably also just search Powerline for a bunch of links about it.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - April 3, 2006
P.S. So just to spell it out Robert, in case the point is lost on you:
(1) All voter fraud and intimidation is wrong.
(2) There are bad apples in BOTH parties who may have committed some.
(3) All should be investigated and punished.
(4) Maybe you’re right about what you claim to have seen – Maybe not – We’ll see. At any rate, innocent until proven guilty.
(5) IF you would like to make broad general statements about these issues, and if you (Robert) at the same time should happen to not know about the many criminal convictions of Democrats in these areas, you would need to get better informed.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - April 3, 2006
#20 — Excuse me, Robert, but wasn’t the person in charge of elections in Detroit caught sending out absentee ballots that were already filled in?
Hm, seems elections in Detroit may not be as squeaky clean as Robert would have us believe: http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/30/A01-365796.htm
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - April 3, 2006
I think someone that was there might know more than some people logging on there PC. Who said, there was no corruption.
It’s clear lawyers were sent to intimidate.
*yawns*
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 5:31 pm - April 3, 2006
#24 – Making no sense at all.
“Who said, there was no corruption” indeed? Nobody that I see in this thread.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - April 3, 2006
P.S. Unless it was you, Robert, claiming the Democratic Party isn’t rife with proven voter fraud, intimidation and vandalism?
Would that by chance be a claim you’re trying to make here?
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - April 3, 2006
Oh, so I see the Baynemeister has decided to throw some bullshit on this thread, as well…
Nice to know he’s found a home.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 3, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - April 3, 2006
I didn’t watch the first basic instinct, why would I want to watch a part II?
As for movies, I honestly think half of the problem is what mainstream Hollywood is making right now is terrible-they seem to be stuck on remakes of old TV shows or on doing part II’s (although I don’t have anything against part II’s, after all we just took the kids to see Ice Age part II, and it was funny enough, but I won’t complain about the lack of academy awards come next year-and I admit I was a bit bothered by the language in this one-just seemed unneeded in what is a children’s movie).
I would like to see more original stuff, and I would like to see some interesting family oriented movies-but then I am at a point where about the only movies I can get to are children’s movies.
Comment by just me — April 3, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - April 3, 2006
North Dallas, wow you were not even here, but you think you know what was going on.
And what makes you so sure I wasn’t?
I watched what these lawyers were doing, there were no signs of Fraud or anything of that sort, that’s why they have two different voting sheets that allow people who don’t have identification, to vote and if they were not eligiable, it won’t be counted.
But unfortunately, Robert, V the K’s link shows quite nicely that Detroit elections are rife with votes cast by ineligible voters.
That’s the general conclusion.
Also, we notice that you don’t condemn the corruption that took place, only the fact that there were Republicans there pointing it out.
You quite obviously believe that it’s your right to commit electoral and voter fraud because of your skin color.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - April 3, 2006
Who said, there was no corruption.
Um, you did, when you expressed outrage that lawyers were monitoring the election and were there solely to intimidate voters, thus denying the possibility that they were there to look for corruption instead. In contrast, evidence of corruption is quite rampant in Detroit,
BTW, Has the mayor bought himself a new Navigator yet?
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - April 3, 2006
Actually i didnt say that, but thanks for thinking i did.
Who cares if the Mayor buys a car, creating jobs and moving the city forward is what i care about, i will leave the small stuff to ‘yall to argue about.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - April 3, 2006
You quite obviously believe that it’s your right to commit electoral and voter fraud because of your skin color.
Leave it to a republican to bring in the Race card, by the way i’m a white male, and no i do not believe in breaking the law, and neither do i believe it is ok, to have lawyers there to intimidate people.
YIKES!
What a fine group of people we have here!
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - April 3, 2006
Cop-out! – Argument loser! LOL
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - April 3, 2006
You know, Robert, after writing that, I realized I DIDN’T know what your skin color was. It was a knee jerk reaction on my part, and I apologize.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 6:17 pm - April 3, 2006
Who cares if the Mayor buys a car, creating jobs and moving the city forward is what i care about,
Even when he charges his personal car to the taxpayers? Sweet deal. Wish I could get that.
And judging by the state of Detroit’s economy, he’s not so hot on the creating jobs or moving the city forward front either.
Take a look at Detroit. Fifty years of liberal democrat government in action, and the place is a corrupt cesspool and complete hell hole.
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - April 3, 2006
Who cares if the Mayor buys a car, creating jobs and moving the city forward is what i care about, i will leave the small stuff to ‘yall to argue about.
Well, the problem is that the jobs that the mayor of Detroit has been creating are mostly hole-fillers; you hire one person to dig a hole, and you hire another person to fill it. Then you raise taxes on business to accomodate their wages.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - April 3, 2006
#32 – Another evasion. Robert, what were those lawyers doing exactly?
If you have a precinct KNOWN to be rife with extensive voter fraud, and if all they were doing was advising people about the dangers (potential criminal jeopardy) of voter fraud and thus PREVENTING fraud – it’s justifiable.
If you disagree with that, kindly explain why.
If the instance you cited was something else entirely: Kindly explain what. (Ideally, with supportive links.)
All AUTHENTIC voter intimidation AND/OR fraud, should be punished.
As far as I’m concerned, Robert, this is your last chance to substantiate your allegations with specifics, facts, evidence, etc.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - April 3, 2006
I have already stated what i saw and heard, but you would not believe it, if i had a mountain full of evidence, because it’s easier to think a liberal black town is corrupt.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - April 3, 2006
No you didn’t, Robert.
You didn’t state it.
You said, in #4, “i witness the Republican lawyers out in masses, intimidationg black voters, telling them they would go to prison, and different things like that…”
That is not saying what you saw and heard, Robert. Why? Because saying they were “intimidating” is making a behavioral CONCLUSION. It is not reporting specific things they said.
You have given us a CONCLUSION – in effect, trying to order us what to think – and no suggestions as to have to get the objective evidence.
And, for that matter: not even any specific words from your own oh-so-objective-and-accurate memory!!
I said, in #37, that it was your last chance to start citing some specifics, facts, evidence, etc. – as far as I was concerned, at least.
I stand by that. Robert, you continue to evade. This is your VERY last chance, before you just plain lose me on this one.
Are you here to expose people to new information? (Not conclusions – INFORMATION.) Or to play games? Choose right now.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - April 3, 2006
P.S. You did say you heard the lawyers “Telling them they would go to prison”. I grant that that’s one specific thing you did say. BUT…..
**in what context did they say it?** See #37 again, Robert. They may have been legitimately preventing fraud. Give us more specifics – in other words, context.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - April 3, 2006
because it’s easier to think a liberal black town is corrupt.
Now, who’s playing the race card.
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - April 3, 2006
So, let’s review Robert’s positions.
1.) Monitoring elections in areas where there is strong evidence of voter fraud is “intimidation.”
2.) Expecting majority African-American cities to adhere to the same standards of clean and ethical government as other cities is racist.
Soft bigotry of low expectations anyone?
Comment by V the K — April 3, 2006 @ 7:35 pm - April 3, 2006
1. yelling in someones face telling them they are going to prison for just “voting” is intimidation.
2. That conclusion based on what i have said, is just nuts, than again based on what you have prevsiously said, being sane is not exactly your strong suit.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - April 3, 2006
#38 The term “liberal black town” should be a clue. A clue of *what* though, is the question.
You see… black people are intimidated by men in suits. This is simply a fact. It makes them afraid to enter polling places and afraid to vote the way they’d prefer to vote. The mere presence of men in suits is racist. (Robert is not the first I’ve heard make this claim. It *was* reported during the 04 election that men in suits intimidated black voters.)
And I never did think that Robert was black. If he was black he’d be saying that *he* is intimidated by men in suits, and that’s a wussy thing to admit in public. Ergo, Robert is white.
Comment by Synova — April 3, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - April 3, 2006
#43 -
So, Robert – Are you specifically saying that you personally heard one of these lawyers “yell in someones face telling them they are going to prison for just voting”?
Is that, finally and at long last, your actual specific charge here?
If so: May I further ask about whether (or if so, why) you would be certain the person was qualified to vote? (E.g., not voting twice, not paid, not a felon, etc.)
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - April 3, 2006
Because it was the Voter clerk trying to register people and this lawyer was doing this out and in the open in front of people, to me that is intimidation, hell i had done nothing wrong, and i wonder if i was next, that this lawyer was going to go after. In fact the police were called, and the lawyer was asked to step outside, and to stop what he was doing, i was leaving at that point, i have no idea what happen after that, i can only comment on what i saw that day.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - April 3, 2006
And I am trying to ask you what you saw that day, and you still won’t give a comprehensible account.
Who yelled at who, what, when and why? In order please. From #46, I can’t tell if you mean the voter clerk yelled at the voter or what. Or if the person had been approved and actually was qualified to vote. Or if the lawyer might, in fact, have had a point or been right.
You have made a very serious charge and provided us little information beyond your own assumptions about the matter to back it up.
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 10:10 pm - April 3, 2006
Ok, let me clear this up, since apparently some people are having a hard time understand, my typing or whatever it is:
A Lawyer for the republican party, was yelling at the Voter Clerk, telling her she would go to prison if she allowed people to vote who were not registered, he continue to yell at her for at least 5-10 minutes, the entire time i was in line. Upon walking out the door, the police arrived, and asked the Lawyer to go outside and calm down. At that point i left, and i did call the Voter Intimidation hotline, and i was told, there had been several complaints at that site of voter intimidation, and that officials were on there way to handle the problem. Later that night on the News, there was coverage of wide spread voter intimidation in the city on election day.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - April 3, 2006
Thank you.
OK, let me make sure I got this:
1) A Lawyer for the Republican party had a valid point to make. (It is indeed a crime to allow people to vote who were not registered.)
2) You saw the lawyer get overheated and raise his/her voice for some minutes.
3) The police asked the lawyer to step outside and calm down.
4) You called the voter intimidation hotline.
5) Later that night, the news reported numerous instances of what they termed voter intimidation in Detroit.
Is that right?
Comment by Calarato — April 3, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - April 3, 2006
1.) there was confusion that day of where people were to vote, and some were not on the list that are registered voters. Second they have a seperate voting sheet to allow people who are unsure if they are registered, to still vote, but there names are later verified, to be sure they are legally able to vote.
The rest you have correct.
Comment by Robert Bayn — April 3, 2006 @ 10:37 pm - April 3, 2006
I hate to interrupt the discussion on voter fraud, but back to the topic originally posted by GayPatriot:
“The Tonight Show” host Jay Leno is a Hollywood liberal who never misses a chance to attack President Bush, the Republican Party, American corporations, etc. (even if he has to lie to make his points). He is clearly not a puritanical right-winger.
In his monologue tonight he noted that because of the change to Daylight Savings Time we all lost an hour over the week-end. Then he added that those who sat through “Basic Instinct II” lost three hours. He then made an about-to-puke face, summing up why the movie came in at tenth place in box office receipts over the week-end.
Comment by Jack Allen — April 4, 2006 @ 12:19 am - April 4, 2006
I think it was Jay Leno who once said something to the effect that as a comedian his job was to be a comedian rather than a political partisan. I think he was being criticized for performing at a Republican function… if it *was* him and I’m remembering correctly. What he said in so many words was that it was a job and that his critics should get over it.
I don’t begrudge anyone their politics, not really. But entertainers really ought to have a professional attitude toward their profession. Entertainment has value just because it’s entertainment. It shouldn’t *need* the props of social activism or political commentary to make people feel good about being an Actor or Making Movies.
My favorite author was a nurse as her job when she published what people criticized as “not literature” Space Opera. She said (very rough paraphrase) that she’d seen enough people who had a very real need to escape for just a little while from the stresses of their situations. There’s no need for anyone to think they aren’t doing something important when they offer that escape.
Comment by Synova — April 4, 2006 @ 12:45 am - April 4, 2006
#50 – Again thanks.
OK, so bottom line: A Republican lawyer was freaking out in front of you.
If it’s systematic and not just a question of personal problems – hell yeah, investigate and punish.
Same goes for Democrats – some of whom, I say again, have endured criminal convictions from their 2004 election conduct that perhaps you weren’t aware of?
Comment by Calarato — April 4, 2006 @ 1:51 am - April 4, 2006
If somebody really did yell at someone who was doing nothing wrong, that shouldn’t have happened. On the other hand, voter fraud is quite rampant in urban areas, and it is much, much worse that those of us who follow the law have our votes cancelled by people voting fraudulently.
Also, since Robert doesn’t think it was a big deal for Kwame Kilpatrick to embezzle city funds for personal use including the purchase of a luxury SUV, his take on civic virtue seems a mite skewed to me.
Comment by V the K — April 4, 2006 @ 4:45 am - April 4, 2006
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Democrats send out a manual to their operatives before the 2004 elections that basically instructed them to allege voter intimidation even if they didn’t have any evidence?
Comment by V the K — April 4, 2006 @ 5:07 am - April 4, 2006
Frankly, I was offended by Clooney’s bullshit at the academy awards. Hollywood didn’t decide AIDS was a chic and trendy cause until Philadelphia came out in 93 (with the sole exception of Liz Taylor). I had watched a great many friends die before then.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 4, 2006 @ 9:05 am - April 4, 2006
#56 – Also, Hollywood was the first to abandon their own gay stepchild, namely that awful 1982 movie “Making Love,” which doomed Harry Hamlin’s burgeoning acting career until TV’s “LA Law.”
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 4, 2006 @ 10:47 am - April 4, 2006
And he spoke the truth. Good for him.
I was a runner for my party in the last election — I went from place to place and picked up the poll books, then took them back to headquarters so we could see who had and who had not voted, then make calls.
The Democrats had hastily pulled together volunteers as “monitors” and not once, not twice, but three times, a “monitor” challenged whether I could pick up the poll books, raised hell about it, and two of them had to be ejected for howling “voter intimidation!”
I didn’t interact with voters. I didn’t speak to them. I didn’t even go in where they were going in. I went to the officials, and got the poll books, then left. Three times, a Democrat moron who knew nothing about the way the process works screamed “voter intimidation!” precisely because she knew nothing about the way the process works.
“Voter intimidation,” my ass.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 4, 2006 @ 11:29 am - April 4, 2006
Prof, you know how the new definition of smear is “when a conservative tells the truth about a liberal?” I think the new definition of “Voter intimidation” is when a Republican tries to prevent a democrat from committing vote fraud.
Comment by V the K — April 4, 2006 @ 11:33 am - April 4, 2006
RWP, I’m sure you didn’t raise your voice and have the police take you outside.
If you did, that would seem like a good basic indicator of something being “off”. If that’s what Robert saw, I can’t blame him for thinking something was amiss.
Having said that, I’m sympathetic to your and V’s comments. I know many charges of voter intimidation are way trumped up, or a partisan tool. Nobody was targeting or intimidating black voters in Florida in 2000, for example.
Comment by Calarato — April 4, 2006 @ 11:50 am - April 4, 2006
1 – Matt Foreman is the head of the NGLTF (not the HRC) and is an avowed socialist.
2 – Here are Matt’s own words about how he feels regarding democratic elections….
“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.”
The quote you use above affirms my argument, not yours GP. There is a big difference between saying an election “is immoral” than “being against democracy” as you have consistently, and falsely, claimed.
And in the sense that the initiatives passed were intended to directly infringe on the liberty of a particular class of people with no good reason other than prejudice, yes, the elections were immoral, although fair and democratic.
Ignoring the constitutional problems, a majority vote in one state that say, brings back slavery, is immoral no matter how you look at it, even if it’s the expressed will of the majority and is passed by fair elections.
So GP, you are either to stupid to understand the English language or you are being deliberately deceptive by “spinning” the mans words into something he did not say. I chose the latter interpretation.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 4, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - April 4, 2006
Actually, the problem is that government cannot create jobs, because government jobs don’t count as creating jobs. It’s like taking a five dollar bill from your right pocket and putting in your left, then taking it out and claiming that you just made five dollars.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 4, 2006 @ 4:52 pm - April 4, 2006
Actually, the problem is that government cannot create jobs
Actually, government can and do create jobs. What they can’t do is create new wealth that powers an expanding economy. The money to pay for those new jobs is siphoned off an uninformed, unsuspecting pool of overtaxed citizen donors.
Comment by sonicfrog — April 5, 2006 @ 1:15 am - April 5, 2006
No, the screaming Democrat “monitors” were ejected — for screaming.
Certainly, but that’s an entirely different thing than creaing government jobs that have to be paid with tax dollars, then turning around and calling it “creating jobs.”
Comment by rightwingprof — April 5, 2006 @ 9:44 am - April 5, 2006
[...] Pointing out liberal irrationality is so easy (that cliché about shooting fish comes to mind) that it almost makes me feel guilty. Almost. And granted, this news is a couple of days old (hat tip to Gay Patriot), but it is one more piece of evidence for my contention that liberals are utterly disconnected from reality (as usual, emphases are mine). [...]
Pingback by Right Wing Nation » Through The Looking Glass — April 5, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - April 5, 2006
Okay….. I read the Blog, Nice site I bookmarked the site… Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.
Comment by Breast Enhancement — September 29, 2006 @ 5:41 am - September 29, 2006