Of course, there's only one real catwoman (Julie Newmar ping).
Posted on 01/24/2005 1:05:58 PM PST by Middle-O-Road
Of course, there's only one real catwoman (Julie Newmar ping).
I am ahappily married man, but a chance to see Holly Berry in some tight leather, I'm there.
OH, I'M IN LOVE! It's STUPIDIFYIN'JONES in a CATWOMAN outfit!
IM STUPIDIFIED!
For the ignorant, I'm refering to the film LIL' ABNER with Peter Palmer from about 1959.
OH, I'M IN LOVE! It's STUPIDIFYIN'JONES in a CATWOMAN outfit!
IM STUPIDIFIED!
For the ignorant, I'm refering to the film LIL' ABNER with Peter Palmer from about 1959.
Why, you ask? He plays the same LOSER in every movie and I'm SICK OF IT!
You have to hand to the guy, John Wilson, for coming up with an angle to make money and get publicity. If you go to razzies.com you will see that "The Razzies" are right up there with "International Star Registry" in being a dumb way for a smart guy to make some money. Anyone with a credit card can be "A voting member".
If this guy is smart he will advertise that Michael Moore is up for a Razzie for worst director or whatever. And then get more numbnuts to sign up for his lame web site to vote for stuff nobody with any sense gives a hoot about.
I give Wilson and his Razzie(R) Awards the new isthisnickcool "Golden Poopie Award". The "Golden Poopie Award" is given to people that have been able to take something fecal and gild it with gold and get morons to buy into it.
I'd turn this around on the demented Hollywood minstrels.
An actor, by definition, is a person whose livelihood is based solely on their ability to assume a false persona and recites words and ideas scripted by other people. The last person I would ever want in a position of leadership is an actor, because actors are nothing more than living puppets.
Therefore, to suggest that a politician is a "bad actor" would be the ultimate complement: it means that that person is genuine and has a mind or his own.
It's sad that so few people--particularly in this country--have the capacity to understand that entertainers and performers are nothing more than that: purveyors of fantasy. People should enjoy them for their on-screen make-believe role-playing, but ignore them in the real world.
(By contrast, when I first traveled to the then-recently-fallen Soviet Union back in 1991, Yuri Gagarin was still hailed by the Russian people as a national hero. That was their idea of a "celebrity." Thirty years after his pioneering achievement, you could still go to any street vendor selling watches, t-shirts, and other "pop icon" memorabilia and find Gagarin's name and likeness on the merchandise. I'd wager that 90+% of our citizens couldn't even name the first American in space, let alone tell you who Gagarin was and how he earned his place in world history.)
Hey, some people think John Glenn's still a national hero.
I'm sure you heard it already. Reagan ring a bell?
Some would argue that Reagan was also a bad actor (during his Hollywood career). I have not seen enough of movies to make that judgment, but perhaps he wasn't phony enough for Tinseltown. The qualities that make for a good actor make for a bad politician, and vice versa.
In any case, Reagan gave up acting when he entered politics. At that point, he had changed professions. Certainly his acting experience helped him with his on-camera presentation, but IMO he was never acting when he held office: I believe he always spoke from the heart. And from the people who knew him and wrote about him in office, he was perhaps the most sincere American leader in recent history.
Contrast that with Bill Clinton. Although he never had a career in Hollywood, he has gone though life as a performer. Every time he has spoken, he is merely giving a performance, usually to benefit himself. He embodies the concept of the Hollywood actor.
Well that's the difference between an actor (Reagan), and a lying sack of turds(klinton).
No, that's the difference between a leader (Reagan), and a fraudulent [insert your favorite pejorative] narcissist (Clinton).
Don't define Reagan by the (relatively short) career he held as a young man. His legacy as a political leader, first for California, then for the nation (and, indeed, for the world), far and beyond outshines anything he did in Hollywood.
Btw, one last point on this subject: Hollywood wasn't even a fraction as "liberal" back then as it is today. In fact, Hollywood used to produce a lot of great pro-American films. It's hardly fair to compare the Hollywood of Reagan's era with the Hollywood of today. Now Hollywood is very heavily dominated -- and controlled -- by anti-American Leftists, Communists, and homosexuals.
*cough*RONALDREAGAN*cough*
Being an actor doesn't make a person more or less of a political expert, it just gets them in front of a camera more often.
Please read posts #31 & #33 in this thread.
Trust me, I would never define Reagan by anything other than he was. A good moral man and a great President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.