Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, August 04, 2008
Jonathan Garthwaite :: Townhall.com Columnist
Out In Hollywood
by Jonathan Garthwaite
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


In the middle of the Summer movie season, Townhall.com sat down with author, screenwriter Andrew Klavan to discuss life in Hollywood as a conservative. Klavan’s newest novel, Empire of Lies just hit bookstores.

Jonathan Garthwaite: I see you’re an out of the closet conservative in Hollywood. How is that going for you?

Andrew Klavan: It’s cost me I think, you know. It’s hard to tell you. No one ever says to me “you’re a conservative get out,” but there’s definitely been a drop in the number of calls I’ve gotten. I’ve heard a couple of stories from agents and managers that media executives say “oh yeah I’ve heard of him, who else have you got?” It’s definitely cost me. I hope I’ve made some friends but it’s so one sided out here, it’s such a one-party town that you can’t help but get hurt.

Jonathan Garthwaite: Every citizen has a right to be active in the political process. What motivates you to be upfront with your politics in a profession where it could hurt you?

Andrew Klavan: I think that the culture is hugely important and I think we’ve lost it. I think the arts are important and we’ve lost them. I think conservatives have can be really lunkheaded about this. We constantly complain about Hollywood and complain about the arts but we never do anything about it. We understand the political process, we understand the Supreme Court, we understand economics, but we seem to have no clue when it comes to the arts. And the way I look at it - If you win the political process but lose the culture, you ultimately will lose the country.

It won’t happen right away but you can see the effect. I think the arts for the past thirty or forty years have been a wholly-owned subsidiary to the left. It’s like dripping slow poison into the country’s consciousness. I keep trying to explain this to people. It’s not the preachy left-wing anti-war pictures that are the worst, although I think those are really bad. It’s just all the underlying assumptions that are constantly in every story. You know, businesses are always the bad guys, house wives are always desperate, religious people are always bigots, soldiers are always driven crazy by war. Those things are just assumed now in the arts and I think it has over time, a terrible effect on people. It seems to me right now that we are under attack -- seriously under serious attack -- and I’m far less concerned about violent attacks than I am about the so-called soft jihad, the stuff where they eat away at our principles and at our self-confidence and depend on our self-confidence being weakened. I think the arts have a lot to do with that, so I just think it’s important. I’ve never been good at shutting up, anyway. But even if I were, I’d think this is too important to shut up now.

Jonathan Garthwaite: What’s your take on Hollywood and Obama? Is this the perfect Hollywood casting job -- all special effects and no plot?

Andrew Klavan: It’s a pure act of show business and pop culture, You see that [Obama] standing on stage with 200,000 Germans chanting his name and you think “What has he done? What has he ever done?” Name an act of political courage he’s that committed, name an act of personal courage, name an act of personal achievement other than getting into Harvard. And you can’t. He’s purely an icon. You know, people keep saying “Obama’s a rockstar!” and I keep thinking “Yeah, he makes a lot of meaningless noise and people cheer.” That’s what he is. Obama is the very reason why we have to take back the culture because he’s pure imagery.

Jonathan Garthwaite: Even though McCain in the past couple days has taken to likening [Obama] to Paris Hilton, David Hasselhoff and Britney Spears, might it simply endear him more to those that are wrapped up in his buzz right now?

Andrew Klavan: This kind of thing happens every now in again. People that come along and catch the imagination of people without really having the substance to back it up. The only question is, Will people wake up for November? You know, Americans always come to their senses, but the question is when?

Jonathan Garthwaite: I saw the other day you had comments on the new Batman movie. A number of social conservatives have critiqued it strongly, calling it too dark, violent, or simply psychotic. Other conservatives point to a strong good vs. evil theme in the movie. Where do you fall in that debate?

Andrew Klavan: I set off a bit of firestorm with my editorial about this because I compared Batman to Bush because Batman was fighting against terrorism and his working with surveillance and most importantly, giving up his popularity to keep people safe so that in the end the very people he was keeping safe hated him for it.

The other issue that you brought up about conservatives complaining that it’s too dark, too psychotic and all that -- this is a real problem, especially for artists like me who don’t write squeaky clean stuff.

Conservatives are the first people to tell you that society is imperfectable and that man is a falling creature. Put that in religious terms or not, you can say its original sin or that man is imperfectable. That’s the first rule of conservative ideology but they tend to turn their backs on works of art that actually show man as he really is. I think that as long as they do that, the left will own the arts because it leaves us nothing we can make except fantasy stories and squeaky-clean Christian stories that don’t make the argument and that don’t show the world as it really is.

And if you don’t show man as he is, you can’t show a world in which conservatism works. If society were perfectable, Marxism would be a great idea. It’s only because of human nature that we’ve developed the kinds of rules of economics and competing government powers that we have. And so you have to show that world and I think Batman exposed some of the complexities of being moral in an immoral world.

Jonathan Garthwaite: What about Oliver Stone’s new “W” film. Don’t movie makers need to consider the impact that their fiction has on and their understanding of history?

Andrew Klavan: My objection to Hollywood is not the movies that it makes, it doesn’t matter to me that Oliver Stone is working in Hollywood. He’s a beat-up guy who intends to make movies about the inside of his imagination rather than the world. But then the New York Times tends to report on the inside of its imaginations. It’s not the movies that get made, it’s the movies that don’t get made. It’s the movies in which the democratic politician is the bad guy, it’s the movies in which the liberal idea fails. It’s true in novels, too, by the way. It’s true in the publishing world, too. It’s not a question of silencing them or taking away from them the sole right to determine what works of art are important, which ones get made. We have to stop being the complaining guys if we’re just being critical. We have to start being the creative people and making the works that people go to see.

Jonathan Garthwaite: Your latest book just came out?

Andrew Klavan: It’s a thriller in which the bias of the media is like a character. It’s a story about a conservative Christian guy from the Midwest who has to return to the scenes of his kind of degraded past in New York. And while he is looking for the same girl there, he begins to unravel an Islamofascist conspiracy. And the problem is that he’s so surrounded, gets so sunk in the bias of media that he begins to doubt his own sanity, so it becomes a race against time about where he’s trying to unravel this conspiracy. At the same time, he’s kind of delving into his troubled past and troubled mind to test his sanity, to see if he’s going nuts.

Jonathan Garthwaite: Any chance we’ll see it in the theaters in the next few years?

When it came out and people asked me if it was going to be a movie, my immediate reply was “Not in the universe.” It’s a very openly right-wing book. It’s a book about being a conservative in a world of un. I’d be shocked if it sold.

Jonathan Garthwaite: It’s okay to have 13 movies that are anti-war on terror in one year but you can’t have one?

Andrew Klavan: Not one, you just have to look at the risk. And the fact that it openly talks about Islamofascism as a bad thing and calls it by name, all those things count against it.

Jonathan Garthwaite: Thanks for joining us Andrew.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jonathan Garthwaite is the editor-in-chief of Townhall.com.

Be the first to read Jonathan Garthwaite's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Can't we get Mel Gibson and Murdock
to back this movie? There has to be money to be made from a conservative movie. The studio/TV movie makers have denied conservatives, other than Gibson, since the Clintons crashed in 1998. Ben Stein broke through on the academia expose it's about time we saturate the market.

I think Andrew Klavan sounds like
a really decent guy. I like David Mamet, too. They are not your "typical conservatives".

Which brings me to: What is the use of describing someone as "conservative", when conservative can refer to such a excessive buffet of political ideologies?: an economic philosophy, a foreign policy philosophy, a philosophy that wants to concentrate on and influence social mores in the contemporary culture...? Andrew Klavan has no problem with gay people. David Mamet has no problem with gay marriage. Yet, there they are, lumped in a general category that is labeled "conservative".

When it comes to the environment and natural resources, many conservatives don't have any wish or intention of "conserving" nature or it's bounty. The social conservatives mantra is: "Use it up! It's all from God. It's his gift to us". So many believe they have carte blanche to rape and pillage the earth.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. He is also a "conservative". Christopher Hitchens is a conservative atheist. Andrew Sullivan is a gay conservative writer who recently married his same-sex partner. Jerry Falwell is a deceased holy-rolling conservative evangelical who would personally condemn Andrew Sullivan (and maybe even David Mamet and Ron Paul and Christopher Hitchens) to eternal hellfire and damnation.

Are all these folks equally "conservative"? It seems too unwieldy a word to encompass such a plethora, such a cornucopia of divergent beliefs.


People like will
will never understand what "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" means. (Luke 11:23)

Nor will they ever understand what they themselves have been robbed of.

I'm with Will
I used to regard myself as a conservative. Until I came to this site.

If to be "with" these people (eg No Talent, Anna, Anne, thebigtwit, dreadnaught, truetolife, anderson459, anominus, you know who they are), then I'm just going to be among the scatterers.

Where, oh where!, is the party that will allow me the freedom to organize my morals as I see fit, and who will allow me the freedom to spend my own money?

Gandalf is a case in point.
What use would true conservatives of 40 or 50 years ago have with people whose only tenuous connection to a conservative party rested on an ability to randomly quote scripture?

There is some wacky columnist here at TH making a case for Jesus personally supporting a war on terror. I wonder if Jesus feels that Barack Obama is playing the race card or if John McCain is playing the race card in recent days?


Some of you social cons have no problem turning your Jesus into a partisan political hack like Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin who would immediately demonize opposition merely for the sake of garnering temporary political points. Doesn't that REDUCE the idea of your Jesus? Is this really the road you guys all want to travel down?

Mellor
Believe me, I might seriously consider party reaffiliation if the conservative party weren't being completely taken over and gutted by Jesus freaks.


Diversity in political parties, a "big tent" theory, is a great thing. The art of argument and persuasion is a fine thing also (I love words; I love ideas; I read Plato's Dialogues because of this).

But, for staunch social cons, there is no "argument" or alternative viewpoints. There is only "The Way". It, necessarily, begins and ends with the "good book". It is the equivalent of being taken over by thousands of rabid little dictators.

No, MellorSJ
No one said anything about being with "these people".

The Word
They are all convinced that by quoting scripture they have (a) said something meaningful (see Gandalf's "contribution" for a case in point), and (b) that settles the argument.

That they each have different interpretations is not relevant. The very fact that you are an unbeliever/gay/liberal/tattooed/you name it means that you are "other" and the full wrath of their god will rain down upon you, if not now then when you die. Some of them simply lie (anderson459 is good at this) or fly into rages full of hate (No Talent is an expert in this area.) The rest just pull their passive-aggressive "we're just here to warn you of the error of your ways" bs.

A despicable bunch. As I said, I think I'll "scatter." Damn shame. Voting for a democrat will cost us dear. But then so has Bush...

You declare yourself to be with
"these people" as soon as we see verse numbers.

MellorSJ
Yes, and rather than discuss it with me, you'd rather just dismiss it as meaningless.

Yes, the falut always lies with us, doesn't it?

Correction
make that "fault"

MellorSJ
"Subject: You declare yourself to be with
"these people" as soon as we see verse numbers."

Yes, and all Blacks are criminals, all Italians are Mafia, all Columbians are drug runners, all Arabs are Muslims.

MellorSJ
The verse numbers were for identification of the quote for those who might be unfamiliar with its pedigree.

Sorry if your reasoning process instantaneously censors it. Don't blame that on me.

What's to discuss?
Eh, Gandalf?

MellorSJ
Its relevance to the article perhaps?

Just a thought.

Let's review, shall we?
You wrote: "People like will will never understand what "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" means. (Luke 11:23)"

Sounds like a generalization to me.

Sounds like "If you're not with me, you're against me" to me.

Sounds like the fact that a verse number is quoted is intended to add weight to this mere aphorism in the minds of the gullible.



Once again..
"People like Will"



It's the nature of art
(Great posts, especially will. The term "conservative movemement" takes on whole new meaning, resembling a bunch of mice that scatter in all directions when an owl approaches. Meanwhile, back to the topic...)

The reason artists tend to be more liberal than the general public is that artistic expression often involves challenging the status quo, challenging the establishment. Idealism, aspiring for a better future. Think Star Trek.


Gene Roddenbery explicitly
created Star Trek without any reference to religion. Several episodes cast "gods" as mere technological wizards, mostly cruel, which should sound familiar.

Later episodes, after Roddenberry left the program, did, unfortunately, take on a theistic tone for some episodes.

BULLSEYE!!!
Re: Obama

"...he’s pure imagery."

That he is, a media creation and nothing more.

tgsam


Hollywood
Art? Hollywood! Try trash.

An American Carol
I can’t believe some of the posts on here. No, the conservative movement is not ALL religious fanatics seeking to replace government with some kind of religious cabal. In fact, not even a small percentage of the people in the movement seek this.

As for the true subject of this article a good movie coming up this fall just in time for the election is David Zuckerman’s “An American Carol”. This movie makes fun of our good buddy Michael Moore and his host of lies as well as liberal Hollywood in general.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/015/385rlkfy.asp?pg=1


It amazes me
.... how so many of these responses have nothing to do with the original topic. Literary freedom exists in this country and we should be grateful for that. However, the political left that controls the purse strings in the entertainment industry won't allow certain right wing conservative works of art to be financially viable. That's a shame as well as wrong.

There is a movie being made right now that mocks the left bias and it's Holywood champion, the fat **** from "Bowling for Columbine," that is written, financed, and performed by some well known actors/writers. It's about time that conservatives in the arts/media come out of the closet.

Read what happened to Jon Voight
Folks,
read this excellent article on what happened to Jon Voight once he wrote an op ed against B. Hussein Obama:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/04/blacklist-n ow-ii-enemy-of-the-state/

Truly scary how close this Elmer Gantry of a politician is coming to win this election. John McCain better start listening to Karl Rove and Dick Morris if we are to have a chance to stop this Marxist Socialist from attaining the White House.

As a libertarian leaning conservative
who has a natural aversion to all the do-gooder busybodies (liberals and religious zealots alike), I don't see any dichotomous disconnect between those republicans who think like me and the christian conservatives - at least in terms of federal legislative priorities.

My primary desires are for smaller, less intrusive and less powerful government, and greater emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility.

I believe most christian conservatives would support that general agenda.

And even though I don't necessarily trust the motives of those that preach the loudest from the pulpit of any religion, I have no problem with -- and even admire -- many of the right-to-life true believers (even though I would personally leave abortion laws up to each state to decide), or the defense of marriage crowd.

After all, traditional marriage and families are the cornerstone of a healthy society. Even many gays understand that basic truth.

Gays are already free to have "marriage" ceremonies, adopt children, and live openly without fear of government reprisal. Why isn't that good enough?

Wait a minute...
Is "Andrew Klavan" the tool who wrote that obnoxious editorial in the WSJ last weekend, not only endorsing, but cheering, "end justifies the means" morality in "Batman?"
Read the interview above, and you'll see Klavan is part of the same Hollywood problem he attacks. The world is seen as a dark, twisted, perverted place, and the ultimate winner is simply the meanest SOB. Klavan doesn't even try to pretend that this protagonist is moral -- just less immoral than the "bad guys."
"Conservative artists" whose views of the world consist of Steven Segal movies and "24" scripts are just as destructive and cynical as the rest of Hollywood.

Mellorsj2
"I used to regard myself as a conservative. Until I came to this site."

Hear hear!

It looks like...
...too many of you folks posting here prefer the "turd is art" concept. Most of your posts are not relevant to the article anyhow. Has anyone a mason jar to urinate in?

Will
Have you ever thought about not bringing your homosexuality up in every post? I am a conservative Christian and I have been a friend with a male gay couple. I never had to say anything about their behavior because they NEVER did anything "in your face". They didn't even announce it out loud but we all knew it. Tolerance works both ways. Why can't you respect my belief that homosexuality is wrong...Just like cohabitating. Living with someone without marriage is just as bad. Don’t let any hypocrites tell you otherwise. I have friends that are in sinful relationships and they are no different to me that homosexual couples. You need to accept who you are and you need to accept that we do not accept your sin. Then we will get along and we can share our views and opinions without getting off track.

Mr.Klavan
If Conservatives understand Economics.How did America get into $13,000,000,000,000.00 of debt?I can see your qualifications for movie making;You are an expert in make believe?

I am boycotting Hollywod movies
Even though I am a devoted movie fan, I will not go see any movie that stars Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, et all. I did not see any of the 'we're evil' movies about Iraq like Rendition and Stop Loss. In WWII, Hollywood make upbeat patriotic movies. Now that is all gone. I went to see The Family Stone, thinking it would be an entertaining Christmas movies, only to find out that the shrewish mother, played by Keaton, screamed at her guest at the dinner table for daring to criticize homosexuals, because her son is a deaf homosexual with a black boyfried (can we be more emotionally manipulative?) Her husband, an academic, just sat there like a Stone. By the end of the movie, Sarah Jessica Parker, who, as a successful business executive is shown to be an uptight bi*** who can't even drive a car, is sleeping with her fiance's brother, so she can let her "freak flag fly". And the family approves of this behavior. Sickening.
When Hollywood stops making money on this schlock, they will get a clue. Until then, they cover the lack of revenue with the pretense of artiness. Notice that none of the winners of best actor awards this year were Americans, and most of the public had never seen any of the movies nominated. How long can Hollywood continue in this vein? It better wake up and smell the coffee.

MellorSJ
Well, at least this time, you got the quote correct.

killer
I believe all of your liberal friends in the congress voted for all those spending bills too. Now run along and drink some more kool-ade.

re Boycotting movies
Ayn Rand,
Right on the money. That's exactly what I do now. I don't even rent the DVD's although I wanted to rent Rendition, I did not. Syriana is another political piece of crap I would include in your list of America-bashing movies from that left wing loon George Clooney. I don't understand what is wrong with people who make millions and millions of dollars by the Grace of God living in this wonderful country, who do NOTHING but bash it, and demean it and I include all the owners of Dreamworks (all Jewish, and liberal)in that category.


Gwyneth Paltrow films ad for Barack Obam
Gwyneth Paltrow films ad for Barack Obama
Gwyneth Paltrow has urged fellow Americans living abroad to vote for Barack Obama in a new advertisement.

from Today's UK Telegraph!

MellorSJ2
So, you say that you regarded yourself as a conservative until you came to TownHall? If after visiting this site you decide to part company with your "fellow conservatives" here at TownHall, well, gosh golly darn, I can't tell you how much that will break my heart. Nor those of so many others who post here on TH as well.

Since you're an admitted homosexual, I'd severely question the genuineness of whatever "conservatism" you'd thought you had, right off the bat. Apparently, you have chosen to ignore, or have been unable to figure out, the fact that many true conservatives tend to be God-fearing people - and God ANYTHING seems to distress you, and especially anything to do with Jesus Christ. I'll let you in on something that will probably be shocking to you, so please try to maintain consciousness after you read this: many conservatives don't hold the state to be the Supreme Being in the universe because they believe in ANOTHER Supreme Being, and also believe that man actually IS fallible, so therefore conservatives tend not to have the same blind faith in the ominipotence and infallibility of government that non-conservatives do.

Oh, by the way, and we've had this discussion before, and I know you'll ignore this point again, because we all know you have absolutely no way to counter it: the worst blood-letting governments this earth has ever seen were run by people who no more believed in God than you do. Funny how the absence of "religion" didn't make governments run by atheists more humane than those run by non-atheists, did it?

Well, if you decide to depart TownHall once and for all, don't let the door hit you on your backsite on your way out! Wish I could say you'll be missed - but only by the likes of Will, ModMark, Sophie, Robert/Hal D., impeachbush, etc. Certainly not by your "fellow conservatives". Toodle-oo!

Vic, Ayn Randfan
Vic, Thank you SO MUCH for including the link to the "Weekly Standard" article on David Zucker's (not Zuckerman)new film, "An American Carol" -- which opens in OCTOBER. I hope people that are waffling on what it means to be on the Left, go to see this film.
Ayn Randfan -- Go to see this film. I am proud to say that David Zucker is originally from my area, and I have been a proud fan of his from the "Airplane" days. I became prouder when I saw his anti-Kerry ad in 2004. This movie, "An American Carol" is important, because it takes on most of the establishment in Hollywood, which is nearly all Leftists, with the exception of David Z. and friends.

Mom in Wisconsin

Back on topic
I suspect Mr. Klavan is a devout Roman Catholic, sincere but misguided in his prescription.

Mel Gibson's example should have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of even the best of films and subject matter at changing the hearts of a nation.

No, what is needed is national repentance; not good theater. More entertainment, no matter how elevated the subject matter is merely feeding the beast.


mellor, will, and RW
If you believe to have been treated rudely on Townhall, how about a little wager? I challenge any one of you to pick a thread off of a left-wing website (Kos, Huffpost, etc.). Any topic is fine except evolution (which I strongly believe in).

I'll politely but firmly assert the conservative viewpoint on the subject. We'll compare their responses to your treatment here. I've already challenged that coward Gestell, but he refused. Are any of you interested?

What I hope to prove is the left's extreme intolerance for varying viewpoints. Here on Townhall, the "gas all the Mexicans, procreation not recreation" moron is the exception among reasonable rational folks. Unfortunately you guys define the Conservative movement by unusual antics rather than the fair-minded posters like myself who would prefer an honest debate.

Must Read This one
Folks, rightmindedmom referred to 'An American Carol' here is the link to that story. It is an absolute MUST read if you are concerned about the Hollywood left. This is a possible conservative breakthrough:


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/015/385rlkfy.asp?pg=2

Maximillian
The problem, Max, is that you have too little company, and the "morons" too much latitude. Here's a challenge to you -- for the next week, every time you encounter a post that uses the word "puke" or "vomit" (as in "oh yea, you commiequeerpukeface!") flag it as offensive.
Being "used rudely" is not the issue (at the end of the day, online flame wars injure no one). Rather, it's the "conservative dissuasion effect." People of general conservative views visit, and soon find themselves wondering "wow, do I really want to share a conservative label with that mouth breather?"
I must say that Town Hall is FAR better than Free Republic, but that's not saying much. Never having visited Kos, I'm not able to judge the Dark Side.

gardis
Thanks for the link, very informative.

I look forward to watching this movie.

Rightmindedmom
LOL, I should apologize to Zucker for getting his name mixed up with the liberal idiot from Newsweek.

RW
I already flag some of the worst offenders regardless of political affiliation. Racism and vulgarity are unacceptable in the realm of public discourse. As bad as some of the fringe right wingers get, they never stoop to the lows of mdogg, impeachbush, or killer.

You're right that the illogical extremists can alienate moderates. On the other hand, rational conservatives have the responsibility to keep perspective when faced with idiocy. Some of the "mouth breathers" are leftist plants, others are the inevitable consequence of free speech. On occasion, a seemingly fringe position actually contains some logical reasoning that should, indeed, warrant consideration.

In the end, human beings, by nature, notice only the worst individuals meanwhile ignoring the greatness of others. Try to avoid this, as will I.

swing vote
I saw a trailer for the movie "Swing Vote" recently. Does anyone know if this is any good? I seldom like Kevin Costner, but Kelsey Grammar is great. I don't know if this has been released yet, but would love to read some feedback.

Maximilian
I guess I'm a little more tolerant even of the most vulgar leftist posts than many. I've never flagged as offensive any post I've read on this site, no matter how tasteless. Simply because my belief is that I'd like everyone to be able to see, in all its uncensored glory, the thought processes and ethos and incivility of the leftist posters who come onto this site with an "I'm-better-than-you" chip on their shoulders. I've been personally attacked by numerous leftist posters on this site - and to me, it's a badge of honor.

When I started posting on this site and it quickly became apparent that the stock in trade of many of the liberals who post here is insults, smears, and ad hominem attacks, I can't say I was surprised; the political left doesn't even TRY to provide credible evidence for its worldview anymore, because it can't, so instead of attracting support by making the case for its OWN views, the left tries to draw support by demonizing its opponents - and therefore sidesteps a serious debate on the issues. The only support for reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is on the left; given the fact that liberals ALREADY has a stranglehold on almost all of the media, you wonder why they so fear the little competition that conservatives have been able to put up in the media, such as Fox Broadcasting and talk radio. And it goes back to what I said: they can't REBUT, so the left is trying to flat-out SILENCE. And as the last 100 years of world history has shown, the political left has an obsession with silencing its challengers or would-be challengers - and will stop at nothing to do so, mass murder included.

Mellonshoe
All is a word, that means without exception.The Congressional Record does not reflect your assessment.Mr. Obama is one voter that I know was not included.Use the overkill on those you know and love.Not me,please..Thanks, buddy!!!

How come conservatives are so...
How come conservatives are so inept in the waging the culture wars they created? Mr. Klavan laments Hollywood leftism, but what I've noticed is that big money conservatives (and don't tell me you folks are ignorant of their existence!) have not put their money where their collective mouths are. They have not set up studios and production companies dedicated to making conservative movies. Instead, conservatives would rather just whine about the Hollywood establishment.

If you folks really believed in the free market, there would be right-wing movie-makers putting their products out there, looking for an audience. Why doesn't Mel Gibson stop indulging his fascination with blood and torture, and crank out a movie version of Mr. Klavan's new novel, for instance?

I'm convinced that there really is, or could be, a big fan base for right-wing movies. My guess is that the conservatives who could afford to bankroll such movies lack the courage of their own convictions. And the conservative intellectuals would rather just complain.

Maximillian
Thanks for good insights. I do find, though, that most political sights of a particular slant develop a blindness to the excesses of those who agree with them. For example, I dislike the politics of MDogg, but he's not half as offensive as some of the regulars from the Right side here (Georgetwn, SSGT, Anne, and many more). For example, in the outrage here over the Supreme Court's Boudienne (sic) decision a couple of months ago, poster Vic was making death threats against SC justices.

RW
Still posting your lies I see. I challanged you then to prove it and you never did.

Gestell
For once, I agree with you. I've long urged Conservatives to contribute to the languishing artistic fields. I also boycott the far-left movies (anymore, moderate liberal actors are more rare than conservatives). Both options sure beat complaining.

See, don't you feel better coming to this forum to make a point rather than trash talk? It's much more meaningful and cogent.

RW
Not to worry, Vic clashes with me quite a bit too. Especially when I criticize Barrbie and the Libertine Party.

Standshisground
That's a very reasonable point. Well taken.

Should we not flag the right-wing haters, though. They really make us look bad.

Maximilian
Does your post suggest, that the level of "Desperation" amongst McCain supporters, is so high, that they are relying on a movie for victory.I may have to "Change" my vote,just out of a sense of obligation.Damn...

killer
Which post do you reference? I don't remember using the word "Desperation", why do you put it in quotes? How could anything I've written cause you to infer that we are "relying on a movie for victory".

Perhaps you are merely employing the same logic liberals use for economics.

Dear Killer
Your previous post regarding the responsibility of the national debt had nothing to do with the article we are mentioning but your rather partial view needed to be addressed. There is enough blame to go around for the mosterous budget and I blame my supposedly conservative congressmen and women for much of it. Now your response to my post regarding national debt seems to be about my use of the word "all." Try to stay focused "buddy."

Putting our Money where Mouth Is
@Gestell:
It isn't the case where conservatives are afraid to put their money where their mouth is, as you put it. It's the case where Conservatives CANNOT get their movies produced. Mel Gibson happened to have the wealth and clout to finance his "Cross" movie, remember that? No one would touch it, uber-liberal Frank Rich called it "anti-semitic" amongst other attacks. Also, actors are afraid to appear in these movies because of the blacklisting that occurs in Hollywood. So how can this be overcome? But they sure as hell are not afriad to appear in movies that are dear to liberals (i.e., Bareback Mountain). It will take a few very brave people like David Zucker (An American Carol)who don't have to worry about blacklists because they've made it on their own, to pave the way for us. Certainly, our hero is Roger Ailes, a legend in his time for what he did at Fox.

In that same vein, the only way to start influencing the liberal media is to get a group of wealthy entrepreneurs to BUY into (stock)a company, like the New York Times. If we could buy enough stock to influence the Board, that would be an achievement. But the Sulzbergers have it engineered that no one can do that because of the stock class they created.

@ killer
No, we are not desperate. We are sickened by left wing, America bashing, Bush hating LIBERALS (like yourself, for example) constantly stabbing this country in the back with left wing movies (a la Michael Moore) and we want to do something about it. Making a movie like An American Carol is a start, albeit a small one, that could never presume to swing an election, like Dan Rather and Mary Mapes tried to do in 2004 with their bogus documents about President Bush.

Out In HollyWeird
I can think of no greater incentive to vote against Obama than to have most of the Hollywood trash voting and advertising for him.

In fact,that goes for the entertainment Industry ,as a whole. Very few in either are people I would want to emulate.

Maximilian
Although there ARE undeniably a few right-wing haters who post here, I've discovered them to be such an insignificant part of the conservative community that posts here that I guess I don't even tend to notice their screeds amidst all the submissions of other conservatives who actually come here with something of substance to say and can make their points without engaging in the vitriol and ad hominem attacks that are the stock in trade of so many of the leftists who post here. As you yourself said in your 12:35 pm post, as bad as a few of the right-wing fringers who post here get, even THEY don't seem to plumb the depths as some of the leftist posters you named.

Yes, I know, some liberal posters to TH in specific, most notably Hal Donahue, get some pretty, say we say, SPIRITED responses from some of the conservatives who post here, but I've noticed that even in such posts, the posters usually direct their fire at the poster they're specifically responding to rather than make their posts a blanket attack on a broader population. Most of Hal's and Robert's more virulent critics on this site are military veterans themselves whose revulsion toward these particular posters specifically is understandable - especially when in Robert's case, there is good reason to believe he's flat-out lying about what he REALLY is.

Yep, I keep my mouth shut about politics
when I work in Hollywood.

Or Is There Another Answer
Perhaps there is something different going on here.

Perhaps there are actually a lot more conservative movies being made than one might gather from this article. For example, here are the top grossing films for each of hte last 18 years. I do not see a single "leftist" movie in the bunch,

1990
Home Alone

1991
Terminator 2: Judgment Day

1992
Aladdin

1993
Jurassic Park

1994
Forrest Gump

1995
Toy Story

1996
Independence Day

1997
Titanic

1998
Saving Private Ryan

1999
Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace

2000
How the Grinch Stole Christmas

2001
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

2002
Spider-Man

2003
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2004
Shrek 2

2005
Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith

2006
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2007
Spider-Man 3

2008
The Dark Knight


While you are in the theater
watching conservative movies, the NEA is corrupting your children's ability to recognize virtue, Congress is spending thoer inheritance, and the Islamists have other plans for them. Just to name a few of the problems.


Maximillian
Yes, Gardis is right about conservatives making movies (for instance, the beginnings of pro-life group Operation Rescue could make a fantastic, inspiring film). But it's not just film. TV, music, the arts, general popular culture... all are missing strong conservative voices. Also, there is depressingly little variety. Look at the main columnists on TownHall -- a great number, but they all seem to sound alike, and echo each other's talking points back to each other.

Oh, and BTW... do you know of any long-term archive of TownHall postings that's researchable? During the Boudienne decision fracas, Vic definitely did make a death threat against the majority justices (I think it was in the George Will column), but I don't know how to track it.


Maximilian
I am going to go "Slow".What is the name of the movie?The name of the movie is "Swing Vote".Who is the symbol of that Swing Vote.It is Kevin Costner.By referencing the movie, you beg the question;Are they this desperate?If you don't want to appear desperate,you might "Broach" the question of movies differently.Just a thought...

Conservative movie?
Maybe Andrew Klavan can write a movie about the weasly corrupt senator Ted Stevens, and we can view our hero selling out his party for plenty of lucrative personal gain.

The film can also focus on the mid-to-late '90's with Newt Gingrich fighting mightily to have Bill Clinton impeached. One of Newt's many affairs can contrapuntally be highlighted as Newt spear-heads his charge for family values and decency in american life.

killer
When did I use "Broach" in any of my postings? You can't ascribe direct quotes to those who have not uttered them. Perhaps I need to explain this more slowly. Would it help if I repeated this fact several times?

It's also my understanding that Costner is pretty liberal (correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt he is trying to become the GOP's white knight. Honestly, I was just curious if "Swing Vote" was a good movie or just more liberal trash.

McCain doesn't need a movie to help his campaign. Obama is helping him quite effectively. I'm going to apologize to John Kerry for all of the flip-flopper taunts. He's, by today's standards, the Democratic party's most principled member!

Maximillian and RW
"If you believe to have been treated rudely on Townhall,"

Let me stop you right there. I don't believe anything of the sort.

"What I hope to prove is the left's extreme intolerance for varying viewpoints. "

Why bother? We know--at least from your experiment--that it's true.

"Here on Townhall, the "gas all the Mexicans, procreation not recreation" moron is the exception among reasonable rational folks."

Clearly, we are reading different threads. Look at No Talent's heartwarming wishes for my future. Or almost any of SSGT's posts. Or Anne. Or Anderson459. Or truetilife and dreadnaught (who are of the passive aggressive sort, but no less insane.)

RW responded: " Rather, it's the "conservative dissuasion effect." People of general conservative views visit, and soon find themselves wondering "wow, do I really want to share a conservative label with that mouth breather?""

You got it.


killer, you almost had me fooled
While I appreciate your good intentions, posing as a complete idiot in order to make liberals look even more stupid is an underhanded technique. You're caught. Argue your Conservative beliefs honorably!

Gestell and gardis
Gestell reasonably asks: "If you folks really believed in the free market, there would be right-wing movie-makers putting their products out there, looking for an audience. Why doesn't Mel Gibson stop indulging his fascination with blood and torture, and crank out a movie version of Mr. Klavan's new novel, for instance?"

And gardis replies: "It isn't the case where conservatives are afraid to put their money where their mouth is, as you put it. It's the case where Conservatives CANNOT get their movies produced."

Evidence for this assertion?

"Mel Gibson happened to have the wealth and clout to finance his "Cross" movie, remember that?"

Um....that's how you make a movie in Hollywood (or anywhere else), gardis: Wealth and clout.

What are you proposing as an alternative? That we force moviemakers to make movies to your taste?

Vic writes
"I can’t believe some of the posts on here. No, the conservative movement is not ALL religious fanatics seeking to replace government with some kind of religious cabal. In fact, not even a small percentage of the people in the movement seek this."

No. I am a member of the "conservative movement" and I'm not a religious fanatic.

But there are lot of posters on TownHall who make religious fanatics sound reasonable.

The question I raised was: Do I wish to associate myself with such folk, even for the undoubted benefits of smaller, less intrusive government? I have reached the conclusion that I can not.


Mellor
I haven't read anything objectionable from dreadnaught, not that I'm keeping tabs. Usually the Barrbie supporters are quite a bit ruder to him. That leaves four unsavory posters on your list. Not too bad for an internet forum.

Anytime I defend McCain, I deal with as much venom from the Barrbie-ites as anyone. Just ignore them. You can always find several folks looking for a good debate.

Taking the advice of Standshisground, I take great pride in provoking the hatred of irrational deadbeats like killer. Clearly I'm doing some good with my life.

goatlockerloungelizard
"As a libertarian leaning conservative who has a natural aversion to all the do-gooder busybodies (liberals and religious zealots alike), I don't see any dichotomous disconnect between those republicans who think like me and the christian conservatives."

True, as far as it goes, but see below.

"I have no problem with -- and even admire -- many of the right-to-life true believers (even though I would personally leave abortion laws up to each state to decide), or the defense of marriage crowd.

After all, traditional marriage and families are the cornerstone of a healthy society. Even many gays understand that basic truth."

Also true etc.

"Gays are already free to have "marriage" ceremonies, adopt children, and live openly without fear of government reprisal. Why isn't that good enough?"

Because gay couples do not get social security benefits from their spouse, nor can they inherit without being taxed to death. Hospital visitation _can_ be a problem if the parents of the spouse are so-minded and the couple did not prepare adequately.

In short, it isn't "good enough" because it's not equal.

Mellor
We are not trying to force movie makers to conform to our tastes. We simply aren't going to support their uninspiring products. Sometimes it pays to know where each so-called artist stands, that's why we discuss the matter.

Fair enough?

You kinda get the feeling that
this site is disproportionately swarming with a variety of activist conservative (social cons). Most (if not all) the posters that Mellor cited are rabid Jesus Christers.

I have noticed that practically any TH thread that deals with gays and abortion (or feminists or atheists....or anti-Obama) gets hundreds of comments posted. Yet, columns dealing with the ecomony and economic theory are practically like a desert ghost town...

Certainly shows where the priorities lie here.


repies to gardis and Jack
to gardis: That's why I said that conservatives should start their own movie studios and production companies! That way, they can find actors willing to work in conservative movies and directors willing to direct them. What is it about starting competitive companies that conservatives aren't getting? This should be the first thing you guys think of, not something that a liberal has to remind you should belong to your ideology.

to Jack: Many of the movies in your list are something of a stretch to label "conservative." I don't think most movie viewers would characterize them, or most of them, as such. I noticed that many of your movies are action/scifi/fantasy. I don't think a lot of viewers see the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings movies as ideological. Maybe you can, or do, but I don't think you'd get a big vote for that perspective. Bill Pullman's president in "Independence Day" is a vaguely Clintonian figure (although he is a fighter pilot). As for "Shrek" and "Toy Store," that loses me completely.


Maximillian
You are missing the point.

"Objectionable" as in "offensive" or "rude" is not the point.

The point is that deadnaught (eg) holds views that mitigate against the equal rights of others. There is no point in arguing with him because dreadnaught's "god" told him it was so. If that is a "conservative," I want no truck with it.

I can make a much longer list than four!

Yes, ModMark
More libertarian than conservative.

Rather like Reagan. And what I had hoped for Bush.

Hurt feelings
I am sorry that I have not been included in the pantheon of irritating conservative commenters. I shall have to steel myself to try all the harder.

John M Cain writes
"Have you ever thought about not bringing [will's] homosexuality up in every post?"

But what Will wrote was: "Andrew Klavan has no problem with gay people. David Mamet has no problem with gay marriage. Yet, there they are, lumped in a general category that is labeled "conservative"."

No mention of Will's sexual preferences in this post.

Gestell
I don't think Jack meant to imply that the listed movies were "Conservative". They just don't push a leftist agenda.

I'd probably make an exception for "Toy Story". That was pretty liberal with its "anti-war toys" agenda. Worse yet, it was an extremely bad movie.

You must at least grant me that.

Mod Mark
Murdoch does, indeed, peddle some sleazy shows on the Fox network and 20th Century Fox studios. The commentators on Fox News, however, frequently criticize them and still keep their jobs.

So much for those who criticize Fox News' journalistic integrity.

standshisground
"Since you're an admitted homosexual, I'd severely question the genuineness of whatever "conservatism" you'd thought you had, right off the bat."

You mean I can't be gay AND a conservative?

"the fact that many true conservatives tend to be God-fearing people"

True, but hardly relevant to anything.

"God ANYTHING seems to distress you, and especially anything to do with Jesus Christ."

Nope. What distresses me is when people use their god to deny my civil rights or to pass laws that impose their morals on the rest of us.

Separately, I am concerned when seemingly rational people think that if their Book said it, it must be true. But so long as they don't try to use that as an argument in the public square, it is a private matter, and they can believe any damn fool thing they want.

Let's all be honest.
The reason there are no "conservative" movies is because, for social cons, the folks pushing this particular agenda, "conservative" only means culural issues. Period.

In a conservative movie, the girl decides to not have the abortion (they did "Juno", right?). In a conservative movie, the gay teenager responds to shcck therapy and conveniently "converts" to a heterosexual lifestyle. In a conservative movie, the atheist realizes he has been lying to himself all along and discovers God.

In conservative movieland, as lobbied by the social cons, variations of these themes would be repeated over and over and over again (kind of like abortion, gay and atheist columns here at TH).


None of these movies spell blockbuster. In fact, I'd wager that none of these movies could even recoup its initial investment (occasionally, a film like "Juno" does, but even "Juno" was firmly liberal - in the best sense - regarding its laidback characters; it was, after all, written by ultra-liberal Diablo Cody).

Conservative Movies???
Jack’s post at 4:14 is missing numerous points that should be made.

First off, these are the most popular movies, meaning that these are the one that were actually successful because the general public liked them and went to see them. Generally speaking the less liberal “message” movies do get to be popular.

The second point is that just about EVERY one of them, like nearly all Hollywood products, will have little vignettes and statements that do push some type of liberal agenda. Even when they don’t make an entire liberal message movie they seldom fail to get their message in there.

And lastly and most importantly, these are NOT conservative movies. A conservative movie is something like Red Dawn or perhaps the one I linked to by David Zucker early in the morning. I say perhaps because I haven’t seen the movie yet.

Can't wait to see revenues on that, josh
"In a conservative movie, the girl decides to not have the abortion (they did "Juno", right?). In a conservative movie, the gay teenager responds to shcck therapy and conveniently "converts" to a heterosexual lifestyle. In a conservative movie, the atheist realizes he has been lying to himself all along and discovers God. "

A real blockbuster, I'll bet!

Narnia did OK though, if I recall. Though the return on investment was much lower than what gardis so sweetly called "Bareback Mountain," which came out around the same time.

reply to MellorSJ2
You ask of another TH reader:

"You mean I can't be gay AND a conservative?"

Yes, that's exactly what many conservatives do mean. Moreover, they are correct. Conservatism is about maintaining traditional moral values. Thoe values are found in the religious traditions (Jewish and Christian) of the Western world. In both of those traditions, the evil of homosexuality is declared as God's truth, given to man. Political conservatives seek to maintain the religious truths handed down as tradition. Accordingly, real conservatives (and not libertarians) must be opposed to homosexuality and favor suppression of homosexuals by both law and custom.

Certainly no one can maintain his or her homosexual identity and be a genuine conservative at the level of fundamental principle. As a matter of empirical fact, of course there are people who regard themselves as 'gay conservatives,' just as there are such people as 'liberal Catholics.' However, genuine Catholics must be moral and political conservatives, and genuine conservatives must embrace and seek to defend heterosexuality.

So come on over to the other side. We liberals will welcome you to our ranks, and you don't have to pass a biblical sexual orientation test to qualify. H*ll, we'll even teach you the secret handshake.

reply to Maximillian
Sure. "Toy Story" was hardly conservative. But how does "Shrek" get to be conservative? I mean, a big ugly but good-hearted non-human, a minority member if ever there was one, wreaks havoc with the class structure and marries the princess? Sounds like a typical liberal tolerance riff to me.

Gestell
Rather than dissect your extremely dogmatic trash talk I'll simply propose that liberalism and homosexuality are, in fact, incompatible.

Liberals don't want to grant homosexuals their Second Amendment rights. This leaves them at the mercy of assailants and mobs, eternally forced into hiding.

Some gay rights advocacy...

Gestell
I didn't bother to watch Shrek as I'm not in the habit of watching kids' movies as an adult. I disturbed that kids' movies fare so well in a country with so few children.

Mod Mark
You missed my point that Murdoch doesn't rule his networks with such an iron fist as many insist. He grants his employees unprecedented journalistic freedom.

Mellor
It's Will. I'm posting from a work computer and had to open a new Townhall account, so I am using my middle name (as both "will" and "Will" are taken by me).

You're right about "Brokeback Mountain". It took in 83 million dollars domestically and over 155 million worldwide (all on an initial investment of 15 million, which is peanuts by Hollywood standards).

I don't think the general public has any problem at all with gay characters and plotlines, provided they're interesting. Social cons would have you believe that the average american "snubs" of finds offensive gay subplots, but, of course, nobody cares anymore (provided, again, that the material holds your attention).

"Six Feet Under" was my favorite TV series. They found a way to keep the gay characters & subplots fresh and entertaining for 6 years).

The Other Side
Gestell writes: "So come on over to the other side."

I'd love to, but you intend to spend my money for me and I'm not on-board with that, even for a secret handshake :)

Your analysis is, of course, correct so long as we define "conservative" as you do. And under that definition, I am certainly not a conservative.


Will/josh
I loved Six Feet Under too.

My favorite scene is at the beginning of some episode (the part where someone dies). A truck is driving along with a bunch of blown-up porn dolls when the rope come loose and they all go flying.

Meanwhile, some woman is driving along, sees them, says "They're angles! It must be the Rapture!" and runs across the street looking up.

Thwack!

I laughed till I cried.

MellorSJ2
You certainly CAN be both gay and a conservative. However, it's been my experience - and I'll bet the vast majority of the conservatives who post here would agree with me on this - that gays who are also professing conservatives/Republicans are as scarce as hen's teeth. So you'll pardon us if we conservatives find it a little hard to believe that a gay man would also be a conservative.

As far as most conservatives being God-fearing people, it IS relevant to the fact that apparently the bedfellows that you'll fall in with if you want to consider yourself a conservative seem to matter to you as far as whether you want to maintain that identification. That's one difference between us (among many): if I believe that what I believe in is right, then it doesn't matter to me who else happens to join me in that belief. If a coven of witches happened to agree with, say, my foreign-policy beliefs, the assent of a group whose basic worldview is as foreign to mine as yours would hardly cause me to question therefore whether those beliefs are right. I don't define my identification by my COMPATRIOTS; there are some professing Christians who I find quite odious, to be perfectly blunt - but they don't make ME ashamed to be a Christian, for as Paul said in Rom. 1:16, "I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ".

Well, I've got a Red Sox-Royals game to go to, so I've got to go now. Have a great night, all!

"Angels", not "angles"
How could I be so obtuse?

ps Mellor
I saw that one. Very surreal (satisfying & surreal; I laughed too).


I would have never thought in a thousand years that that beginning could be construed as pushing a "liberal" (or "anti-conservative") agenda. But with evangelicals managing a hostile takeover of the party, many of the most benign issues now have implied political overtones (because they, in some way, go against "the bible").

Sex SHOULD NOT be politics. Politics should be about maintaining a healthy economy, about guarding your borders from hostile intruders. Not which consenting adult is in your bedroom on Saturday night.

Standshisground
I have no desire for _any_ identification. I want policies.

And if my wiccan friends can help me in my foreign policy objectives, then I am glad to hear it. But I'm not going to vote for a wiccan who wants to pass weird laws about my use of mistletoe.

And that's where your post falls down. By voting for a fiscal conservative, I also get a social conservative, which I do not want.

Maybe I'll talk to Gestell about his secret handshake after all!

Enjoy the game.

reply to Mellors #16
Mellors, very seriously:

"Nope. What distresses me is when people use their God to deny my civil rights or to pass laws that impose their morals on the rest of us."

Oh. USE their God? Deny your civil rights?

God commands, He isn't used for any reason. You have it upside-down, self-serving as usual.

Your rights aren't denied. You have every right I have. Marry if you wish, a member of the opposite sex, as I have. Or, don't marry at all. No civil right exists which makes you and another homosexual mating material. You only imagine it's a "right."



"I am concerned when seemingly rational people think that their Book said it, it must be true."


So this concerns you? If you don't want to believe, who tries to force you? That's a straw dog.

Furthermore, I was taught to believe what a certain PERSON says. --Not a book. If you have no use for Jesus Christ, you may skip it. No one ever forces you. However you may wish to sin is left to your own discretion.
"Orto to pass laws that impose their morals on the rest of us." REPLY: There's no reason you can't lobby. No law can be passed if your lobby stops it. You may be out-voted, however. That's not "imposing morals." It's politics. When you lose, that's that.


Will/josh
"Sex SHOULD NOT be politics. Politics should be about maintaining a healthy economy, about guarding your borders from hostile intruders. Not which consenting adult is in your bedroom on Saturday night."

I used to think that. This is the Land of the Free, isn't it?

But the xians want their way, and "freedom" is not on their agenda.

Let's hope that Maximillian is right and they are a small minority.

But when I hear a soldier on the radio explaining that Iraq is "god's war," and I see the huge deficit we've run up these last eight years, and the massive unfunded liabilities we have taken on (social security, Fannie and Freddie, banks "too big to fail," and all that), I have to despair.

And move out of the US dollar!

And for evidence of my assertions
regarding the irrationality of people who want to force their morals on the rest of us, we have dreadnaught's latest. My!

"There's no reason you can't lobby. No law can be passed if your lobby stops it. You may be out-voted, however. That's not "imposing morals." It's politics. When you lose, that's that."

Nope. If you pass laws that prevent a black person from marrying a white person (eg), the law will be found unconstitutional because it impinges on the couple's civil rights.

That's why we have a constitution, to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority.

will is off his meds
Will wants to know:

"Some of you social cons have no problem turning your Jesus into a partisan political hack like Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin who would immediately demonize opposition merely for the sake of garnering temporary political points" /

Sorry; that's a non-starter. We aren't "turning" Jesus into anything of the sort.

Jesus quite plainly stated that whoever was going to be His disciple must keep His Father's commandments. We only follow Him; we don't demonize anyone. Possibly you were in a snake-handler's revival tent? Not the Catholic Church. There we aren't demonized by Christ, or by any priest. We're offered forgiveness of sins.

The commandments of God seriously denounce as grave and mortal the act of buggering and related homosexual sins. (Thought you should know that, Will.)

"Doesn't that REDUCE the idea of your Jesus?" Reply: Doesn't your premise suck?

his usual specious reply:


Mellors lets us know--

"Nope. If you pass laws that prevent a black person from marrying a white person (eg), the law will be found unconstitutional because it impinges on the couple's civil rights."

Reply;

Go on and prove whatever it was gays thought was unconstitutional. You so far haven't proved much; except about interracial marriage. For which we thank you.

BTW; the Catholic Church never taught a black man and a white woman were not allowed to marry. That was a sectarian, white protestant intervention. (WASPS did it! Lol!) God loves every soul, regardless of race or color. But He tells us a man buggering another man is an aberration of nature and abominable.

Mellor
"Because gay couples do not get social security benefits from their spouse, nor can they inherit without being taxed to death. Hospital visitation _can_ be a problem if the parents of the spouse are so-minded and the couple did not prepare adequately."

You're overlooking some obvious solutions. Do away with Social Security (it's a pyramid scheme AND a lousy investment), get rid of the inheritance tax, privatize more hospitals (let THEM decide their visitation policies).

Please understand that homosexuals can absolutely live with dignity under conservative ideals without opening our country to the sundry polygamists and other morally wretched "alternative marriages". You certainly needn't cash in your freedom for Gestell's "secret handshake".

I must leave now but I will read your response later. Don't be fooled by the left, though. Their "secret handshake" involves back-stabbing.

The Commandments of the Great Elf
The commandments of the Great Elf seriously denounce as grave and mortal the act of eating mushrooms and related food sins. (Thought you should know that, Dreadnaught.)

See how silly you sound?


mellors still clueless


"That's why we have a constitution, to prevent the majority from imposing its will on the minority."


Not really. You choose to spin it so. You are a minority expecting to impose your will on the nation. But the Constitution is not your protection against anything, if you're trying to protect what's rotten at the core. You shall be finding this out, painfully. Wait and see.



ModMark
"Thats why I am a moderate and my political enemy is the religious right."

I'm with you on that. Just read dreadnaught's latest missives.

But the alternative cannot be the tax and spend losers on the other side. There HAS to be a moderate "middle" that believes in freedom.

Surely.

stop; there is no great elf


Your flippant way of abusing God isn't funny.

In fact; if God banned the eating of some particular food; we wouldn't eat that food. But HE DOESN'T.

See how silly you look, making unfounded statements? I blame your mother and father.

You know --those two heterosexuals who brought you into the world ? What would you be without straight human beings? Not even an elf. --Ironically, gays hate what gave them existence in the first place. There should've been a law! NO VAGINAS!!! It's in the Constitution !

Maximillian
"You're overlooking some obvious solutions. Do away with Social Security (it's a pyramid scheme AND a lousy investment), get rid of the inheritance tax, privatize more hospitals (let THEM decide their visitation policies). "

Not at all. I support those policies. Strongly. But where--on this conservative web site--is the clear support for same? There's some, granted, but much more time is devoted to gay bashing.

"Please understand that homosexuals can absolutely live with dignity under conservative ideals without opening our country to the sundry polygamists and other morally wretched "alternative marriages". You certainly needn't cash in your freedom for Gestell's "secret handshake". "

Granted. But until SS and inheritance taxes (and the other 1100 benefits granted to married couples) are gone, we'll just have to make do with marriage.

Go on, maximillian
Tell me now, after reading dreadnut's latests, how there are no nutters here. Or that I'm supposed to get into bed with them to save a few measly dollars in taxes.

No freedom if these folk get power.

Blasphemer!
Dreadnut writes: "stop; there is no great elf"

Can you not see? Evidence is all around you. The exquisite design of the physical laws; life; toadstool rings--the hand of the Great Elf himself!

For your blasphemy you will be sauteed in the Great Wok for all eternity.

Wait and see.

dreadnaught tells us:

"The commandments of God seriously denounce as grave and mortal the act of buggering and related homosexual sins. (Thought you should know that, Will.)"

----------------------------------------


Ok, let's see. since gay sex isn't one of the 10 Commandments, I figure you took this "commandment" from Leviticus and Paul.


Doesn't "God seriously denounce as grave and mortal" the acts of eating pork and rabbit (having to do with cleanliness), and trimming the beard and homosexual sex (also having to do with cleanliness?)

My jewish friends inform me that if you eat meat along with dairy products at the same time, that this is also against God's commandments (there goes the bacon cheeseburger and chili-cheese fries....you damned sinners!)


Eating pork and engaging in gay sex may have been a part of the Cleanliness Code 2500 years ago, but there is no reason today, in 2008, to consider bacon and man-to-man sex "unclean".

ModMark
Is rice to be judged the same as a stone?

Only if God is a Pigeon.

Observations
On this thread, I've encouraged homosexual advocates to embrace conservative ideals. On other threads, I encourage Christians to do the same. Why on Earth would a homosexual vote for Obama and relinquish their Second Amendment rights. They would have no recourse for self protection other than strength in numbers (I call this GHETTOIZING). To think that anyone would turn their back on individual liberty in order to hold a marriage certificate that most of the population (including liberals) will not take seriously. Get past the website bickering and remember the sanctity of your American rights.

Some Christians have the nerve to suggest letting America BURN under an Obama administration in order to teach our citizens a lesson on morality. This strategy is totally irreconcilable with reality. Religious adherents must argue politics on reason rather than faith. Their goals should include protecting traditional values through objective logic all the while expressing willingness to embrace people of other faiths with similar political ideals.

Ponder the life of Barry Goldwater, a true Conservative (definitely not a libertarian as his son insists).

Consider Reagan as well. He brought the Conservative movement together under a "Big Tent" which included anyone dedicated to preserving America's liberty. Make no mistake, in today's political arena there's a clear divide between the good guys and the bad guys. Sure Mellor and Dreadnaught may argue about homosexuality, but introduce taxation as a topic and both would find common ground. Liberals purge dissidents from their ranks in order to keep a pure ideology. Conservatives embrace diverse opinions in order to foster intellectual growth.
.

Observations
This year's election will feature two candidates. One, depending on your stances will resemble either dreadnaught, mellor, standshisground, or RW. The other candidate will behave in the manner of Gestell, Mdogg, or killer.

If the choice is not obvious, then you might well be a liberal

Observations continued
This year's election will feature two candidates. One, depending on your stances will resemble either dreadnaught, mellor, standshisground, or RW. The other candidate will behave in the manner of Gestell, Mdogg, or killer.

If the choice is not obvious, then you might well be a liberal

Great Column. Standing Ovation.
It tells it like it really is:
"Slow poison". "It’s just all the underlying assumptions that are constantly in every story."

Anyone with a TV knows this is true, and that as a society the entertainment industry is completely out of control. The fact that those responsible, who deserve to be shot, are not at least handcuffed and thrown into prison, shows there is something wrong in our society.

Attention needs to also be turned to certain radio broadcasting companies and certain mainstream Internet search engines, that similarly poison society.

repliy to MellorSJ2
So you're one of those libertarians (or fiscal conservatives) who opposes taxes as such? I mean, the very concept of taxes. Any tax spends your money for something you may not want. The point is to have something resembling a civilized society, but apparently you are some sort of anarchist. Try living like that, apart from the literary fantasy of Galt's Gulch.

reply to Maximillian
I don't think you understand what believing in a religion means to a sincere believer. You write; "Religious adherents must argue politics on reason rather than faith " The whole point of being a religious person with beliefs about politics is that the beliefs are grounded in the faith. To insist that a sincere religionist simply put his/her faith aside, like leaving your guns at the town line when you enter Dodge City, is to place a completely unacceptable restriction on that person. It is precisely the point of the religionist that his/her political beliefs are in fact grounded in religious faith, which is, of course, what makes them absolutely true. Mere reason can be used by all sides in political argument; only faith speaks with ultimate authority.

Brilliant
"It’s not the movies that get made, it’s the movies that don’t get made."

5*

The musicians, screenwriters, novelists, composers--I know they are there. We will know them when we see them.

I loved this interview. Too short, though.

Gestell and Galt's Gulch
Offered a choice between Galt's Gulch and the mess we're in--which is set to get a lot worse, irrespective of who is in power--I choose Galt's Gulch.

But the choice we have is not that stark. We can roll back several hundred billions of dollars in taxes before we have to go the full libertarian hog.

So let's hold on the idea of reducing government interference, lowering taxes and increasing freedom, without frightening the horses.

By the time we get as far as we can go without serious pushback, we'll still be a ways and a half from Galt's Gulch.

what about mellors?


He/she is a born complainer.

No one really cares if he cries about his alienation. Or his so-called rights.

Yet he finds those out in cyberspace who tell the truth "despicable." Nobody here ever called him despicable. He's a child of God. Even when he mocks God we haven't called him despicable.

And he demands: "Where, oh where!, is the party that will allow me the freedom to organize my morals as I see fit, and who will allow me the freedom to spend my own money?"

Why, Melloroose, YOU are that party! You and other show-off gays. You have the party planks: Depravity as a respectable lifestyle. Tampering with the law as an agenda. Indoctrination of innocent children. Banning all TRUTH in favor of error.

Your party, Mellork. The VICE PARTY.

.

Why Aren't Conservative(or normal)movies
made?

How are we to get new movies made that tell the truth? Does FOX News have to start a movie studio now?
I mean I was checking out a website by a National Review writer on the Marxist killer 'Che' and he told of a Cuban American who was trying to get Hollywood to make a movie about the real Che not the Robert Redford hero version and he was told it'll never happen. I guess this guy, the Cuban, was a decendent of someone murdered by Ernesto, and still no sympathy from the [human rights] crowd in Hollywood. But they do want to save Tibet though. Can't do anything about a communism or a murderous thug....

So anyway if anyone wants to start a real production company that presents real facts and just lets us watch the movie and decide then I'm in. I'll go pay to watch. I can't stand Hollywood right now and don't go see any movies not on TV. Because they mostly suck and are lies for liberal propaganda. Make a movie on the courage of someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and even libbers would like it.

Dear Mr. Garthwaite
Mr. Klavan makes many good points in your interview. My only difference lies with his take on movie content. While I'm sure that all will agree that all films needn't be "squeaky clean"; neither, though, need they be oppressive, nihilistic, grossly violent and graphically sexual as they've become.

When I was a child in the '50s and early '60s, I could go to the Saturday Morning Matinee at the local theater by myself without my parents worrying about what I'd see. They were first run premieres, too, and some of them are considered classic motion pictures today. That, however, was before Jack Valenti and his ratings system displaced the National Board of Review and made the production and marketing of the worst garbage imaginable possible. Our culture has been on a downward spiral ever since.

A film can be hard-hitting, yet still suitable for all-ages viewing. It's just a matter of talent, innate decency and true cinematic art... a concept now lost on the Hollywood sleazemongers.

have to answer God right now


God speaks this afternoon. He took the handle "josh."

"Eating pork and engaging in gay sex may have been a part of the Cleanliness Code 2500 years ago,"

Whoa, big feller. God has not limited His laws to one era or another. The dietary laws of Moses are now lifted for a Christian. We know that because it's revealed in our New Testament.

In the same New Testament Christ maintains clearly we must obey His Father's commandments. One of which condemns sodomy, in Leviticus. If this isn't enough we have Saint Paul's denunciation too.

Speaking of him, we are told in his epistle that we are no longer subject to the Law of Moses. That covers forbidden foods. In each case, that is the Word of God.

NO buggering, yet we are not under the (dietary) Law any longer.

Let's assume you were only making light of the Bible in general.

But lose the megillah about "Cleanliness Codes." That's for cowards. One argument of Martin Luther's is OK by me. "If you sin, sin boldly." Meaning, save your supercilious BS.

Such as: " . . . but there is no reason today, in 2008, to consider bacon and man-to-man sex "unclean".

Bacon? You must mean, In a PIG'S EYE.

Yes it is, has been and always will be unclean to pollute yourselves in one another's filth.

regarding movies then and now


I've been re-reading the autobiography of Edward G. Robinson; "All My Yesterdays"

He was a piece of work! He was nothing if not a commie-lib; but a very wise man. He said he loved to read William F. Buckley even though they had no points of agreement. He just thought Buckley was such a master of the English.


He explained how the studios of old Hollywood made such fine pictures. Mostly over the dead bodies of those old movie actors. The stories & scripts all had to meet approval from mostly CONSERVATIVE producers & directors. Yet they loved Eddie. He made tons of money! All invested in great paintings.

He credits being saved by two conservatives of that day, when the communist scourges of the day would've black-balled him. (Unjustly, he added.)

The two conservatives were Cecil B. DeMille and Sam Yorty!




dreadnut loses his cookies
I love it so!

Hey, will/josh: How about we start the Vice Party? You can be Vice Vice!

Where do they get these nutcases from?

we is attracting flies


There's Mellor Gay Boy!

Come in, Blow-fly! Make yourself at home. Fawn on me.


reply to dreadnaught
I'm always please to see any of the resident haters on TH start posting on his/her particular obsession. I guess Luis is on vacation, so the resident gay-hater spot in the lineup gets filled by you. I can always count on the TH readership to spew up more than a few resident haters (I don't know if you guys have a quota to fill, or what)so that we liberals can be sure that we're really the good guys we know ourselves to be.

I sometimes use the tip-of-the-iceberg approach: if one dreadnaught does his anti-gay riff, how many TH readers are out there who think the same way but aren't posting? In any, case, I sure do appreciate your stuff. Keep it coming.

I appreciate that, Gestell


Except I'm not "anti-gay."

Try reading my many posts all around. I defended marriage as between a man and a woman, and otherwise it's "Pretend Marriage." I favor civil unions for gays; I denounce discrimination against them. I do not see them as hateful necessarily. Of the ones coming here to incite anger, a few are evil. But I don't even hate them.

I want them to repent their sins. However, I don't see why they must cater to my wishes. It's a free country.

You must have confused me for somebody else. I'm kind to gays if they behave honestly and respect others.

If you're gay you can always count on me to treat you fairly.

reply to dreadnaught
I've been reading your stuff posted about another column, and you sound like a gay-hater to me..or is that your evil twin, using your name? Your replies to SJMellor positively reek with the milk of human kindness...or something else

Dear Gestell


Please look in depth at the things I say or try to say.

I believe there's a thing such as tough love. I'm sometimes too feisty; I confess to the weakness.

But not just talking to Mellors. He needs tough love.

I speak bluntly to many others, not only gays. It's usually in response to their blasphemies against God or the Church. Not for my own feelings. I never ask much for myself.

Has Mellors, or any gay we speak to here ever offered ME tough love? I wish! Mostly it's insolence and whining about MY injustice! Because I insist on the truth. They come here to distort it, I uphold it. That can' make me a gay-hater. I often hold out hope for gays. They're human beings, some are good souls.

God wants to save them from their sins. I basically tell them such truths. Like everyone, I can get impatient. But I try not to be.

America is suffering
America is suffering unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
Group u$urp$ power on January 20th—the constitution violated.
The United States Supreme Court alone can relieve this outrage.

example: Bogus Selective Service System FOIA Registration?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_d id_n.html

HOLLYWOOD NAZIS
It's incredible to me that Hollywood is hateful to conservatives. Their job out there is to spin fanatasy, fiction, adventure, etc. We love our movies. The whole world loves our movies. For someone out there to have a hard time because they are a conservative has nothing to do with show biz. So we're regressing back to the old, shameful Blacklist days, are we? Only then they were against the Communists in Hollywood, and now the pendulum has swung all the way, and they're against the Conservatives? Go figure!

Stay home and read a book
I have an idea in responce to the 'pseudo-intelligensia holier-than-thou Hollywood types.
We could all stay home for a few months.
Support movies from conservatives who treat our values with respect.
Why support the ultra-liberal clowns while they jam their views into every entertainemnt media available to us? I say boycott them and then you'll see how they change for the almighty buck! Stay home, read a good book or go hiking and enjoy the peace and quiet. .it's probably better for us anyway.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.