Jealousy is an ugly trait even in someone as beautiful as George Clooney. The legendary liberal and foul-mouthed Clooney took to Twitter over the weekend in, as far as I can tell, an unprovoked attack on Steve Bannon calling him a “F###ing Failed Screen Writer.†It seems that before Bannon went into politics he tried his hand at writing a Hollywood script, and failed. Wow, how embarrassing.
But why drop the F bomb on someone?
Well, you may say that Clooney is just an angry liberal who has still not gotten over Hillary losing the Presidency. That could be true, but I think there is more to it. I think Clooney is jealous that Bannon accomplished something far greater than anything Clooney has up to now. That is Bannon was instrumental in getting a President elected. Only 45, up to now men, have been elected to that office. So being involved in a winning Presidential campaign at a high level is a real feather in anyone’s cap. If you don’t believe me just ask Bob Shrum.
And isn’t that a far greater achievement than writing a Hollywood script? Or having a minor part in the 80’s sitcom “The Facts of Life� Although, if I had a chance I would ask Clooney what it was like to work with Kim Fields. For those of you that don’t remember she played the effervescent ‘Tootie’ on the show.
Clooney is an unabashed liberal that is for sure, but he is also one of the dimmest in the constellation of Hollywood stars. A reflexive liberal with the most facile of arguments at the ready. Arguments that if forced to define or defend he couldn’t.
An example, last spring he complained that an “obscene amount” of money is being spent in politics. How does he define an obscene amount? He doesn’t. The interview I witnessed was nothing more than a liberal NBC reporter asking him softballs and nodding as Clooney spoke. No real follow up was involved.
How much money is the right amount, either in terms of a dollar figure or possibly what percentage of say the GDP, should be spent on campaigns for President? Â Clooney doesn’t offer a formula to allow us to ascertain how much should be spent.
Perhaps he has adopted the Potter Stewart definition of obscenity. Stewart was a supreme court justice who said I can’t define obscenity but “I know what it is when I see it.â€
Ironically after Clooney made the complaint about an “obscene amount of money†being spent on campaigns held a $33,000 a plate fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Is paying $33,000 a plate for a dinner to help Hillary Clinton win the Presidency obscene? I would say yes, in fact if that is not obscene I don’t know what is.
The New York Yankees payroll in 2017 is estimated to be over 154 million dollars. Does George think that is an obscene amount of money to pay men to play a child’s game?
Perhaps Clooney believes that too much money in politics corrupts the system because candidates with more money have an unfair advantage.
Happily Hillary debunked that theory. Through fundraisers like Clooney’s, she tried to buy the Presidency. According to Reuters Hillary Clinton raised over $520 million for her campaign compared to only $270 million for Trump, much of which came out of his own pocket. And if you consider SuperPacs and outside groups her money advantage was even greater. And if you consider the free media she received from the adoring Washington press corps her money advantage would be something like 10 to 1.
My theory is that Clooney made the obscenity comment because he assumed that Trump would outspend Clinton. At some point he realized she had more money so he dropped the complaint.
The good news, it didn’t work. Money can only get you so far in politics. All the money in the world couldn’t get Hillary elected.
George, money in politics is not obscene, but dropping the F bomb on someone you don’t know is.
35 comments
I’ll read an article bashing the hypocritical libturds adrift in Hollyweird anytime. Pointing out the monumental feat President Trump achieved by spanking the Hildebeast machine is just icing on the cake!
By far the weakest commentator on TBE, at least as regards the featured posts.
Well, maybe you should show your acumen and superiority by writing something of a conservative nature. You claim to be one so go for it.
Claim to be conservative? I like stability, the status quo, preserving our way of life. My issues are primarily financial, not social. I feel no sense of superiority at all, nor acumen, only humility among many strong voices. I find hypocritical those who would claim a conservative mantle and yet upend so much of our society with wild proposals that seek to change the fundamental character of the world we’ve built over many decades.
Well, then you should advocate for your beliefs not hide in the shadows of a commentator. Expose yourself and take the heat.
I expose myself with every post. You? Do you practice what you preach? No, of course not.
Oh, I absolutely do. Have written for blogs, news organizations, and given radio lectures.
Me too.
radio lectures? sounds riveting!!! I can’t image anything more boring than spending an hour listening to only you talk. Maybe you could try a radio show where you discuss topics instead of simply talking at people?
I’ll let you know who I am;
I am unskilled labor , with a Va. public school education.
I do not hide in shadows. I express myself, expose my views, take the heat.
Can you give us an example, so we know what you mean? What conservatives have made crazy proposals that would upend our way of life and fundamentally change the world?
Sure. Foreign policy is a good example. Many would rewrite the course of international relations in ways that upend the steady course crafted over many decades. Trump, for example, has in the past advocated a defacto withdrawal from US involvement where the world has come to depend upon it.
You said a conservative, which Trump is not. Do you have a conservative example? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but without an example, I’m not sure I get your point.
Well, I find that a bit disingenuous because detaching Trump from conservatism is in fact my point, which you concede immediately. I could cite, too, the rise of the individual and civil rights, which include freedom from govt intrusion as advocated by Rand Paul and others. We’ve made steady progress towards these goals over many years, but Sessions and others have threatened that progress. Ally this with freedom to worship as now challenged by attacks on particular religions. All of this challenges truly conservative doctrine, which properly warns against big govt and the rise of the state against the individual.
I agree that government is too intrusive in our lives. However, while those intrusions come from both political persuaions, they more often occur from those on the left. Take the current campus craze of wanting schools to disallow any speech with which they disagree – conservative speech. There is a movement among the left to eliminate the first amendment. And of course, it is the left that would like to eliminate the second amendment as well. While these aren’t government actions, at least not yet, the left wants them to be.
Conservatives aren’t immune from similar thought, but there are far more examples on the left. Trump (not a true conservative, but more right than left) is eliminating many senseless regulations, and voiding much of what Obama unlawfully did through executive orders that created new laws, in actuality.
Agreed these attacks come from all sides. The school issues are difficult primarily because it is wise to accord school administrators broad authority as regards activities within the campus environment.
Where you see the left as primarily responsible for these assaults, I see both parties responsible for them, all of which is why I subscribe to neither of them, thinking instead that candidate by candidate, election by election, is the best decision.
Neither party is fiscally responsible in any way, shape or form. The giveaways to corporate interests are as intolerable as the handouts.
On giveaways to corporations, we agree. One of the reasons I have been so opposed to Obamacare is because of the giveaways to the insurance companies. The fact that they didn’t openly discuss that made it an even bigger problem in my eyes. There was much about that law that they were not upfront about. They tax some people on Medicare – up to 100%. I pay a tax equal to my medicare premium, in order to help pay for those who pay nothing for their insurance. The deception bothers me more than the tax. How many times did Obama say that no one who earned less than $250,000 would pay one penny more in extra taxes? He promised this every time he spoke about Obamacare, too. And yet, here I am – someone who is paying extra taxes despite earning less than $250,000.
As far as campuses go, I see 99% leftist influence with just a dab of right wing influence. These students have come to believe that free speech only applies to leftist speech. They didn’t think that up themselves, but we’re taught this by their professors. These students will be the ones running the country before too long, yet most of them envision communism as the right way to govern. They’ve been taught about the “wonderful” aspects of communism but none of the perils, so they think it’s a glorious way to govern. I find that rather disturbing. They are unlikely to learn about the pitfalls of communism at this point in their lives, except through trial and error. I have to admit, I’m glad I’m in the later stage of life, for the future doesn’t shine brightly.
So,yes, giveaways are wrong. Neither party is fiscally responsible. I find it ironic that the democrats now insist that not one extra dollar be added to the deficit. Curiously, under the last administration, they insisted that the deficit didn’t matter at all.
Health insurance is naturally a difficult issue, to my mind almost indistinguishable from disaster relief, but with greater statistical probability and precision. In other words, we know better how often maladies will strike population groups. A hurricane to one person is cancer to another. We will inherently seek to lay these costs off to groups larger than those afflicted.
As far as campuses go, it depends upon the campus. Some have more left influence, others more right, fortunately none compulsory to attend.
The parties and their rhetoric are indistinguishable from one another, and there is marketing reason for that. Why leave space in-between if you are marketing for money? The corporate tax breaks/giveaways are little different than welfare programs.
Everyone comes to govt seeking rent, all on display on TV every day over the past few weeks of disaster relief. Seemingly everyone believes in big govt when they are ready to collect on their flood relief or social security, and why not?
Natural disasters cannot be predicted, and may not happen in a lifetime. Your health is very different and far more personal. It is also determined in part by how well you care for yourself, while an individual plays no role in where a hurricane hits. Of course, even those who take the best of care of themselves can be struck with illness anyway. I am one of them.
So let’s go back to the part you left unanswered.
Health insurance has been designed to spread the cost of an expensive illness around. I have no issue at all with paying for my own health insurance, but I am being forced to pay for others to have insurance, even after being promised by the previous president that such a thing would not happen.
I pay for my own insurance, plus the parts not covered by insurance since my disease is an expensive one. On top of that I pay for someone else’s insurance, too. I’m wondering how that constitutes “spreading the cost around.”. It seems to me that I’m paying more than my fair share. I expect to pay for my premiums, and for the remainder that insurance doesn’t cover which is a sizeable amount. But that probably totals five times what the average person pays – perhaps more – without even including paying for my neighbor’s premium, on top of my own expenses.
If we are really sharing the costs, while I pay someone else’s premiums, why isn’t someone healthy paying for part of the amount not covered by my insurance? That is just as reasonable as forcing me to pay someone else’s premiums on top of my own extensive medical costs. If we are sharing medical costs, let’s share all of them. Right?
Insurance is inherently actuarial. We are always paying for others. It is the nature of a fortuity.
Life’s fortunes are increasingly actuarial. Even oil prices are collared with markets, “Losers” paying for “Winners” on a regular basis, effectively socializing costs.
Against the Gods, The Remarkable Story of Risk is a terrific book. Addressing risk has evolved over a long period of time into a huge business, the original sharing economy.
how about the proposal for the gov’t to be the one to determine who we can love and marry?
There’s never been a restriction on who you can love, even though there was on who you could marry. But the law allowing gay marriage is not a good example of Mac’s theory. It wasn’t the restriction that upended our way of life. It was eliminating the restriction that undid hundreds of years of tradition. Exactly the opposite of Mac’s point.
I was thinking of mix race relationships – so, your prove my point.
You can substitute “mixed race” for “gay” in what I wrote, and my argument still holds up. Allowing mixed race marriage, although clearly the right thing to do, did undo hundreds of years of tradition, much like gay marriage did. The point wasn’t whether the changes were right or wrong – but you seem to have missed the point completely.
oh Goengo, you silly kid. Think back – way back. Conservative racists, like the current TBE posters, are the ones who upended the way of life of so many back when they first outlawed mixed race relationships and other atrocities. See, your problem is that you have accepted that as normal so your perspective is that recent changes are the problem, not the original oppression. But then again, you and YOURS learn from Alex Jones, FOX, and Trump
As I have noticed in your comments with others, when you have no argument, you fall back on name-calling and childish insults. And of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is suddenly a racist – a pathetic attempt to put your opponent on the defensive. I only debate people who are mature enough to debate respectfully, so our conversation has ended – permanently.
Stick to the facts – you wrote “What conservatives have made crazy proposals that would upend our way of life and fundamentally change the world?” I suggested that conservatives are the one who first outlawed mixed race relationships. You asked for an example and I gave you one. I suggest that the reason you thought I was talking about the repeal of laws like this and not their creation is the same issue that TBE poster have – they are the ones who have oppressing minorities, gays, non-christians, etc. You apparently do not like what I post but you have never refuted it with logic or facts.
Its best just to ignore the political ramblings of actors, directors, athletes, millionaire authors, etc.
These individuals don’t live in the real world and can’t relate in any way to the cares and concerns of normal people.
wait, your issue here is that Clooney dropped the F-bomb? Grow up.
Hollywood superstar George Clooney is reportedly going to move his family back to the United States amid a myriad of terrorist activity in England.
Clooney, who is pro-refugee, currently lives in England with his wife Amal and newborn twins Ella and Alexander. According to a report from Life and Style Magazine, Clooney and his family are making the move over increased security concerns in the United Kingdom.
“He doesn’t feel like Amal and the twins are safe living in the English countryside,†a source told Life and Style. “He’s determined to move his family to LA, where he feels much more secure.â€
“He’s waited so long for this family,†the Clooney “insider†explained. “He’ll do whatever it takes to keep them safe.â€
——————————————-
Yes, pro-refugee until he sees the handwriting on the wall. Nothing like muslims running amok throughout the English countryside. But George, LA is safer? What hollywood nutter gave you that idea?
LA is safer. Terrain is helpful — natural barriers with stunning views — but most important is that it is a company town. Hollywood runs LA, and it’s the source of Clooney’s revenue.
I buy your last sentence. However, it would be nice if you could provide proof via facts.
I lived and worked there for a time, so I write from direct experience. That Hollywood is the source of Clooney’s revenue is self-evident — he is in the movie business.
Looney tooney Clooney,
Madonna, Ashley Judd, Angenia Jolie, and President trump should combine forces and financially adopt this 800,000 foreign childeren.
They can clean up the caca.