Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Critics of 'Durham' duo off base (EBERT ALERT)
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 20, 2003 | ROGER EBERT

Posted on 04/20/2003 9:29:37 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

Q. The 15th anniversary celebration of the film "Bull Durham" was canceled by the Baseball Hall of Fame because actors in that film have recently exercised some freedom of speech. Haven't actors learned from the McCarthy era that actors, writers (i.e., people who have the public's attention) don't have the same rights as citizens and are still subject to blacklisting, or don't they care?

Manuel Sutton, Chula Vista, Calif.

A. Celebrities who speak out politically are made into targets as a way of discouraging dissent. I have not heard a single thing Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, the stars of "Bull Durham," have said about the war, but I have heard countless attacks on them for saying it. When you attack the messenger instead of the message, you are essentially saying, "Since you disagree with me, shut up." This is profoundly anti-American.

e-mail Roger Ebert at answerman@suntimes.com

(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS:
It's truly amazing how these fat-ass liberals believe that only they have the right to freedom of speech.
1 posted on 04/20/2003 9:29:37 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Not just freedom of speech. Freedom of speech without responsibility. And freedom of assembly without invitation. In other words, they can shove their company down your throat, whether you want it or not. I'd love to see whatever copy of the Constitution they've got. Sure doesn't bear any resemblance to mine...
2 posted on 04/20/2003 9:33:07 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Celebrities who speak out politically are made into targets as a way of discouraging dissent.

Only if they say really evil stuff. Of course, the left has tried to crush conservative actors for decades.
3 posted on 04/20/2003 9:33:49 AM PDT by gitmo ("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Now that I think about it, their interpretation of freedom of assembly could have some interesting consequences...Anyone want to crash some parties?
4 posted on 04/20/2003 9:35:22 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Ahhh...another Hollyweirdo pretending to be something he's not - an informed political commentator.

Hey fatass film critic: Why don't you watch some frenchie films and then do us all a favor and then go sh** in your hat.

5 posted on 04/20/2003 9:35:46 AM PDT by FlJoePa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
...Haven't actors learned from the McCarthy era that actors, writers (i.e., people who have the public's attention) don't have the same rights as citizens and are still subject to blacklisting, or don't they care? ...

They have the same rights, but since their CUSTOMERS, the American people, don't agree with them, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Repeatedly.

See, If my customers were anti-war, it would be quite bad for business to run around yelling at them about how stupid they were.

Since I don't work and have no customers, I can say what I want.
6 posted on 04/20/2003 9:36:13 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Hey Hollywierd! The customer is always right!
7 posted on 04/20/2003 9:36:54 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Have I read this right? He's calling people who disagree with Sarandon and Robbins "Anti-American"? Gee, it sure sounds like Ebert is trying to discourage dissent in this country. My dissent, that is...
8 posted on 04/20/2003 9:37:24 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Robbins and Sarandon are a couple of prize idiots.
9 posted on 04/20/2003 9:39:14 AM PDT by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Question for the movie critic Ebert (not the free speech advocate, etc, that he now aspires to be). The movie "Bull Durham" is "R" rated because of language and sexual content. The Hall of Fame is visited by many children, albeit with parents. But, how many of those parents would want their children exposed to the content of "Bull Durham" once they knew the content. Or, are you, as a movie critic unconcerned about the rating system as long as there is an agenda at play that you just happen to agree with. Somehow, your gratuitous comment that you have not heard a single thing that Sarandon and Robbins have said about the war is just not believable. Do you not read? Do you not watch TV? Do you not keep informed about the events of our times? Oh, excuse me, you do admit to hearing the countless attacks against them. So, I guess you hear and see only what you want to hear and see. Ah, such an ostrich-like attitude.
10 posted on 04/20/2003 9:54:03 AM PDT by Pharlap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I had an e-mail war with Roger after he wrote a nasty little column about one of the Bush daughters not being properly dressed for a visit with the Queen of England.

(he must have missed some of Chelsea's errors)

Anyway, his facts were wrong on that one too. She was not wearing jeans as he reported.

It was amazing to me how he kept on answering me back, arguing and arguing. Guess he doesn't have much else to do.

I understand he has some serious illness so I guess I should be charitable.

Naaaah.

The sad thing is he is a really good movie reviewer if you take his prejudices into account, but he doesn't have a clue about real life.
11 posted on 04/20/2003 9:58:22 AM PDT by altura (I am so sick of these whiney liberals. Shut up!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Mc Carthy was right-Ebert is wrong. Hate to be critical Roger, but you are full of --it!

This isn't about free speech, it's about the air headed entertainers wanting to force the rest of us to listen to their diatribes and give them a stage to spout it from.
12 posted on 04/20/2003 10:10:07 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Hollywoodites! Let them eat cheese cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Hollywood type that make ad hominum attacks against the President are taking it in the shorts. I know several actors that are against the war, who discuss the issue intelligently, though I disagree with most of what they say I do not have a visceral reaction to just seeing their faces.

I do not consider mental lightweights such as Robbins and Serandon mentally capable of forming their own opinions so they must be dupes spouting the vitriol of their Hate-Bush Masters.

13 posted on 04/20/2003 10:11:07 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Soddom has left the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Bump.
14 posted on 04/20/2003 10:13:43 AM PDT by tuna_battle_slight_return
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Just wrote them this:

Dear Chicago Sun Time Editors:

Referring to Tim Robbins' "Bull Durham" troubles, a reader wrote to Roger Ebert: "Haven't actors learned from the McCarthy era that actors, writers (i.e., people who have the public's attention) don't have the same rights as citizens and are still subject to blacklisting...."

Mr. Eberts wrote back, "Celebrities who speak out politically are made into targets as a way of discouraging dissent....This is profoundly anti-American."

Please inform Mr. Ebert that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to freely say what they please, but not an immunity from the consequences.

Furthermore, I worked 35 years in the Hollywood film industry as a union technician, with multiple feature film screen credits. One of them was even in Chicago, "About Last Night" (Sexual Perversity in Chicago), with Rob Lowe, Jim Belushi, and Demi Moore. What "ivory tower Ebert" doesn't know about the industry from the safety of his personal screening room is that Hollywood has practiced blacklisting for decades.

All production film jobs originate with an invitation by phone from a production manager, an informal hire. The first time you might meet the person who hired you could be the first day you arrive on the set. Your reputation precedes you. And it's clearly understood that if you're politically conservative and want to work, you don't talk about your politics, especially in the presence of untitled royalty like Robbins and Sarandon. If you do, you will definitely not be invited back to work again in the future. Is that not blacklisting? Of course it is.

There's only one word for whiners like Robbins and Sarandon: hypocrites. I've been there.

Sincerely,



15 posted on 04/20/2003 10:15:17 AM PDT by Coyote (the opposite of RIGHT is NOT left....it's WRONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
 
Mr. Ebert
 
You liberals have the right to dissent against the war.
 
I have the right to hold you and them accountable...thru my nonpurchase of their products/services or entertainment access to my personal media receptors; AND THIS IS PROFOUNDLY THE AMERICAN WAY!  Celebrities are ONLY ACTORS, no longer are they opinion-makers! For that matter, they NEVER DID INFLUENCE ME.
 
These liberals don't have a right to my dollars unless I willingly decide to permit them access through my purchase of their work. I will continue to pass on those who denigrate our Country and our President. 
 
I have only one recourse since I don't have the public media to speak out to...afterall they don't want to hear it. My recourse is NOT TO BUY THEIR WORK PRODUCT OR TO SUPPORT ADVERTISERS WHO INSIST ON BACKING THEM ALL THE WAY.
 
If you are talking about a blacklist...look to your own brothers and sisters! How many Hollywood conservatives are now and previously denied work because of their political views?
 
I would lay odds that this is a factor in more than 80% of such cases...AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Why don't you fess up to this dirty little secret?
 
-----------
XXX KS

You wrote: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert20.html

Celebrities who speak out politically are made into targets as a way of discouraging dissent. I have not heard a single thing Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, the stars of "Bull Durham," have said about the war, but I have heard countless attacks on them for saying it. When you attack the messenger instead of the message, you are essentially saying, "Since you disagree with me, shut up." This is profoundly anti-American.

e-mail Roger Ebert at answerman@suntimes.com


16 posted on 04/20/2003 10:24:22 AM PDT by Wolverine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
They are still raising the spectre of McCarthyism? What was this McCarthyism, exactly? Senator Joe McCarthy, then a good friend of John and Bobby Kennedy, did a little snooping around in the corridors of power that had been occupied by New Deal Democrats for some twenty years or so, and was astonished to learn that many of them had ties to Stalinist USSR. Not merely to Communism, in itself bad enough, but the genocidal, bloodthirsty, meglomanical Joe Stalin variety, with gulags, firing squads, and secret police, hauling people away for real or imagined "crimes against the state", in a most capricious way, and with no recourse. And of these many, there were those in high enough position to cripple and limit the ability of the US to confront the only real enemy it had in the world in 1950. Joe McCarthy may have made some excessive statements, but he had some very good intelligence on the range and depth of penetration that had occurred in the State Department, the Department of Defense, and at many other government and non-government organizations. When he wheeled around and took a shot at Hollywood for being the propaganda machine, not of the America in which they lived, but of the Soviet Union, he helped develop the list of the persons of questionable allegiance, and enough good valid information on their ties to spy organizations was made available so many of those people lost influence, and in fact some of them went to trial. Not for spying, but for ducking behind the Fifth Amendment, and showing contempt of Congress. But there was little heart for prosecution of spies, after the Rosenbergs, and the course of investigation was smothered, along with the full-fledged persecution of Joe McCarthy. Years later, when the files of the KGB became available in the West, Joe McCarthy's thesis was vindicated, that the US government and many enterprises had been deeply compromised by Communist "sleepers" who had been put in place in the early 1930's.
17 posted on 04/20/2003 10:29:05 AM PDT by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
It isn't even that they're liberal and anti-war that irks me so much as the snooty, arrogant tone of moral superiority in which they speak. I now choose not to financially support their work not for their views in of themselves, but because they chose to seek me out and call me a moronic idiot for my views.
18 posted on 04/20/2003 10:38:16 AM PDT by Welsh Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Roger Ebert was separated at birth from Michael Moore. He is a vain, condescending pseudo-intellectual who only rose to prominence because of the good nature of the late Gene Siskel. Since Siskel's death, Ebert has morphed into a Hollywood shill, and I find very little about his "reviews" either insightful or enjoyable.

Pick up an old New Yorker and read Pauline Kael's reviews if you want to appreciate talent in this area. You won't find it in evidence with Ebert.

19 posted on 04/20/2003 10:40:01 AM PDT by Zebra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I agree, these hollywood libs want to voice their opinions on us, but if we diagree and voice our opinions they call us names. When the baseball hall of fame used their right to cancel the invitation to tim, he got right on tv and said he didn't know the bb hall of fame was republican. I think he should have accepted the cancelation and went on with life. But now he has a lot people talking about him in this way. some say any publicity is good publicity. I don't agree.......Memphis patriot
20 posted on 04/20/2003 11:48:40 AM PDT by Memphis Patriot (Don't foget Hanoi Jane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are ferocious enemies of Free Speech.

They were leaders in the successful shut down of the Dr. Laura TV program, as well as this little excerpt gem from the archives.

The Gulag Glitterati

The spectacle of Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. Source: NRO Weekend, Thanksgiving 2000 By Andrew Stuttaford

Poor, poor Elizabeth Hurley. ... Gulag glitterati Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, may not be so gentle. The English actress, they say, has done them wrong, and she must be punished. Severely. Her offense dates back to July when she shot a commercial for Estee Lauder. Hurley claims that she was unaware that such filming would be treated as crossing a picket line by her union, SAG, the Screen Actors Guild. Indeed, being based in the U.K., she just "did not know" that the union was on strike.

Whatever the explanation, SAGtivist Susan Sarandon was outraged. As for Tim Robbins, her long-time partner, well, he seems to have been channeling Stalin's prosecutor, the late, and much-missed, Andrei Vyshinsky. "We are bringing Hurley to trial," he foamed, "She will not get away with it." Note that "we." As Mr. Robbins, a prominent supporter of the strike, well knows, his comments are likely to resonate with those union officials responsible for deciding the former fembot's fate. The consequences of a "guilty" verdict could be serious. The equally influential Ms. Sarandon has supported calls for a lifetime ban on "scab" actors. If the case goes against Ms. Hurley she may never work in Hollywood again.

This is not a problem that is likely to face her tormentors. The spectacle of two successful stars threatening to destroy the career of a fellow actor, would, you might think, at least raise a flicker of concern or a murmur of protest, but it has not. No one is even asking what it is about Ms Hurley that has so enraged Mr. Robbins. After all, she is not the highest profile performer to have crossed the picket lines. ... Criticizing Elizabeth Hurley, a foreigner, was one thing. Telling the popular athletes, people of Color after all, where they could or could not work, might have been altogether more awkward.

Awkward questions are not something that Robbins and Sarandon have often had to face. This is despite a history of political activism that has lasted decades and in Robbins's case, even stretches as far back as a "progressive" childhood during which a tiny Tim would occasionally perform on stage with his father, a Greenwich Village folk singer. Susan Sarandon began more conventionally (arrested in Vietnam War protests, worked in a Nicaraguan hospital during the Sandinista dictatorship and so on), but she has now developed a red repertoire equal to that of the great left-wing divas of Hollywood's past. ...

But that has not stopped our heroine, supported more often than not by Tim Robbins. The couple's causes are many, misguided, and multiplying. It is not difficult to find some recent examples. If Sarandon and Robbins prevail, Hurley is not going to "get away with it," but cop-killer Mumia just might. They are hard on Giuliani, and soft on Saddam (they opposed the Gulf War in 1990, and they oppose the Iraq trade embargo now).

However, the Iraqi chamber of commerce should not expect too much business from an America run by these silver-screen dunces: both actors are, of course, anti-free trade and pro-Nader.

There's more. Ms. Sarandon is against sugar, white flour, and dairy products for her kids and against you having a gun to defend yours. Private Ryan, she feels, was a bad thing ("basically tells you if you want to be a guy you now have to kill at point-blank range"), and Dr. Laura is worse. On immigration policy, however, matters are a little confused. Robbins and Sarandon campaigned for the admission to the U.S. of refugees (HIV positive Haitians) from one Caribbean hellhole, while supporting the return of Elian Gonzalez to another.

21 posted on 04/20/2003 12:08:20 PM PDT by friendly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
Bump. Might get a kick from my letter to the editors, post #15.


22 posted on 04/20/2003 1:35:38 PM PDT by Coyote (the opposite of RIGHT is NOT left....it's WRONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Here is my email to ebert:

Mr. Ebert:

Referencing your Q&A session whereby a gentleman asked the question "Haven't actors learned from the McCarthy era that actors, writers (i.e., people who have the public's attention) don't have the same rights as citizens and are still subject to blacklisting, or don't they care?"

Your answer is as follows: "Celebrities who speak out politically are made into targets as a way of discouraging dissent. I have not heard a single thing Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, the stars of "Bull Durham," have said about the war, but I have heard countless attacks on them for saying it. When you attack the messenger instead of the message, you are essentially saying, "Since you disagree with me, shut up." This is profoundly anti-American."

First of all, celebrities like Robbins, Sarandon, Streisand, Baldwin, and others need the public more than the public needs them. Secondly, these celebrities, on an average, are not intellectuals nor formally educated. The only reason these people have celebrity status is because of the amount of dollars paid to see them perform. Lest you forget, there are many talented actors waiting in the wings to replace these "celebrities" at any given time.

Celebrities when speaking in public on issues of a political nature have a greater responsibility than the average Jane or John Q. Public on the street. What they say when given a platform carries more influence, and these celebrities have various medium available to them than does the average citizen.

These celebrities are never denied the opportunity to speak their mind in whatever medium they can access. However, whenever the general populace disagrees with these celebrities, as a unified voice, the public will turn these celebrities off. That's not against the Constitution whatever you may think. The celebrities' civil liberties are still in tact. They are are never told to "shut up", but we, the people, we the Americans, will turn them off instead. That's the best message that the people can send to these celebrities whose Marxist ideas are not wanted nor desired.

Thank you.

23 posted on 04/20/2003 2:24:49 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Got my message returned as undeliverable. Is there a problem with the email address answerman@suntimes.com that makes message undeliverable?
24 posted on 04/20/2003 2:28:13 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
This is the same guy who gives 4 stars to every Oliver Stone movie there is and gave 2 stars to Oh Brother Where Art Thou.

The above equation makes for ZERO credibility.
25 posted on 04/20/2003 2:31:02 PM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Another fat, puss-filled, moron liberal.
26 posted on 04/20/2003 2:54:14 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Not just freedom of speech. Freedom of speech without responsibility. And freedom of assembly without invitation. In other words, they can shove their company down your throat, whether you want it or not.

Exactly....and Robbin's whiney rant the other day showed just how nauseatingly arrogant and self absorbed most of these Hollywood flakes really are.

27 posted on 04/20/2003 3:08:22 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: altura
I e-mailed him a few times and received answers once or twice but nothing for about two years - I think I'm now on his instant delete list.
28 posted on 04/20/2003 3:13:58 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
This link has Ebert's comments about e-mail problems and "rules":

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/email.html
29 posted on 04/20/2003 3:21:36 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Got my message returned as undeliverable. Is there a problem with the email address answerman@suntimes.com that makes message undeliverable?

Same here. Maybe he shuts down his mail box whenever he thinks he's being Freeped?

Maybe we should redirect his letters to the editor.

30 posted on 04/20/2003 3:28:20 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Do you have an email address? I'm willing to forward my email to ebert's editor.
31 posted on 04/20/2003 4:10:17 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Here's the Sun-Times letter to the editor address:

letters@suntimes.com
32 posted on 04/20/2003 4:17:41 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
I used the address you listed. Since my email wasn't in the form of a general question but a rebuttal, I doubt he'll even see it or respond to it. Thanks for listing the post.
33 posted on 04/20/2003 4:20:04 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Thanks for the address. I emailed the same letter to the editor.
34 posted on 04/20/2003 4:22:49 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
My email to "The Answer Man":

Why is it that you and your leftist Hollywood elite friends like Tim Robbins insist on your right to free speech while characterizing the counter free speech of others as an "attack"? Have you or Robbins ever actually read the First Amendment? Do you not realize how hypocritically ridiculous you look complaining about other people giving entertainers they don't appreciate a "thumbs down"?

35 posted on 04/20/2003 5:14:19 PM PDT by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
No doubt. I've been passed over for being mouthy for a host of reasons. You're rep does proceed you but I think it's more of a below the line thing. Above the line they used to be immune. If it's true now for them, then it took a long time.

I worked with Ron Shelton (dir. Bull Durham) on Tin Cup. The guy was a great boss. 12 hour days, good caterer, great sense of humor, weekends off (on location), free green fees (golf movie), gag reel dailies on Friday after a kegger and hot food, no attitude from him and the actors knew they couldn't front.

I popped Bull Durham in the other day. I had no problem suspending disbelief. It still makes me laugh.

Check your flags, I hailed you to something I wrote.

36 posted on 04/20/2003 8:28:35 PM PDT by nunya bidness (caspera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
Check your flags, I hailed you to something I wrote.

Yes I got that piece on historic warfare and civilian targets. It's very good. I printed it and passed it onto a friend of mine. We're keeping it for a point of historic reference.

Here's one I wrote recently, if you're interested, challenging the Hollywood anti-American mentality. (Got a new pseudonym.)

http://intellectualconservative.com/article2218.html

BTW, Tin Cup sounds like a pretty good picture to have been on. I'm recently divorced and almost out of money. Can't stop the honkey tonk cowboy life long enough to drift on back to Hollywood. I'm going to have to make up my mind soon.


37 posted on 04/20/2003 11:32:45 PM PDT by Coyote (the opposite of RIGHT is NOT left....it's WRONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
Cool. I'll check out the site. I'll have to try and figure out the roots of the nom de plume.

You got divorced after giving up long days with big pay? Sounds familiar. So many guys I know would come back from location only to be told by their wives that they needed to go back to work.

If you've got to bank hours I can understand, and even if you need the money. My old roommate just moved to Palm Springs and is making the commute. But he's doing spots so he's insulated.

I don't miss the suits or the hours but I do miss all the good hammers I used to work with. The stuff we did and got away with could fill a book. And everyone would talk about the day they were going to get out. Right after the house, the ski boat, the RV, etc.

I'm glad I bailed when I did.

Stay in touch or give me a heads up if you're going to fade again.

38 posted on 04/21/2003 10:29:17 PM PDT by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
E-mail to Roger

RE: Poor Susie and Timmy

Hey Roger;

Why are you speaking up now? Why were you silent all these years while conservative actors and actresses were AFRAID to say they were conservative for FEAR of NOT WORKING?

That is the real BLACKLISTING STORY.

Everyone knows thats true, so your noble words ring hollow.

Americans are excercising OUR freedoms to BUY whatever the heck we want. Be it a ticket to a movie, a CD, or by telling organizations that HIRE actors to ADVERTISE THEIR PRODUCTS that we don't appreciate them hiring people who have such an anti-American stand. We can, and will speak up if we feel a need to.

We felt the need.

We have stood UNITED. We made a difference. Just average Joe Blow Americans. If you don't like that.. you can soon join the ranks of those who deem their opinions of higher value than ours. We are sick of the pious attitudes of Hollywood types. We love this country, far more than we love "make believe". You sir, need a "reality" check.

REDACTED Names
REDACTED CITY
39 posted on 04/21/2003 10:43:13 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife ("CNN - WE report WHEN WE decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
BUMPING your post #15!!!

I've been talking about this for days. You just added a ton of credit to the real "blacklisting, McCarthism" that is taking place in Hollywood.

You know of it firsthand,..and you said it so well.

Thanks Coyote!! Well said!!

FRegards, Vets

40 posted on 04/21/2003 10:56:59 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife ("CNN - WE report WHEN WE decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
bump
41 posted on 04/21/2003 10:59:47 PM PDT by nutmeg (USA... Land of the Free - Thanks to the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyote
BTW,.. since you mentioned your "cowboy" ways... I thought you might enjoy this.

:o)

Off to bed. FRegards, Vets
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They call my President a "cowboy."

It used to tick me off when the Muslim detractors in the Middle East, or the socialist detractors in Europe, Hollywood and others called our President a cowboy, but the more I think about it, the more glad I am that he is.

When I was a kid, cowboys were our heroes. Well, I mean the ones in the white hats, not the black hats. There was Hopalong Cassidy, Red Ryder, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, then later Marshall Matt Dillon and others. Personally, I think Roy Rogers could beat 'em all up, and then sing a song afterward to his girlfriend (or his horse Trigger). He was my favorite.

What were common attributes of these legendary cowboys? Here are a few:

1. They were never looking for trouble. 2. But when it came, they faced it with courage. 3. They were always on the side of right. 4. They defended good people against bad people. 5. They had high morals. 6. They had good manners. 7. They were honest. 8. They spoke their minds and they spoke the truth, regardless of what people thought or "political correctness," which no one had ever heard of back then. 9. They were a beacon of integrity in the wild, West. 10. They were respected. When they walked into a saloon (where they usually drank only sarsaparilla), the place became quiet, and the bad guys kept their distance. 11. If they got in a gunfight, they made sure they could outdraw anyone because they did what it took to prepare for the worst. If in a fist-fight, they could beat up anyone. 12. They always won. They always got their man. In victory, they didn't stay around to take the credit and have the town give them a parade, they rode off into the sunset.

Those were the days when there was such a thing as right and wrong, something blurred in our modern world, and denied by many. Those were the days when women were respected and treated as ladies, because they acted like ladies.

Now as a mature adult, I still like cowboys. They represent something good -- something pure that America has been missing.

Ronald Reagan was a cowboy. I like Ronald Reagan, who was brave, positive and who gave us hope. He wore a white hat. To the consternation of his liberal critics, he had the courage to call a spade a spade and call the former Soviet Union what it was -- the evil empire.

Liberals hated Ronald Reagan. They also hate President Bush because he distinguishes between good and evil. He calls a spade and spade, and after 9/11 called evil "evil," without mincing any words, to the shock of the liberal establishment. That's what cowboys do, you know.

President Bush also told the French to "put their cards on the table" (old West talk), which they did, exposing their cowardice and greed. The Arabs are wrong. In the old West, might did not make right. Right made right.

Cowboys in white hats were always on the side of right, and that was their might. I am glad my President is a cowboy. He will get his man.

Cowboys do, you know.





42 posted on 04/21/2003 11:01:28 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife ("CNN - WE report WHEN WE decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
GREAT e-mail to Roger!
43 posted on 04/21/2003 11:04:18 PM PDT by nutmeg (USA... Land of the Free - Thanks to the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
Well thanks.. it would have been.. but it came back to me. Seems the addy is incorrect!! :o(

I wonder if anyone else experienced returned e-mail?


FRegards, Vets
44 posted on 04/22/2003 11:49:44 AM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife ("CNN - WE report WHEN WE decide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
When you attack the messenger instead of the message, you are essentially saying, "Since you disagree with me, shut up." This is profoundly anti-American.

So what does this say about Sarandon participating in an effort to get Dr. Laura's show cancelled.

It looks as if only conservatives have to follow these rules and not liberals.

Do liberals even attempt to hide their hypocrisy anymore?

45 posted on 04/22/2003 12:05:50 PM PDT by Connservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Thanks for that!

I really do love the cowboy ways, even though I actually wear a black hat, drink some, and freqent rough honkey tonks, bars, and rodeos. Just LOVE to dance with the ladies. Don't smoke, chew, or dip though! But I consider myself a gentleman, love Christ, horses, and working cattle, even though I spent a considerable part of my life on the freeways of LA in that Hollywood cycle.

BTW, if you can get your hands on last December's issue of a magazine called "Cowboys and Indians", there's a wonderful cover story about GW, with pictures of him in his cowboy look working his ranch in Crawford. He and Laura and the dog look so damn perfect on the cover, hanging out of the window of his Ford 350, it makes me so proud to call him my President.


46 posted on 04/22/2003 12:45:33 PM PDT by Coyote (the opposite of RIGHT is NOT left....it's WRONG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson