Monday, February 25, 2008

The Failure of the Academy Awards and the Selfishness of the Modern Liberal

The ratings are in and this year's "Academy Awards" were the lowest rated in the history of the self-congratulations fest.

To some, this latest failure -- on the heals of failure upon failure at the box office and in the ratings -- is just one more example of the self-destructive nature of the Hollywood leftist.

That conclusion is wrong.

Liberals do not "self"-destruct. They only hurt others. Their "courage," their "charity" their "caring" always comes at someone else's expense. Liberals are always incredibly generous and courageous so long as they take no risks themselves and they are sure that it will cost them nothing.

Al Gore "cares" about the environment, but only so long as he personally pockets millions and thanks to a loophole available only to the super rich like him, is able to continue to run his indoor pool full bore for just a couple of pennies out of the millions he extorts from others as an "environmental expert" the way Al Sharpton makes his fortune by "consulting" on race policy at corporations.

Similarly, Ted Kennedy is a "big time environmentalist" until the day the science shows that the best place for a wind farm is off his daddy's "compound" (not far from where he got away with killing a woman not all that long ago). Suddenly "the environment" just isn't that important to him if it partially obstructs his "pristine view" of the water.

Democrats "care" about "the poor" only so long as they can tax someone else to pay for the programs they create and then tax them again to pay for the bureaucracy to handle the administration so that they don't actually have to do any work in getting that money to "the poor."

In a book called "Who Really Cares?" -- the most exhaustive study ever conducted on who actually gives to charity -- in utter opposition to what the leftist liars in the news and entertainment fields have sold for years, by far and away the MOST generous are religious conservatives and by far and away the LEAST compassionate are the secular Liberals. Brooks concludes about the leftists (I'll paraphrase from memory)"apparently some people believe that holding the right political position is a substitute for actually doing anything."

Still, one would think that destroying the movie industry -- turning it from the darling of the American people into something only twelve year olds attend -- would be a form of "self" destruction for the people who work in that industry. Nope.

Years ago there was a thing called "the studio system." It was headed by businessmen who risked their own money to make a product that would return a profit. There were a variety of reasons why they cared enough to make good movies, not least of them being that, because they were personally invested in the outcome of a movie, they wanted to keep the customer satisfied.

Then actors were what they should be, nicely paid pretty faces who had to entertain their audiences because they needed to keep working. Humphrey Bogart made a good salary, but not so much that he could say "F--k you" to his audience.

Today, folks like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon make two, three, ten and even twenty million dollars for movies that bomb at the box office and then they are set for life. They have no personal stake in the outcome of the picture because they rarely -- if ever -- have the courage to invest in their own efforts.

Telling is that, when the "courageous" Steven Spielberg wasn't yet set for life, the movies he made were good ones and we went to see them. Back then he made "Jaws" and "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and his audience for these good movies made him filthy rich.

It wasn't until he had pocketed so much money that no amount of failure could in any way intrude on his personal fun, that he decided to become "important," and make his Marxist-penned, lie-filled, pro-terrorist propaganda film "Munich." It, of course, bombed at the box office specifically because it was a Marxist-penned, lie-filled, pro-terrorist propaganda film, but that in no way has kept Speilberg from buying anything he wants anytime he wants it and being the toast of a town (even an Academy Award nomination for "best picture") where Marxism is adored, propaganda the goal and the terrorists their allies.

Telling is that when Sean Penn still needed money, he made the cute and fun "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." It wasn't until after he was so filthy rich that nothing could intrude on his personal fun, that he decided that he'd become an "important" and "courageous" actor and director. Can anyone think of a successful Sean Penn movie of the past, say, ten years?

Can you name me one successful movie that Susan Sarandon has ever made? Why would she bother. He biggest grossing movie ever (in real dollars) was "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" where this great "artist" spent the entire movie in her panties singing "Toucha-toucha-toucha-touch me." Soon thereafter she discovered her "courage" so long as the residual checks kept pouring in from the movie where she showed off the goods.

Meanwhile, while Spielberg, Penn and Sarandon continue to pocket the ten, twenty and thirty million dollar guarantees for movies that bomb each and every time out, the middle class worker who finances their efforts through their pension plans and 401Ks continues to pay the bills. Remember, Liberals are ALWAYS generous, so long as it's someone else's money.

You know how leftists love to bitch about CEO's who, at the age sixty-five -- after forty years of being one of the people working their way up the ladder -- make something like fifty times the salary of their average employee (including interns and menial-skilled workers). Ever try to calculate what Spielberg makes on each failed movie compared to what the gaffers, grips and the driver of the "roach coach" makes? Clooney gets, what, ten...twenty...THIRTY million dollars for six weeks "work?" Let's say he does two, three or four movies a year, that's, taking the middle figure, eighty million dollars a year not counting residuals, merchandising, and other huge paydays for doing nothing.

Compare and contrast that with the average annual income of the people who actually do the work of making a movie -- the gaffer and the best boy, for example. I don't think the carpenter on the set is making a million a year of one eightieth of what a "courageous" guy like Clooney makes.

And it's not like these leftists don't know it. Consider the song by Jackson Browne, his highest grossing album ever, "Running on Empty." He closes the album with a "tribute" to the peons in his life including "the roadies."

"They're the first to come and the last to leave," he sings, adding "working for that minimum wage." The hardest working people Browne knows, so, to help them, he wrote them a song, put it on his album, and made a ton more money for himself. What a guy. What a leftist!

Want to know who are amongst the highest paid "below-the-line" people on a movie set? The stars' hairdressers and make-up artists. Want to know why they are so highly paid? Because the stars force the studios (i.e. the middle-aged worker in Iowa who owns Universal Studios stock as part of her retirement package) to pick up the tab for their friends.

Liberals are "compassionate," so long as it doesn't cost them a dime. They are "charitable" so long as the charity comes from taxing someone else. They are "courageous" so long as they risk nothing. They "care" so long as it in no way infringes upon their fun.

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

Again we see the poor, rejected comedian...long drooling at the mouth for success and finding only mediocrity and rejection in his chosen profession, SHOW BIZ, displaying his pathetic envy at those who have SUCCEEDED. The man is a failure, like his 19% movement, and his main motivation is the most pathetic envy and resentment. Always and undercurrent, here it fairly drips off the page...how long til the breakdown? Not something we'll even read about...he's not even close to being newsworthy.

Anonymous said...

Academy Award winner Sean Penn has become an American film icon during a career spanning just over two decades. He has been nominated four times for the Academy Award as Best Actor-for Dead Man Walking, Sweet and Lowdown, I Am Sam and most recently won the Oscar in 2003 for his searing performance in Clint Eastwood's Mystic River (for which he also won a Best Actor Golden Globe).
Penn has appeared in nearly 30 films, including The Falcon and the Snowman, At Close Range, Colors, Casualties of War, We're No Angels, State of Grace, Carlito's Way, U Turn, The Thin Red Line, She's So Lovely (Winner Best Actor, 1997 Cannes Film Festival), Hurlyburly (Winner Best Actor, 1998 Venice Film Festival), 21 Grams (Winner Best Actor, 2003 Venice Film Festival) and most recently, The Assassination of Richard Nixon.

Penn's feature film directorial debut came with 1991's The Indian Runner, which he also wrote and produced. In 1995, he directed, wrote and produced the highly acclaimed The Crossing Guard, starring Jack Nicholson, David Morse, Anjelica Huston and Robin Wright Penn. His third film as director/producer was The Pledge, which was named in the Top Ten Films of 2001 by the National Board of Review. Most recently, Penn wrote and directed the United States' contribution to the documentary film 11'09'01. This important project gathered 11 acclaimed directors from around the world to create short films in response to the horrific events of September 11, 2001. The film received a special recognition award from the National Board of Review in 2003.

Penn has appeared onstage in productions including Alfred Hayes' Girl on the Via Flaminia and Albert Innaurato's Earthworms in Los Angeles. On Broadway, Penn performed in Kevin Heelan's Heartland and John Byrne's Slab Boys. He appeared in David Rabe's Hurlyburly at the Westwood Playhouse and Goose and Tom Tom at Lincoln Center, both productions directed by the author. Most recently, Penn starred opposite Nick Nolte and Woody Harrelson in The Late Henry Moss, written and directed by Pulitzer Prize winner Sam Shepard.

In 2002, Sean Penn was presented with the Modern Master Award at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. In 2003, he was the youngest to receive the Donostia Lifetime Achievement Award from the San Sebastien Film Festival.

Penn will next be seen starring in Steven Zaillian's All the King's Men with Jude Law.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

God, the standard anti-Hollywood boilerplate? Your retardedness isn't even funny anymore, it's just fucking boring. Good luck trying to get that book deal, Sayet - you have about 3 fans here and a bunch of people who just enjoy laughing at the monkey in the cage doing the funny dance for us. If I really wanted to side with failure I'd side with you, because you motherfucking stink of it.

Hellfireblogs said...

Ah the anonymous poster, so full of wisdom and conviction. It's ironic that someon defending a Marxist would make a case tha envy is a negative motivation since Marxism is based on creating class envy.

Critics acclaimed G.G.Allen and if madonna wins grammies, does that mean they're good? Or does it mean that critical acclaim and awards are often driven by pretense and snobbery?

Lovecraft,Poe,Baudelare and Stoker have rarely been accrded much respect, but their art has stood the test of time, as has the movies of Christopher Lee and John Wayne. The masses appreciate art, real art, which stirs the soul and lasts while the psuedo intellectual elite of the west which your view represent celebrate what they think the masses won't like because it gives them a false sense of superiority.

100 years from now H.P. Lovecraft will be taught in Universities and Sean Pennwill have been forgotten. Art will win out over the post modern drivel of our age and that's what angers you so much.

Evan is right.

Farmer John said...

Leftists win awards because much like our anonymous troll friend, they see their role in society to serve as societies penultimate critic and position themselves accordingly. The ultimate critic, of course, is the box office, whom the critics dismiss as ignorant and uneducated, tasteless masses. And from whence do they derive their authority... by loudly and persistently denouncing and deriding any work that is sufficiently healthy for society that might threaten their position as penultimate arbiter of taste and fashion.

It's a simple formula, really. Just look at our troll friend. Constructive contribution to Evan's blog... zero. Function... deride and discourage and make the experience "unpleasant" for any reader who might happen by. Create "noise" and interrupt the flow and exchange of ideas. Discourage the artist and convince them to quit.

You threaten them, Evan. Great job!

And Sean Penn's an asswipe. He still hasn't made a movie I'd watch twice.

Huge-O Chavez said...

Lets face it. The movies Hollywood has been making lately S-U-C-K!

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

The ultimate critic, of course, is the box office

So now you're quoting Stephen Colbert, but leaving out the irony? Genius.

nanc said...

i cannot recall when we last attended a movie as a family and i'd not heard of a single movie nominated - and thought they may have done away with these ridiculous award programs.

watching hollyweird slapping itself on the back is NOT my idea of good night in.

spot on as usual, sayet.

Anonymous said...

Wow...gratifying to hear the rubes try to justify their lowly tastes.

Lovecraft,Poe,Baudelare and Stoker have rarely been accrded much respect, but their art has stood the test of time, as has the movies of Christopher Lee and John Wayne. The masses appreciate art, real art, which stirs the soul and lasts while the psuedo intellectual elite of the west which your view represent celebrate what they think the masses won't like because it gives them a false sense of superiority.

And on top of that he's incredibly ignorant. Poe has long been lionized in American literature as Baudelaire has in world poetry..by those superior intellects you hate so much. As for Lovecraft, he is a shrill and unconvincing hack who will never be anything more than a genre figure. Then he puts on embarrassing display the spleen and resentment of the lowly for their betters and whines about the fact that some people just have more brains and taste than others...get used to it trailer trash...you're too stupid to get it and you always will be. As far as the SUCCESSFUL people Sayet, the failure hates so much, they are financially as well as artistically successful.

Anonymous said...

Don't you love peabrain Hellfire whine about ANONYMOUS posters while remaining anonymous himself. Just another phony blog by the two or three creeps who hang out here...or Sayet himself. hahahahah how pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Poor Sayet...the moron shoots himself in the foot by picking the most successful actors of our time and tells us what failures they are...Susan Sarandon has acted in many movies which were BOTH critically and financially successful thus aiding those poor retirees and scullery maids who we all know are the biggest investors in the movies...hahahahahaha.

She starred with the late, great Burt Lancaster in Atlantic City, for which Sarandon received the first of her FIVE Best Actress Oscar nominations.

A series of high-profile roles followed in The Witches of Eastwick, Bull Durham, Thelma & Louise and Lorenzo's Oil. In 1995, Sarandon finally earned her Best Actress Oscar playing Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking, written and directed by her partner, Tim Robbins.

Just a few major hits like Dead Man, Thelma and Louise and Bull Durham. Eat your heart out, FAILURE, you'd love to be up there with them but you'll never even come close.

charlie allnut said...

Yep, that about sums up Sarandon. What a waste of film she was. I'd trade her entire oeuvre for one bad Kate Hepburn flick.

Scottie said...

I see Evan's "friends" from Hollyweird have come out to wish him well, albiet without bothering to identify themselves. I guess if that was the depth of my character, I wouldn't be too keen on signing my name on it either. Insightful essay Evan, well done.

Anonymous said...

Yep, that about sums up Sarandon. What a waste of film she was. I'd trade her entire oeuvre for one bad Kate Hepburn flick.



That's the "conservative" mind for you...anything from the past is better than the present...forty years from now, this moron's clone will be waxing poetic over those wonderful old films of Susan Sarandon...now there was a movie star, these modern floozies just don't compare.

Anonymous said...

Nobel Laureate Estimates Wars’ Cost at More Than $3 Trillion
by Kevin G. Hall

WASHINGTON - When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would be self-financing and that rebuilding the nation would cost less than $2 billion.

Coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion, a Nobel laureate now estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing America more than $3 trillion.

That estimate from Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz also serves as the title of his new book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” which hits store shelves Friday.

Anonymous said...

Yep, that about sums up Sarandon. What a waste of film she was. I'd trade her entire oeuvre for one bad Kate Hepburn flick.

haha...yeah, just five Oscar noms...you boys like sounding like fools don't you? And that typical petty, seething resentment of the little man just has to come out. That's why you like morons for Prez.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Klaatu barada nictu.

Barack Hussein Obama.

Evan Sayet said...

You can point over and over again to how many awards these people nominate each other for but that doesn't in any way speak to their talent. "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" was, according to these same people, "the best" song of the year recently.

Yeah, Mr. Woodcock is going to go down in history. They'll be studying it in schools generations from now. Get the word play? Wood Cock. Get it? Wood Cock? Man, that's DEEP.

Children and leftists, they're one and the same.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

This post gives the most clear view yet of Sayet's psyche. He doesn't post this nonsense because of his political convictions, he posts it because he's petty and jealous.

Clooney gets, what, ten...twenty...THIRTY million dollars for six weeks "work?" Let's say he does two, three or four movies a year, that's, taking the middle figure, eighty million dollars a year not counting residuals, merchandising, and other huge paydays for doing nothing.

Imagine me saying the following very slowly, as if I was talking to a very young child:

In America, we have what's called the "free market". And in this market, you make what someone is willing to pay you. No more, no less. In Communist countries, people make what the government tells them to make, but here in America you can ask for any amount of money you want, and if someone is willing to pay you that, you should take it.

Now, Evie, do you understand? That's how it works...in America. Someday someone might pay you to write a bunch of right-wing nonsense in a book. But....probably best to learn another skill anyway. Because I've seen your writing and....well, it sucks. Sorry. Let's go have naptime!

Evan Sayet said...

Wow, call me "evie" and that will prove your point.

Call me "jealous" rather than respond to the facts because leftists reject facts as the first rule of indiscriminateness and act like children, therefore they think others do as well.

Meanwhile, my post speaks FACTUALLY about Al Gore's becoming personally rich while using a loophole to continue to run his indoor swimming pool (and, in fact, continue to pollute at twenty times the rate of the average family he will hurt because THEY can't afford to buy the "carbon offsets" -- that Gore then personally profits from again by owning the brokerage company that sells them).

I gave FACTS about the wind farm Ted Kennedy put the kabash on because it interfered with his "pristine view."

I gave FACTS about Jackson Browne, quoting no less a source than HIMSELF.

I gave FACTS from a (liberal, mind you) college professor as to his FACTUAL study that proves what most of us already knew, that the Secular Leftist is the LEAST charitable of all Americans.

So, you call me names, talk about my emotions as leftist invariably do, and I'll continue to speak to the facts.

Anonymous said...

Haha...yeah, the facts about all those box office failures which were really successes and a few exaggerated, highly selected bits of assorted other crap... I think somebody posted the list of GOPervs and thieves on here...about twenty to one over the democrat indictees...now those are facts that mean something...anyone can point out a few...but what about the overall numbers, failure (now there's another fact he doesn't like). Your movement is in the toilet with Craig for a reason...no a LOT of reasons. This poor sicko would die for a little recognition but all he can do is whine pathetically and redundantly about all those fabulously talented people he hates.

Anonymous said...

Completely dead on, brilliant Evan. The people that call you a "failed comedian" can't think of anything to rebut your brillaint, well thought-out, well-articulated thoughts. (And I caught your show a few years back and I was on the floor laughing!).

The point is, this is a great piece, completely dead on. Can't wait for your book! Keep rockin' and definitely KEEP WRITING!

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Facts? That's adorable, it thinks what it's posting is "facts". A few ad hominem attacks against the same 4 or 5 people that every right-wing water carrier attacks. Ted Kennedy! Susan Sarandon! Al Gore! This, of course, "proves" that "liberals" are selfish, or whatever the fuck your point was. Sometimes I wonder if you're really this dumb, or if it's all just a comedy act.

Craig H said...

"A few ad hominem attacks against the same 4 or 5 people that every right-wing water carrier attacks."

ad hominem-
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

If Evan cited sources and quotes, where were the 'ad hominem' attacks?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

You obviously don't understand what ad hominem means. That's okay, you think Evan is a source of valuable information, so I don't really expect you to be able to think about anything except on the most rudimentary level.

boil on evan's troll's ass said...

now THAT was an ad hominem!

Anonymous said...

Completely dead on, brilliant Evan. The people that call you a "failed comedian" can't think of anything to rebut your brillaint, well thought-out, well-articulated thoughts. (And I caught your show a few years back and I was on the floor laughing!).

Fuuuunny stuff...Sayet congratulates himself with an anonymous post. you can't beat this circus.

Anonymous said...

ad hominem-
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.


Precisely...the ground has already been prepared with much reicho fertilizer...just throw out these names and, voila, the desired effect. Gore's big house for instance...duh...the man is the leader of the world's most important movement and the energy usage is offset with carbon credits...you don't run an operation like his from a little log house in the woods. Just silly, shrill, phony outrage. Ted K. killed someone in an accident "not all that long ago" hahahaha like about 40 years and you're still whining about it. Worry about who Bush is slaughtering on purpose today, you phony dickheads...now that's ad hominem...Oh, you might want to cry for that boyfriend of Pickles who she killed not all that long ago.

Montag said...

Montag's Immutable Law of Nature Number 4. "Liberals are generous and charitable to a fault -- provided it is with your money, not their own."

Keep up the good work, Evan! You're right on target again. The predictable responses from the Left are proof!

Read Montag's World
montagsworld.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

John McCain confirms the worst fears of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter at a campaign stop in Texas this week.

The Arizona Republican, who caught plenty of flak from his party's most vocal conservatives during the presidential primary campaign, slipped up in a speech to supporters Thursday, when he was trying to outline the differences between himself and the to-be-decided Democratic nominee.

"I'm a proud conservative, liberal Repub -- uh, conservative Republican," McCain said, trying to stuff his Freudian slip back into his mouth.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals are generous and charitable to a fault -- provided it is with your money, not their own."

Duh...yeah, riiiight...liberals don't pay taxes so their money is not involved.

I checked out your blog, Montag...looks like I'm the only one who's been there in years.

Farmer John said...

...said the troll w/NO blog and who has to force her views on the unwilling...

Brett_McS said...

Another fine post, Evan. I imagine the shareholders are noticing that a "big name" is no guarantee of box-office success, and on the other hand options are opening up for movie making that bypass the traditional system. Put these trends together and the future looks less bland.

It's great to hear you on Shire Network News, also.

Anonymous said...

that a "big name" is no guarantee of box-office success,

Hahaha...givittup...Poor jealous dingbat trying to tell us again that Penn, Clooney, Sarandon et al aren't gold at the box office...and the indie films are usually far more aggressively progressive than the mainstream ones...glad you like that trend. Hey...you've got the upChucks...Norris and Heston...or is he dead? Not that it matters much...see, creative, intelligent people are just far more likely to be leftists...and dumb guys go to the right. I mean have you seen Sayet's act? Then there's poor Dennis Miller.

stuffin' oscar said...

That casting couch is pretty lumpy... porn would be a more honest occupation...

Anonymous said...

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
As you know, Evan, that's "projection," and, man, your detractors, durn near all of 'em, must eat it for breakfast. Naive. Unconcious. Anxiety. Guilt. Too bad they've never heard what their heros say amongst themselves in unguarded moments. I have. Obviously, you have as well.

Anonymous said...

Too bad they've never heard what their heros say amongst themselves in unguarded moments. I have. Obviously, you have as well.

Suuuure you have...big timers like you are hangin with them dudes all the time...on the other hand, we've got real evidence of what your heros say about you...like the email from DeLay's aide laughing about rounding up the rubes to support some gambling crap they've got lined up. Hahaha talk about projection...or projecting their projection.

Anonymous said...

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

Anonymous said...

big timers like you are hangin with them dudes all the time

Matter of fact, since I figured out what the deal really is, I seldom "hang" with "them dudes" any more, and I'm not talking about the stuff of memos. I have no reason to make up crap to impress you or anybody else. What I do have is direct knowledge that the real liberal power brokers and those who fund them are not interested in empowering the disenfranchised. Quite the opposite. And amongst themselves they are amazingly candid about that fact. Believe what you want. I gave up on the likes of you years ago. You don't know who the rubes are.

Anonymous said...

I have no reason to make up crap to impress you or anybody else.

Duh...no, uh course not...except to spread your scumbag "philosophy." The real joke is how the GOP elite laugh about the rubes they con with their anti-abortion and "family values," religious crap and then sit around and roll their eyes at the stupid asses they fool with that. There was a very good expose of that recently by some GOP Washington insider. Then you fools actually see memos like this and just keep kissing ass. On the left,
on the other hand, we are very aware of the many DLC, GOPlite whores who've gotten too much influence in the party and are doing what we can to get rid of them.

Anonymous said...

Read it and weep, WHACKOS: Hahaha...he's talking about YOU morons... Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

Anonymous said...

Iraqi Civilian Casualties Up 36 Percent
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030108A.shtml
Paul Tait of Reuters reports: "Violent civilian deaths in Iraq rose 36 percent in February from the previous month after a series of large-scale bombings blamed on al-Qaeda, Iraqi government figures showed on Saturday."

Anonymous said...

Catholic Voters Beware: Catholic League Declares "McCain Embraces Bigot"

What else is he going to do...All GOPigs are bigots. They embrace evil and failed policies of the past at every turn.

Anonymous said...

Hey sean penn thanks for your bio post. How pathetic. Ha Ha Ha

Anonymous said...

A lot of this is sheer idiocy. Taking the assessment of Spielberg: Whether of not a film like Munich did well at the box office does not change that with two films in 2005 (Munich and War of the Worlds), he grossed just under 70,000,000 on opening. The two films have grossed 281,684,039 since opening.

If Speilberg chooses to make a film like Munich, with a much smaller release and lower profits, while making the studios hundreds of millions, what's the problem? Besides that someone like Sayet doesn't like it.

Oh woe, woe the poor conservative that doesn't like the films that came out this year...

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON — A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers.

Anonymous said...

If Speilberg chooses to make a film like Munich, with a much smaller release and lower profits, while making the studios hundreds of millions, what's the problem? Besides that someone like Sayet doesn't like it.


These crude GOPigs don't understand anything but money...a guy who is successful enough to be able to quit worrying about the box office everytime and do something artistically worthwhile is seen by these lowlifes as saying fuck you to his fans. That's true only of backward idiot fans like these tasteless fools. It's a virtue, of course, to be able to tell lowbrows like this to go to hell.

Anonymous said...

The two films have grossed 281,684,039 since opening.


Looks like Sayet was caught lying AGAIN. Poor unsuccessful Spielberg...hahahahaha. These guys like failure...while pretending to hate it...PROJECTION.
No wonder they like GW.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Hey sean penn thanks for your bio post. How pathetic. Ha Ha Ha


This is some moron's response when he finds his poor, jealous gooroo has been lying about those successful people he hates so much. Pathetic would be right.

Scottie said...

It appears someone doesn't appreciate the irony their unhinged and typical leftist behavior provides the rest of us. Rude, obnoxious, pointless, and demanding attention. Kind of like..., a five year old!

Anonymous said...

Checked over the posts above, "Scottie,"...the only thing I see is a lot of envy and lying on one side -- yours -- and a very POINTED and well supported expose' of those lies on the other.
Your silly posts decrying a lack of substance does provide a little irony, though...as though you might know what that means.

Anonymous said...

RE: The Spielberg numbers... I was wrong. The movies have made hundreds of millions MORE than I posted. $281,684,039 is domestic only. Together, War of the Worlds and Munich (his two 2005 releases) have grossed about $722,000,000.

Anonymous said...

Iraq: "It's a damning indication of how poorly things have gone for the United States during its five-year misadventure in Iraq that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can drive in broad daylight though this war-ravaged city and spend the night at the presidential palace, but George W. Bush can't." 3/3

Actually, there's no place in the world where this little freak can safely show his bloodthirsty face.

Anonymous said...

Together, War of the Worlds and Munich (his two 2005 releases) have grossed about $722,000,000.


Three quarters of a BILLION dollars...hahaha...wow!! that is some big time failure. And that's AFTER he quit making his good stuff for the lowly masses, according to Slimet.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

The number of people who come here to shit on Sayet far outnumbers the number of people who come here because they think he has something interesting to say. That makes me smile.

Anonymous said...

The number of people who come here to shit on Sayet far outnumbers the number of people who come here because they think he has something interesting to say. That makes me smile.

One might say he is more toilet than man. He is gaining a sprinkling of fame around the leftwing web as a sideshow to check out. Apparently these dingalings like to imagine it's just one or two liberals, but I heard about him from some guys who'd been here a couple times and tell everyone to check the weirdos out and they got word from someone else.

Anonymous said...

I heard about him from some guys who'd been here a couple times and tell everyone to check the weirdos out and they got word from someone else.

So, let's see, that makes it you,"some guys," "everyone," and "someone else." That adds up to two, at most, right?

Anonymous said...


So, let's see, that makes it you,"some guys," "everyone," and "someone else." That adds up to two, at most, right?


Geez, this guy is witty...I don't know about numbers but this is my first lookaround here, and its as freaky as advertised...expect more slummers in the future and don't underestimate yourself...you're a big draw.

Anonymous said...

Liberal Manifesto
by Dan Kurtzman

Excerpt:
Liberals believe in reading actual books, going to war as a last resort, separating church and hate,
and doing what Jesus would actually do, instead of lobbying for upper-class tax cuts and fantasizing
about the apocalypse.

Liberals believe that supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are,
and not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals under the outsourced management
of incompetent cronies who think they’re running a Taco Bell franchise.

beaner bender said...

...and liberals believe in placing women upon pedestals, high enough so that they can look up their dresses...

Anonymous said...

How bout dat market...is Sleepy HOLLOW about to get the very rude awakening that it so richly deserves?

opportunity's knockers said...

Jealous and resentful... you must be a Democrat!

Anonymous said...

Head up the ass and asleep at the wheel...you must be a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha...good one...these Repugnos think their bowels are a pillow.

a head is more than a hatrack said...

...at least we can still think. Democrats let their bowels do their thinking for them.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Liberals believe that supporting our troops means treating our wounded vets like the heroes they are,
and not leaving them to languish in rat-infested military hospitals...


Are these the same liberals that want the government to be in charge of civilian health care?

Farmer John said...

No those are the single payer idiots who want to make sure that nobody can get any healthcare that a government bureaucrat doesn't want them to get.

No heart for you! You're too fat!

You smoke! No cancer meds for you!

Anonymous said...

No those are the single payer idiots who want to make sure that nobody can get any healthcare that a government bureaucrat doesn't want them to get.

No heart for you! You're too fat!

You smoke! No cancer meds for you!


You pinheads keep getting real government mixed up with Republican government.

Anonymous said...

According to a new Fox News/Washington Times/Rasmussen reports poll out today, Republicans like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) nearly as much as they like McCain. The survey -- of likability -- isn't indicative of whether they'd vote for Obama over their own nominee -- but it could suggest problems for McCain down the road, should Obama become the Democratic nominee.

Equally troubling for Republicans is that the survey showed that party supporters think Obama is smarter than McCain.

empty shirt 4 president said...

Unfortunately for Democrats, people are waking up and beginning to notice that the press-annointed Emperor-to-be, Barack Huseein Obama, is wearing no clothes...

Vincent Freeman said...

What are the similarities in these two lists?

Wake Island 1942
Guadalcanal Diary 1943
Bataan 1943
Sahara 1943
Action in the North Atlantic 1943
Since You Went Away 1944
Winged Victory 1944
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo 1944
They Were Expendable 1945
A Walk in the Sun 1945
Objective Burma 1945
The Story of G.I. Joe 1945

World Trade Center 2006
United 93 2006
Home of the Brave 2006
Redacted 2007
Rendition 2007
In the Valley of Elah 2007
Lions for Lambs 2007

They are movies about war made while the wars were being fought.

The tone of the movies on each list however is radically different. On the first you have the people benefiting most from their freedom to express themselves rising up to create art in support of that way of life. The second list shows Americans as nothing more than hapless victims, or rapists, torturers, and murderers. A way of life worthy of sacrifice and a way of life that’s not really worth defending.

If profit was the motivation then where are the pro-troop movies? After all at least half the country voted Bush in office a second time. Surely they represent an audience that would pay to see this generation’s John Wayne charging through the streets of Fallujah.

My suspicion is that the liberals bashing Evan’s post know deep down that he’s dead on.

Vincent Freeman said...

A lot of this is sheer idiocy. Taking the assessment of Spielberg: Whether of not a film like Munich did well at the box office does not change that with two films in 2005 (Munich and War of the Worlds), he grossed just under 70,000,000 on opening.

The opening of Munich was only 4 mill. For a film that cost 70 mill to make that is considered a resounding failure.

By by all means please include the numbers for War of the Worlds to help diguise that fact.

Anonymous said...

By by all means please include the numbers for War of the Worlds to help diguise that fact.


So, you're saying War of the Worlds was an even bigger success than we thought? And, of course, the peabrain GOPism that only money matters...forget the critical acclaim that Munich got.
Rubes, boobs and lowbrows...the lower order of men with their envy of their betters...givvittup...you'll be arrested for indecent exposure.

Anonymous said...

sayet, the number of viewers of an awards show does not reflect the state of an industry. Just like a righty to bend reality to fit his predetermined conclusions. The movie industry just had a RECORD year measured by box office receipts. The people have spoken with their wallets and they are lapping up the enlightened films of the hollywood LEFT. This blog is a joke to all but the mindless bible sheep that call themselves the righteous right. Pfft.

clueless in southern california said...

they are lapping up the enlightened films of the hollywood LEFT.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"Failure of the Academy Awards" whadda peabrain...all these kinds of shows have been going downhill anually since the advent of cable. The movie business is stronger than ever. Someone above is totally correct about these untermenschen and their pathetic spleen. How bout that Clooney...wow there's a LIBERAL box office story. Has this guy had a gig outside some political sideshow in years?

Jaycephus said...

It's really funny that Sayet is now most famous for his speeches on Modern Liberals, and the Liberal Retardation that attacks him on this blog actually proves his thesis for him again and again with their posts.

Jaycephus said...

"War of the Worlds" doesn't invalidate Evan's points: When Spielberg wants to make money, he makes an entertainment film.

Anonymous said...

Evan's "point" was that these liberal hollywood people have no talent, birdbrain. He's proven to be a liar again...dats de point.

Blake R. said...

Well said, Evan, as usual. I wish more people could realize this, and stop falling for Liberal's crowd-pleasing tactics: at least conservatives know it's all an act. You should check out my new blog, I mention you in it.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Congratulations, you're just as mindless as Evan. Perhaps you've heard of the Downing Street Memo? Nah, that wouldn't fit into your worldview, so you probably just ignore it.

boil on evan's troll's ass said...

Just like UN Res 1441 doesn't fit into yours... and so you ignore it.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

And where do you think the idea that Saddam had WMD's, mentioned in Resolution 1441, came from? You do realize that the UN doesn't have an espionage branch, right? That their intelligence came from all of those agencies, previously mentioned, that were either directly or indirectly manipulated to produce the intelligence the Bush Administration was looking for. The more I hear from you people, the more I'm convinced that you literally have no idea what goes on in this world.

Anonymous said...

I wish more people could realize this, and stop falling for Liberal's crowd-pleasing tactics:

Ah...sad lament...but it seems their crowds are growing and growing while ours are dwindling to nothing...heard of a conservative alternative to Hollywood...I'm afraid it would just be an embarrassment and open us to more derision. Why can't Americans see through their meretricious postures? Why does the whole world hold us in contempt?

hysterical revisionist said...

Yes, of course, the security and intelligence services of the Chinese, Russian's, French and other member states of the Security Council were all duped by by Collin Powell too... it's just... so obvious. LOL!

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

You....do realize that 1441 didn't authorize the use of force, right? That the other members of the Security Council went along with the intelligence they were given by the US specifically because they were told that a failure to comply with 1441 wouldn't automatically trigger hostilities against Iraq. Here's a very simple timeline for you:

The Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence to get what they wanted.
They presented their flimsy case to the UN, without telling them how flimsy it was. The Security Council agreed to a resolution which was very nebulous about what the consequences for failure would be.
They took the US to war based on thatbad intelligence, hoping that they'd find WMD along the way.
That intelligence turned out to be wrong.
You people still defend them, despite all of this.

I agree that Bush didn't technically "lie". But he manipulated, which might as well be the same thing. They used intelligence to achieve a goal, rather than letting the intelligence take them where it would. Defend them all they want, these are the facts you're going to have to deal with.

Anonymous said...

They're funny with their delusions about GW...I think we should encourage them...they make the GOP look even stupider.

Blake R. said...

They used intelligence to achieve a goal, rather than letting the intelligence take them where it would.

The goal was to eliminate a dictator synonymous with genocide, torture, rape, secret police, etc. And for that I commend President Bush. To say that ending the reign of Saddam Hussein was an unworthy goal is like claiming the defeat of the Nazis in WWII was an unworthy goal. Why is it that Modern Liberals are quick to criticize attacks on known evils and the protection of what we know is good?
I think we can all agree that Iraqis have much more freedom now than they did under Saddam. So I must also ask, if Liberals support human rights as much as they would have us believe, why do they condemn the spread of human rights across the world as they have done regarding the war in Iraq, calling it "policing the world" and "forcing democracy on people"? It's all very hypocritical. Liberals evidently are only concerned with rights so long as they directly benefit in some way, whether it be money from lobbyists or votes to get them into office. That's the point Evan is making.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

That's....fucking retarded. A nation's boundaries are sovereign, and can't be violated on the whim of some other country. There has to be justification to go to war. The UN (and the American people) were told Saddam had WMD's, that it was "slam dunk". This was an untrue statement, made mostly because the Bush Administration wanted it to be true, and were willing to accept very flimsy evidence of it.

You, Evan, people of your ilk (the vanishing number of you) are incredibly myopic. You cheer when America acts like a world police. You call those who fight back against our occupying force "terrorists". Imagine if the situation was reversed. If some other nation decided to invade ours, based on evidence of wrongdoing that turned out to be bullshit. How could that not be considered a criminal act, an act of aggression? And yet, we invade another country, violate their boundaries based on bullshit, and you think we can justify it because our country is "good". This doesn't make a bit of sense.

Vincent Freeman said...

You call those who fight back against our occupying force "terrorists".

No offense, but I suspect you don't have solid grasp of the meaning of the words. Rebels and freedom fighters attack oppressing military, and the institutions that control them (the government). Terrorists target civilians.

Blowing civilians up at marketplaces, weddings, and mosques is an act of terror, not resistance.

Vincent Freeman said...

So, you're saying War of the Worlds was an even bigger success than we thought? And, of course, the peabrain GOPism that only money matters...forget the critical acclaim that Munich got.

I think you missed the point on several fronts. Sayet specifically mentions Munich in his piece not War of the Worlds. War was an entertaining film with no real political commentary (although I would contend it was the very first big budget film to show the horrors of a proxy 9/11). Munich on the other hand was packed chuck full of liberal theology. Where War succeeded financially Munich fell on its face. Pointing out the critical acclaim it received does nothing to strengthen your point since it was _exactly_ the point Sayet was making in his piece. When Spielberg wanted acclaim he was willing to make a film no one wanted to see, as evident by the bottom line of its opening.

Blake R. said...

You call those who fight back against our occupying force "terrorists". Imagine if the situation was reversed. If some other nation decided to invade ours, based on evidence of wrongdoing that turned out to be bullshit. How could that not be considered a criminal act, an act of aggression? And yet, we invade another country, violate their boundaries based on bullshit, and you think we can justify it because our country is "good".

How can any true American, or any reasonable human being for that matter, not recognize America as good and terrorists as evil. It's a simple concept. Innocence of evil is good. The destruction of good is evil. Terrorists seek to destroy innocent people, therefore they are evil. We destroy terrorists, therefore we destroy evil, which is itself good. This is called rational, objective thought, and this is why the Liberal mindset is flawed.

Blake R. said...

Oh yeah, forgot to mention:

You call those who fight back against our occupying force "terrorists". Imagine if the situation was reversed. If some other nation decided to invade ours, based on evidence of wrongdoing that turned out to be bullshit.

I think 9/11 was pretty good evidence of the terrorists' wrongdoing, far more significant than "bullshit". I don't know, maybe it's just me...

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

No, it's childish. Everything America does isn't good, and everything America's enemies do isn't evil. It's why your movement is failing so spectacularly - when people see the real-world consequences of creating a false black-and-white worldview, they eventually run away in horror.

When someone attacks civilians, that is an act of terror. When someone blows up a Humvee full of soldiers? I feel sorry for the soldiers, who shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that is not terrorism. These are not complicated ideas, they are simply common sense. All Muslims, and certainly the Iraqi people in general, are not "The Terrorists", and that these things have been so thoroughly confused in American politics is one of the lasting legacies that the Bush Administration has left us that the next President will have to clean up.

Anonymous said...

I think we can all agree that Iraqis have much more freedom now than they did under Saddam

You think very poorly, then.

Anonymous said...

I think you missed the point on several fronts.

No, I think you keep changing the imaginary point...he was saying Spielberg, Penn and others were irrelevant failures when in fact they are the most successful forces around...very unlike himself and the silly, jealous fools around him. Poor, petty fools who hate them because they are liberals who are lionized both artistically and economically by the culture.

Anonymous said...

How can any true American, or any reasonable human being for that matter, not recognize America as good and terrorists as evil.

Because we are not simple minded fools who look at the situation in a vacuum...and it's not terrorists we are fighting, but the people of Iraq. We've murdered far more of them than any terrorist has ever done to us, so that makes us the real thugs. Now stick your simple head back in your naive, childish sandbox.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Terrorism, the targeting of civilians for the purpose of sending a message, is evil. America, the country that you live in, is not always good. This is a rational point of view. The crap that Evan's peddling, about evil and good and black and white? That shit is nonsense.

boil on evan's trolls ass said...

LOL! And granted, you are an expert in nonsense... or was that common sense, I forget?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

You know that I'm right. You know that everything I've said is 100%, inarguable, factually correct. You know you can't counter my arguments with any of your own without being exposed as the mindless, far-right party loyalist that you are. So you don't even try.

Vincent Freeman said...

he was saying Spielberg, Penn and others were irrelevant failures when in fact they are the most successful forces around

That could be taken as a rather shallow surface level only misinterpretation of Sayet’s post. Some deeper reflection may be in order, to at least consider and then argue on the proper point.

What I took away from the original post, and attempted to explain earlier, was not that all films from Hollywood are failures, but the ones that end up at the Oscars almost always are. That’s why the title of Sayet’s piece was “The Failure of the Acedmy Awards…” The movies nominated for Oscars typically fail at the box office, which implies they failed to entice audiences to come see them. Munich was used as an example of this. Films that do entertain, like War of the Worlds, do not get nominated for best picture even though they were inarguably more popular and better received by the public at large.

In addition the actors illustrated in Sayet’s post also tend to gravitate to these overly heavy message movies because they have no stake in whether their product is successful. They’ve already gotten their exorbitant salaries in advance. In a career where they play make believe all day it’s their only opportunity to be taken seriously (by their peers).

Vincent Freeman said...

When someone attacks civilians, that is an act of terror. When someone blows up a Humvee full of soldiers? I feel sorry for the soldiers, who shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that is not terrorism. These are not complicated ideas, they are simply common sense. All Muslims, and certainly the Iraqi people in general, are not "The Terrorists", and that these things have been so thoroughly confused in American politics

Two thnigs here…

The people blowing up humvees of American soldiers are also the ones strapping bombs to women with Downs Syndrome in order to blow up a marketplace of innocent civilians. Trying to equate any sense of moral equivalency between the guys that build schools and hand out American donated school supplies to children and the guys that are using children to blow up weddings shows an extremely biased worldview.

Next the left here are they only ones that try to equate Muslims, Iraqis, and terrorists as the same entity. When a conservative says terrorist, they literally mean a guy willing to indiscriminately target civilians. Perhaps the left’s inability to discern the differences speaks more to a problem with liberalism itself? But then that was the entire point of the Regurgitating the Apple speech.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

You make my points for me, you really do.

Clearly, not every Iraqi who is angry about the American occupation (which is the vast majority of them) is angry enough to harm civilians.

Second, the right confuses Islam with terrorism all the motherfucking time. You people think we're in some sort of clash of civilizations, which you never stop reminding us. You believe that anyone who looks Middle Eastern should be stopped ans searched at an airport. You use the name "Barack Hussein Obama" as a weapon because you know that your followers equate Islam with evil. You people promote an us versus them mentality to advance your despicable, permanent war agenda. "With us or against us", the motto of the neoconservative extremists like Sayet. Good vs. evil. Civilized peoples vs. the brown savages. This is what you people do, and as you find your poisonous rhetoric rejected by the American people, this is why.

boil on evan's troll's ass said...

I just like saying it...

Barack Hussein Obama...

Hussein

Hussein

Hussein

Hussein

Hussein

Hussein

Hussein

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Films that do entertain, like War of the Worlds, do not get nominated for best picture even though they were inarguably more popular and better received by the public at large.

You mean films that don't entertain the lowest common denominator of idiots...they do very much entertain SMART people....elitists like myself, for instance. Very few conservatives and no neo-cons qualify.

Anonymous said...

Next the left here are they only ones that try to equate Muslims, Iraqis, and terrorists as the same entity. When a conservative says terrorist, they literally mean a guy willing to indiscriminately target civilians.

Total lying nonsense...you bloodthirsty bigots mean everyone who fights against Americans in Iraq...you pretend to rationality only when pinned down...same with al Quaida...according to you frauds, it's always al Q we are fighting over there when they are a tiny force only very loosely tied to the real deal. What's so funny about you pack of losers is that you are ashamed to stick by your own lies and pretend you don't even believe them when you're pinned down. Shameful pack of evil bastards much more dangerous to America than Al Quaida.

a nony mouse said...

As opposed to a bunch of sanctimonious poseurs who turn the death of every terrorist bastard into a moral crusade against the death penalty... and think the true patriot is the one that enables his own country to be duped into perpetual inaction in the defense of its' liberty.

Get a grip, surrender monkey.

Anonymous said...

Good point Evan is a boil on the ass of society:
Facts? That's adorable, it thinks what it's posting is "facts". A few ad hominem attacks against the same 4 or 5 people that every right-wing water carrier attacks. Ted Kennedy! Susan Sarandon! Al Gore! This, of course, "proves" that "liberals" are selfish, or whatever the fuck your point was. Sometimes I wonder if you're really this dumb, or if it's all just a comedy act.

I believe that Evie is just a cynic playing on the stupidity of his few followers for money. It is either that or he is just plain stupid himself.

Anonymous said...

another anonymous says: Anonymous said...
Iraqi Civilian Casualties Up 36 Percent
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030108A.shtml
Paul Tait of Reuters reports: "Violent civilian deaths in Iraq rose 36 percent in February from the previous month after a series of large-scale bombings blamed on al-Qaeda, Iraqi government figures showed on Saturday."


This, of course, is tragic. But, there are other facts: Iraq had universities. They had industry. They had an educated and, to a degree, a secularist population. They were more civilized. Women did not have to wear the scarves, certainly a sign of a more civilize country than it is now. We have destroyed all of that.

2 dumb 4 primetime said...

Iraq also had Kurd's being gassed, children being starved by the UN, and torture chambers full of Shi'a dissidents.

Yes, please tell us again how great life was in Iraq under Saddam Hussein...

Anonymous said...

2 dumb 4 primetime said...
Iraq also had Kurd's being gassed, children being starved by the UN, and torture chambers full of Shi'a dissidents. Yes, please tell us again how great life was in Iraq under Saddam Hussein...

with the help of the U.S. who likes to arm terrorists.

a boil on evan's troll's ass said...

Keep graspin' at straws, troll-y... I like to watch trolls dying of desperation almost as much as I like to watch terrorists dying of anything, including UN sanctions.

Irish Cicero said...

We linked ya!

http://libertypeaklodge.typepad.com