Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eastwood is not really a Trump backer. He simply said that he does not support the Obama agenda and that Hillary promises to continue that....so he is not supporting Hillary.
Are you liberal snowflakes really OK with attacking anybody with a different political outlook? I did a book review on the left wing Thought Police. The left wing preaches tolerance when it is, in fact, the least tolerant group imaginable.
Should Hollywood denounce Eastwood for speaking his mind? The gist of Eastwoods comments are:
1) He is not supporting Hillary. Are you surprised? Eastwood is a known conservative living in a land of liberalism.
3) He denounced our current, popular mind set as being the mind set of "*******". I just call them delicate little snowflakes....more politically correct I guess.
For an individual no....but history is littered with group-think oppression throughout the arts, sciences etc.
Maybe moral is the wrong word but unless the person is advocating something like genocide etc. then I think it gets into a grey area if it becomes an actual movement.
Let me give an example.
1) Bob doesn't shop at Pete's flower shop because Pete is gay. Now I don't agree with Bob but it's his right to do so. I think we can all agree on that.
2) Bob organizes a boycott of Pete's flower shop and ALSO pressures people that do shop there with coercion, threat of being included in the boycott, yelling at customer from across the street as they enter and such tactics.
I personally think #2 takes things too far and at some point impinges on Pete's pursuit of happiness. However, this tactic is used by various groups from anti-abortion protesters to Chick-fil-a protesters etc.
This is the type if tactic that could be used on a Hollywood actor. Not the refusing to work with them but the pressure put on people who do. That starts to become a blacklisting conspiracy.
People have the right to protest, but there are still restrictions and boundaries they cannot legally cross. Threatening employees and customers with violence or committing violence is amongst these restrictions which if violated could lead to them being arrested.
As far as blacklisting, it would be one of those things that will be hard to actually prove if it did happen. But it most likely will not. Almost all of us will forget about Eastwood's comments in a year.
Show me in the post where I would be a "weak-minded follower". You haven't shown anything. My post being all you need, that isn't enough. Until you can prove your point by showing me, then you are proving yourself to be weak-minded. I will explain. You call me a weak-minded follower for a post I made. I asked for you to prove it. Your response was "your post is all the proof needed". Where in the post? You did not show me. By your failure to show me, it lets me know that you can't show me. Not backing up your statement with some action means you only react to something that you disagree with. You have only proven that you disagree in a petulant way.
Whether you agree with Mr. Eastwood's remarks or not, you must realize that this is not a freedom of speech issue. The First Amendment applies only to governmental actions regarding speech, not private industry.
Wrong. It's not a First Amendment issue, but it certainly is a free speech issue.
Perhaps you should spend some time reading about Roman Polanski's youth and young adulthood before you condemn him for not following your personal code of conduct. And the term is statutory rape, not just 'rape'.
No, it's not -- it's "rape". "Statutory rape" is real rape, to begin with, but it would have been rape even if the girl had been 18 or 21. He drugged the girl.
I was shocked at everything he said. Sad having been a fan. However, I do believe that those who feel strongly should back their words up by not working for him again. By the same token I don't think it is right to have everyone campaign to make him pay for speaking his truth. Now that I know who he really is he won't get my money if I am aware he is behind a project. Everyone has the right to deal with the madness of others the way they see fit. I don't pay others bills so I won't judge if they grumble in silence while still indulging in what will bring them fame and fortune.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
