Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Sure - there may be a few.
Holleywood is a generalization.

What the smurf do most hollywooders drive to the screenings?

I can give a few examples of 6,000 year old earth conservative christians who are gay and proud of it (one of them is actually quite a decent scholar on the Book of Daniel) - yet it is not incorrect to say that conservative chrstians believe homosexuallity is wrong - the generalization is true.

It is also true that Holleywood is extremely liberal - yet doesn't live what they preach, and that is the point I am getting at.

I guess it is the fact that they are liberal that causes your blindness.

So now we see what your purpose is (not that it wasn't obvious): a cudgel to club Hollywood. Do you REALLY think that people would make such a significant purchase based upon what Tom Cruise drives up in at a movie premiere?

BTW: you've moved the goalposts again ("again" meaning here at MAF, not just in this thread). Remember:

resedit wrote:

[snip]
But don't only buy they - drive them. Drive them everywhere, be seen in them.
Start a trend that will actually help this country.
[snip]

Compare that to:

"resedit wrote:

[snip]
What the smurf do most hollywooders drive to the screenings?
[snip]

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2006-05-06 8:41 pm)

resedit wrote:

Sure - there may be a few.
Holleywood is a generalization.

What the smurf do most hollywooders drive to the screenings?

I can give a few examples of 6,000 year old earth conservative christians who are gay and proud of it (one of them is actually quite a decent scholar on the Book of Daniel) - yet it is not incorrect to say that conservative chrstians believe homosexuallity is wrong - the generalization is true.

It is also true that Holleywood is extremely liberal - yet doesn't live what they preach, and that is the point I am getting at.

I guess it is the fact that they are liberal that causes your blindness.

Wow, why are you so worked up about this?

How is Hollywood "extremely" liberal ?

Some DO live what they preach...the aforementioned Hybrids were driving by the movie stars themselves to movie premieres, for the EXACT purpose of offering free advertising for hybrid cars.  Rather than the limo.

I think that many of the VERY outspoken "Hollywood" people do pratice what they preach.  Maybe not for ever hour of their life, but pretty often.

Plus, they're celebrities.  Who cares if they're hypocrites ?

Last edited by JakeTheTall (2006-05-06 9:41 pm)

So now we see what your purpose is (not that it wasn't obvious): a cudgel to club Hollywood. Do you REALLY think that people would make such a significant purchase based upon what Tom Cruise drives up in at a movie premiere?

Yes.
Not just Tom Cruise though.

Holleywood sets the trends. The trends they currently set are self indulgance.
They talk one way and act another.

This board was all up in arms over Rush and his "hypocrisy" - so why not on the other side of the political fence as well?

I don't know if you are aware of this - but actors are given free stuff all the time - everything from shoes to ipods to expensive hand bags. Why? Marketers understand - if people see them using it, they will want them.

People watch hollywood and what hollywood does.
It's a great opportunity for hollywood to show the country that a little flash in exchange for dependence on foreign oil is not a good thing. It's a great opportunity for holleywood to show that you don't need oversized vehicles to navigate city streets.

But they don't. Instead - they push the idea that what kind of car you drive is a measure of success - who cares if it is a gas guzzler, that doesn't matter. But they don't. Not for the most part. They bitch about our politicians, cry "war for oil", and then push products that are part of the problem.

Do you not have a problem with that?

http://www.lacar.com/modules.php?name=N … mp;sid=541 has a bunch of good data that is behind the NYTimes paywall.  but the short answer is that liberals buy small economically efficient cars and conservatives buy the gas guzzlers.  Now of course it could be that Hollywood liberals control the minds of only the red staters, but that doesn't seem likely.

and the best result of the article

Volunteers counted more than 1,300 bumper stickers in a half dozen states from September 20th to October 31st, 2004, and came up with results (www.laze.net/bumpers) that roughly corroborate the much larger market-research surveys. The Political Bumpers spotters, who recorded bumper stickers in favor of or against any of the candidates in the 2004 election, found that the drivers of pickup trucks and large SUVs were overwhelmingly right-leaning. But the leader of the project, Ryan MacMichael, said his biggest surprise was the pronounced Democratic skew of bumper stickers on economy cars (71 percent were left-leaning) and station wagons (67 percent).

Driving gas guzzlers is a conservative deal, not a liberal one.

resedit wrote:

This board was all up in arms over Rush and his "hypocrisy" - so why not on the other side of the political fence as well?

The fact that you've failed to name anyone specific (after repeated requests) is very telling.

I just this minute opened the May issue of Elle Magazine and there is an article, "Her Lightbulb Moment" which says that Laurie David, (wife of Larry David), in an effort to raise awareness on the SUV/Global Warming connection, convinced her husband to drive a Prius on the show, "Curb Your Enthusiasm".

But when you are in a position where people idolize you, you can influence popular thought.

Which brings me back to the purpose of this post.

If you are going to use that power of stardome position to push your political agenda (no one would give these people the time of day were they not stars), then you have the responsibility to act upon your political agenda.

If you don't want to get involved in politics and don't spout your rhetoric - then I don't expect you to live a certain way.

As I said - in the original post:

Start a trend that will actually help this country.

If you don't - stay out of politics.

Thank you for playing.

it was a flawed notion to begin with res.

when ever you cannot see an assertion like "hollywood sets the trends" as a huge generalization, then any statements you make based on that assertion are doomed.

in most cases you'll need to provide clear evidence to support such an assertion.

as far as i know, (and no, i will not provide supporting evidence ) soccer moms drive suvs because they can get a better view of the road, are safer in street speed accidents involving car vs. suv scenarios, can fit more junk in 'em...
not because bust'a nut drove one to the academy awards ceremony, or tiffany starlet was seen driving one in the parking lot at safeway to buy avocados and q-tips.

Last edited by [MA] Flying_Meat (2006-05-07 2:03 pm)

resedit wrote:

If you are going to use that power of stardome position to push your political agenda (no one would give these people the time of day were they not stars), then you have the responsibility to act upon your political agenda.

Shouldn't then your limit be on stars who just push environmentalism while driving gas guzzlers, or peta activists who eat meat, etc.  But if some stars are involved with peta while others eat meat, its really strange to call Hollywood hypocritical.

But at least now we know that we can accuse christians of being hypocritical even if no individual christian is hypocritical.

jondaris wrote:

You know, if you want to talk about hypocrisy then let's talk about this.

That's priceless. I'm not sure if I should or .

resedit wrote:

But when you are in a position where people idolize you, you can influence popular thought.

Pop stars are in the position they are precisely because people idolize them. Like I said, thats the problem from the start, because otherwise they are just ordinary people doing a job. Your position is as influenced as the people who are swooning before Hollywood royalty, just in a negative direction.

Which brings me back to the purpose of this post.

If you are going to use that power of stardome position to push your political agenda (no one would give these people the time of day were they not stars), then you have the responsibility to act upon your political agenda.

No Res, thats your failure of an argument to me. These people arent responsible for political influence because thats not what their job is. Any clout they get beyond their own personal voice is lended from people who are more enchanted with movies than elections, not from government. Actors are only responsible for their own person, just the same as you are, or anyone else placing their faith in them.

If you don't want to get involved in politics and don't spout your rhetoric - then I don't expect you to live a certain way.

Unfortunately for you then, living as citizens in the US, actors have no obligation to live up to your expections, or those of any other pundit.

Start a trend that will actually help this country.

If you don't - stay out of politics.

Well, then I suggest you should start the focus at Washington instead of California.

Thank you for playing.

Likewise.

Last edited by StaticAge (2006-05-07 3:59 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

DId anyone buy an H2 or a Lincoln Navigator before SUVs became a Hollywood status symbol?

I blame politicians. They drive the 2 ton SUV's and all those gas guzzling fancy-smancy cars.

Just wondering: If movie stars were the ones who made SUVs popular who made 4x4s so darn popular? Things that make you go hmmmm.

People just like to "look" tough and make themselves feel dominate over others. It's a psychological thing. Being high up in a much too big vehicle with tons of power does the trick. Thats the answer. It's the small penis syndrome.

Also, I remember reading well over a year ago that Arnold's new Hummer was custom made as a hybrid.