Jackass.
Nuff said.
Printable View
Jackass.
Nuff said.
You forgot some more of the equation:
Sean Penn + Susan Sarandon = Jack Ass
I feel I've missed something?
I think she just bought a donkey Hale. I don't know what else they'd be talking about.
Watch tonite's Presidential address... tune in early. Susan will have a little something for you.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Hale
I feel I've missed something?
Her meatball-like eyes bulging from their sockets keep me awake at night.
I suspect her 30 second "commercial" will have you wanting to stick a fork in those eyeballs.
Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Baldwin, Penn, Reiner, Sheen... all a bunch of Liberal Wusses® who have said and done really ignorant things at one point or another. This is just another example of their ignorance.
I'm still waiting for a few of them to leave the country like they promised. Typical Hypocrits.
------------------------------------------------------
TrueMajority Launches New Ad Campaign
On the eve of the State of the Union address, an antiwar advertisement featuring actress Susan Sarandon and former ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of Reagan's terrorism task force Edward Peck will hit the airwaves.
Funded by True Majority, an advocacy group headed by Ben Cohen, the 30-second spot shows Susan Sarandon asking: "Before our kids start coming home from Iraq in body bags and women and children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know, what did Iraq do to us?" Peck replies, ""The answer is nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al Qaeda, its neighbors don't think its a threat, invading Iraq will increase terrorism, not reduce it."
The ad will begin airing in Washington, DC and New York on Tuesday, just before George Bush hits the TV screen with his own personal informercial selling a bogus war to the American people.
ROFLMAO!Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Faxman
Her meatball-like eyes bulging from their sockets keep me awake at night.
It should be noted that the ad plays with pictures of a cemetary being flashed inQuote:
Originally posted by [AK]Hylander
Funded by True Majority, an advocacy group headed by Ben Cohen, the 30-second spot shows Susan Sarandon asking: "Before our kids start coming home from Iraq in body bags and women and children start dying in Baghdad, I need to know, what did Iraq do to us?" Peck replies, ""The answer is nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al Qaeda, its neighbors don't think its a threat, invading Iraq will increase terrorism, not reduce it."
The ad will begin airing in Washington, DC and New York on Tuesday, just before George Bush hits the TV screen with his own personal informercial selling a bogus war to the American people.
the background.
Perhaps the President should deliver his State of the Union address with video of the burning WTC playing behind him. He should also be sure to include closeups of the couple jumping to their deaths from 100+ stories, holding hands on the way down.
Then maybe they can finish with a slide show of photos featuring the victims of Iraqs chemical weapons.
Ponder this: Hans Blix has one COOL name.
http://i.abcnews.com/media/World/ima..._021003_nh.jpg
And it is now wrong to have a disenting opinion from the president in this country? We might as well send the in the goons to clean up all those liberal wussies. I mean, if you aren't with us you are against us, right? Freedom of thought is no longer tolerated, people can not have different views or they are undermining the country.
It is sad that Americans are so upset when someone has a different opinion than them.
I mean, these ACTORS could well pull down the entire USA, right?
One might think that those getting angry at these adds are not for people speaking their mind and are against a freedom of thought. One might also think that those who for some reason believe that this pre-speach add is going to somehow harm the presidents agenda are being a bit paranoid.
Of course that is america these days. Paranoid and all marching to the same goose step. After 9/11 the president made a speach where the world is "either with us or against us!" and unfortunately the U.S. population seems to be applying that to it's own citizens. I am wondering when the "public opinion" will allow for jack-booted agents to pull these wussie liberals out of their homes at night and lock them up for re-programing. Hell, now the "conservative" opinion is that all liberals are COMMUNISTS!
Can we find a bigger example of witch hunting?
Mellow out a bit. Some people don't agree with you or President Bush. So what? I don't agree yet I also don't think it can realy be stoped... not even sure it should be (when Bush releases his evidence... finaly... I'll have a better idea personaly). But I would not be up in arms because a bunch of Hollywood actors are putting out an add.
It is not wrong in this country to disagree... at least not yet <eyes the new Homeland Security dept>.
Iraq, smiraq
I'm not against people voicing their opinions. I'm simply saying that this particular individual's opinions are stupid, misguided, and naive. (Pick any two.)
Personally, I'd like to know why we are going after Iraq and not North Korea. They are both 'evil' nations right?
As far as inflicting damage to US soil, North Korea is 100 times more able (I'm not going to discuss who is more likely) to so then Iraq. They've got nukes and they've got missles that could reach the West Coast. To the best of my knowledge, Iraq doesn't have either of those. Of course, North Korea doesn't have vast oil reserves, but thats probably just a coincidence.
Celebrities ... ugh.
What we have here ... with Sarandon, Baldwin, Babs "The Nose" Streisand, Sheen and countless others ... is Bill Clinton's old Hollywood fan club. He catered to them; he made them feel like their bubble-headed babble was important.
Clinton was a celebrity junkie ... having them around boosted his ego ... and his attentiveness boosted theirs. Now they have no voice in presidential politics other than shrill interviews, Babs' amusing website, and infomercials. I don't think Bush will invite any of them over to the Lincoln Bedroom anytime soon.
Fortunately, I don't have cable ... or a TV signal, so I will be spared from both the high-pitched liberal whine of Sarandon's soliloquy and the monotony of Bush's address. I'll read the AP story on the address tonight.
Frankly ... old G.W. has not convinced me that there is a reason to attack Iraq. I voted for him, and I support him on a number of issues (mostly not taxing ME and not taking MY guns away) but he has not made a good enough case against Iraq.
Now, if there is smoking gun evidence of an Iraqi operative coordinating the WTC attacks in conjunction with Bin Laden, they should bring it out and let everyone see it. Otherwise, it just looks like G.W. is trying to finish up his father's business.
I may be less conservative than Abaddon but I like what he said. Celebrity political endorsements mean as much as celebrity commercial endorsements. They mean nothing and are anoying to boot.
Weather I disagree with what they say or not it is still just so much commercial crap.
A capital idea, Hale. Queue 'em up, I'm all for it.Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Hale
Personally, I'd like to know why we are going after Iraq and not North Korea. They are both 'evil' nations right?
While we're at it add Iran and Saudi Arabia to the list. I'm serious.
We don't need a "smoking gun". Iraq is in violation of an agreement that they signed 12 YEARS AGO. That we're still here talking about it is testimony that we HAVE tried to give negotiations a chance.
Read this , and please devote a minute or two to think about the issues raised before dismissing it.
There is a reason why Korean isnt a bigger threat right now: China and Russia. Those two will not tolerate shenanigans in that part of the world, as evidenced by the fact that they are trying to broker a deal with DPRK.
The Chinese and Russians don't want an excuse for the Americans to wage a nasty little war right on their border (or in their part of the world).
Iraq is a biggest problem of a smaller series of problems in the region. I agree with Squid, SA is an reluctant ally.
One thing I am not hearing about is Venezuela - that seems to be, erroneously, under everyone's radar scope. They have the largest oil reserves in the world (yes larger then SA) and the stuff that is going on there has some chilling resemblences to Cuba in the late 50s. We'll see how that turns out.
And oh yea - Sarandon and the Hollywood-left can suck my ass dry. Imbeciles the lot of them.
G
Many years ago Sarandon was in a movie called The Hunger. In that movie she had a... very interesting scene with a hot blonde.
Movies like that don't have anything to do with politics. But it was a mighty uplifting scene ;)
Pics can be seen here:
http://www.rockymusic.org/nudes/susan-sarandon/
That was one hell of a broadside. You know ... it would have been so much better if intolerant wasn't mispelled. Kinda reminds me of this word I heard the other day:
Reintarnation - Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
This just in:
Anti-War Ads Rejected During Bush Speech
By JOHN CURRAN
Associated Press Writer
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) -- The Comcast cable television company rejected ads that an anti-war group wanted to air during President Bush's State of the Union speech, saying they included unsubstantiated claims.
Peace Action Education Fund had spent $5,000 to have six 30-second ads aired on CNN by Philadelphia-based Comcast beginning Tuesday night. During his speech, Bush was expected to reiterate his case for war.
The ads were to be broadcast in the Washington, D.C., area. But Comcast's legal department notified the group Tuesday morning that the ads would not air.
"Comcast runs advertisements from many sources representing a wide range of viewpoints, pro and con," Comcast spokesman Mitchell Schmale said in a statement issued Tuesday evening. "However, we must decline to run any spot that fails to substantiate certain claims or charges. In our view, this spot raises such questions."
The statement did not specify what Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, objected to.
Advertisement
The ads show citizens expressing opposition to war with Iraq and were to run twice on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights.
The idea was to reach Congress members, Cabinet members and other Washington decision makers, said the Rev. Robert Moore, executive director of the 2,000-member peace group, which is based in Princeton.
"This is an outrageous infringement on our First Amendment rights, in the center of our democracy, Washington, D.C.," he said.
These celebrities just harm themselves, while doing little to help their cause. Like the Democratic Party generally, they only complain about what shouldn't be done, with no ideas about what should be done. They only make themselves more irrelevant with each passing day.
I smell a lawsuit.
Also:
http://www.shockwave-inc.com/GWjackass.jpg
Not to forget:
Bush, or Chimp?
What is this in reference to?Quote:
Originally posted by [AK]Abaddon
That was one hell of a broadside. You know ... it would have been so much better if intolerant wasn't mispelled.
It was in reference to the graphic with Altman, Sarandon and Baldwin. "Intolerant" is misspelled in that art. It sucks to be an editor. :-P
Heh, it was so grainy and poorly done I didn't even read it...
I don't think there will be a lawsuit. Except during election time, I do not think that the "equal time" doctrine can be enforced (And I think they might have even done away with that).
Media can decide what they will and will not print or broadcast. Anyone who doesn't like it can buy their own radio station/newspaper/TV station. Lord knows ... before Fox, it was rare to hear a conservative (or even unbiased) viewpoint among the outpouring of liberal spin on CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC.
I never claimed the 'right' were great spellers... I think Quayle proved that! LOLQuote:
Originally posted by [AK]Abaddon
It was in reference to the graphic with Altman, Sarandon and Baldwin. "Intolerant" is misspelled in that art. It sucks to be an editor. :-P
More from ol' meatball eyes.
http://www.ananova.com/entertainment...sm_744681.html
Not an argument here or anything but just an observation.
I have seen on this board and others where "conservatives" complain about a Liberal Media. I have seen and heard most "liberals" complain about a Conservative Media. And they all point to the same news organizations... CNN, MSNBC, Etc... Fox is hardly mentioned since it is more sensationalizm than news (get upset if you will but that is what I have seen).
It seems to me that if BOTH sides are claiming that the media is biased to the other then the media is probably doing an OK job at remaining in the middle. Either that or they aren't reporting anything.
Just my observations, trying to look at things without the paranoid world view.
Newspapers and the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN) have long been considered liberal. There is nothing conservative about any of them.
Conservatives have made great strides in the area of radio (Rush, Hannity, etc) and now more recently, Fox News.
I don't think it's any coincidence that Fox News is now the highest rated news network.
The liberals aren't too happy about this, and have become quite vocal (listen to Tom Daschel whine about conservative radio...LOL funny.)
For years the Dems enjoyed media coverage slanted in their favor, but that monopoly is clearly over.
How is FOX News any more sensational than CNN or MSNBC? I see more effort to deliver balanced coverage from FOX News than from any other cable TV outlet, bar none. In fact, FOX News is the only mainstream news source that even tries to be unbiased, in my opinion.
If you don't believe that the media in America tilts to the left, do yourself a favor and read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.
Geraldo as a war correspondant in Afganistan?
Rush is all showmanship and all the little debate programs are nothing more than yelling matches.
Again we run into a problem of opinions here. I can see that opinions are just that, and I knew my statement about Fox would garner replies because some people just buy into the whole show.
I don't. /shrug
It all smacks of propganda and I care little for it. Think for yourselves instead of what the Limbaugh's of the world tell you to think. I think most news is out to gather eyes to watch the adds to make the money. I think they are biased to whatever viewpoint they think will give them the dollar. You can think whatever you want, don't bother me none. I have more belief in greed being the primary motivator of the media than politics.
If you want more proof that, by and large, America has grown tired of liberal propaganda and hypocrisy (as if the landslide in the midterm elections isn't proof enough), just look at right-wing conservative talk show host Michael Savage's new book, The Savage Nation. It's #1 on the NY Times bestseller list and the 15th bestselling item on Amazon.com (it was #1 for a time, and I saw it at #5 a couple weeks ago). Sean Hannity, another conservative talk show host, is now at #79 with Let Freedom Ring. In contrast, Al and Tipper Gore's new book, Joined at the Heart (gag) is currently ranked at 10,087 on Amazon, while Joseph Lieberman's book An Amazing Adventure is soaring at 8,462. The sales ranks speak for themselves; America is fed up with the New Democrat®. We're done with the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi (who made me want to puke last night), and the rest of the New Democrats®. All they do is attack and criticize the policies of the Bush administration while failing to come up with any alternatives of their own. They're old, tired, and out of ideas.
I'll give you the Geraldo point, Wid. He's an overly flamboyant, unprofessional blowhard.