Charlie Sheen: ‘I’m Not Interested In What People Believe’
by Hollywoodland—–
From The Macho Response:
[Sheen's] nothing-can-take-me-down attitude, in the face of this wimpy, middle class, wet rag nanny state finger-wagging opinion is winning. This is a man, owning his actions and insisting everyone else come clean and take responsibility for theirs as well. (Our favorite line? Interviewer: “One of the women said she was afraid she might O.D.”. Sheen [incredulous]: “What’s that got to do with me?”) …
We’ve become a cautious, conformist, inoffensive, non-risk taking, arrogant, lying bunch of NewAge p[**]sies who think if any woman, like this interviewer, says she or others don’t approve, then some form of public contrition and apology is called for. Well, screw that. Neither she, or the public, are Charlie Sheen’s mother and even if his parents disapprove, he’s a grown-assed man who refuses to be a part of whatever milquetoast existence the rest of you think is good for gaining social approval from a worthless feminized culture-killing clique. He didn’t ask for it, doesn’t need it, and isn’t angling for it. He’s a man. He’s rich. And he’s free.
There’s something to be said for that point of view, but when you remember Charlie Sheen has children, that he’s a father, his outrageous, gonzo, go-to-hell behavior is impossible to enjoy, even vicariously. No one should witness their own parent celebrating this kind of behavior. Of course, people should live the lives they want, but once you have kids they come first and in this clip The Rebel Rock & Roll Charlie Sheen who sneers at conformity is kind of fun to watch … until the interviewer reminds us he has children.
Sheen can do what he wants to himself, but who knows what the lasting effect of this last week has been on those kids.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
131 Comments
The mother of those kids needs to get them the heck outta there.
Charlie Sheen: ‘I’m Not Interested In What People Believe’
Wow…..no kidding. Who'd have thunk it?!
Crazy + lots of money = Disaster for him, or those in close proximity.
Remember when Tom Cruise fired his publicist? And all the sudden he's jumping on Oprah's couch and scolding Brook Shields about post partum depression and raving about scientology and just generally acting like a pure idiot?
I got the feeling then that it was the REAL guy, uncensored and his publicist had been managing what he said in public forever.
And of course the real guy was just a weirdo and everybody realized it and all the sudden he's not the Hollywood golden boy anymore.
Well, here you go. This is the real Charlie Sheen. I think it's sad because he's self-destructing publicly, but how many stars are self-destructing privately. They vanish all the time. Go look at a ten year old copy of TV Guide, people who were famous and you haven't heard of them in ages.
Not dead but gone, out of the business, burning themselves up with whatever narcisistic delusions of grandeur they've fallen prey, too. Or maybe straightening out and getting out of the acidic limelight.
the thing with Sheen is he's doing it all so publicly. I suspect more celebrities act a lot like this, maybe not to this degree, but bad enough. They just haven't fired their publicist yet.
A few weeks ago my girlfriend and I tore through several bottles of wine while watching a celebrity rehab show with Dr. Drew. We were in tears laughing and were thoroughly disappointed that this wasn't a weekly show. I just hope they have one more of those celebrity rehab shows with Charlie Sheen; it would be a laugh riot.
The sad part is a dead pool has probably been started for Sheen.
Which voice told him to say that?
Very soon we will be saying R.I.P. Charlie Sheen.
Here is the only man named Sheen I pay attention to…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVBXzf4eUJg
Responsibility comes first. Be it in your personal life or your government– cut Charlie Sheen, and CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
As the old saying goes: If he could only channel that energy in a positive direction.
But I suspect that he is correct, and that’s the problem, he doesn’t care.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Charlie Sheen can do what ever the hell he wants, as long as he leaves me alone.
There can be no doubt—Charles has indeed gone off the deep end. After seeing his latest rants, the first thing that comes to mind is he has cooked himself! The second being he is full of bull, nobody can "bang" a 7 gram rock and live to brag about it(unless your dealer has stepped on it 19 times). And last but not least, The man is a danger to his children—He should be reported to Child Protective Services!
I will lose sleep over Jane Russell, a truly wonderful, geeeeorgeous and legendary woman.
Charlie I wouldn't urinate in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.
We may be watching an impending train wreck but he keeps ignoring
the warning signs. I can't help but feel sorry for everyone involved.
Now that is ironic… I'm not interested in what Charlie Sheen believes either!
He's half tiger, half Adonis! Just check his DNA.
Dude's put the hook in me. His interviews are some of the most entertaining things I have seen for quite some time.
Hell is a place, any place, without God… Where man… is the god… This is Hell.
He seems somewhat unhinged. I can't believe this is the same guy who starred in "Men at Work."
Actually, this explains why he starred in "Men at Work."
Whoever pciked Charlie in their annual deadpool will likely be the winner.
The writer of this "Macho" article thinks Sheen is owning his actions? The same Sheen who accused the network of attempting to "destroy" his family and whined, "look what they put me through?"
Sheen is the LAST person who needs to be held up as an example of someone who is "owning his actions" and living life as a free man. The guy is a delusional, narcissistic, addict who thinks he's entitled and special and blames everyone else for the train wreck his life has become. Charlie Sheen is the ultimate p***y. He's a man who abdicated his responsibilities as a father and a husband and took the easy way out with drugs, alcohol and prostitutes. He's too weak and scared to get the help he needs and too selfish to care that his kids are impacted by every reckless decision he's made. There's nothing macho about Charlie Sheen.
"He can do whatever he wants. He's rich. He's free. As long as it's not illegal."
Yup, and he's free to put a hundred people out of work. And he's free to cut into the potential earnings of the creator of the show that rejuvenated his career and put up with him for 10 years. And he's free to damage the children he's fathered. And he's free to defame a group that has helped millions. And defame his own father for daring to care about him. Yup. No damage except for to himself. Yup. So, as long as the people he's harming are likewise rich and free — or able to parent themselves — no biggie.
Now do you see how short-sighted Libertarian thinking is? No man is an island.
"Now do you see how short-sighted libertine thinking is?"
Fixed it for you. It's a common mistake to confuse the two…
Leaving the kids out of the picture for a minute, and the people on his show that may or may not have a job soon, and the possibility of this guy dying…
This is the most entertaining Charlie Sheen has been… ever. He needs no other films or television shows. He's effing hilarious.
Of course, this sort of hilarity doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Sheen won't be a bitchin' rock star for long when his money runs out.
Stamos will be even funnier.
I have a brother who's a meth addict– and when he's been on a 3 day high it looks a whole lot like this. We had to cut off ties to that brother (the whole family) because he, like Sheen, didn't see what the problem was. Sadly he hasn't seen his kids in 15 years (though I don't regret the kids don't have to see it). It'll amaze you how long someone can be like this and actually survive. But Sheen has a lot more money than my brother ever did– and access to a lot more drugs. This could end quickly and badly. Regardless of Martin's nutty politics, I feel for the guy. This has got to be gut-wrenching to watch.
Over the past few weeks we've gotten some great quotes to use for what would be a pretty challenging parlor game: "Who Said It — Charlie or Moammar?"
Yes, he has children…and two sex bimbos live-ins that he charges their care with. Question? WTF is the California Social Services in this, why aren't they investigating parental abuse and neglect, even contributing to the dilinquency of minors. Where are the cops? Where is the common sense? Where is the padded room this imbecile should be inside of?
Yawnnnn…is his (latest) 15 minutes over yet? Can we get back to Justin Beiber please?
"He’s a man. He’s rich. And he’s free."
Until his liver and kidneys give out; at which point he'll start whining and crying about how somebody else is to blame for THAT turn of events.
With Charlie, the problem always seems to be with somebody ELSE.
Watching Charlie Sheen makes me realize how smart Dave Chappelle was when he literally ran away from Hollywood and went to Africa for a few months. In a later interview Chapelle makes a comment about how no one shows up in Hollywood crazy, but the system drives you to it.
ignore it and it will go away.
Charlie Sheen is a very sick individual, and cherry picking pieces of intelligence from his rantings makes no sense.
Ca social services is too busy ignoring the octomom freak show to bother with the Sheen freak show.
No correction was necessary.
I agree with you. I think he is bipolar. What worries me is that severe manic phases can result in a psychotic break. Those usually don't end well. Many people aren't even diagnosed as bipolar until the psychotic break happens. I think his days are numbered, he's enjoying it and those around him aren't taking this seriously enough.
There are a few problems with your little insult toward libertarians. First, Sheen entered into a contract when he was hired to do the show. It doesn't look like he's been honoring his part of that contract so most libertarians would have little sympathy for him. Secondly, most libertarians would be quick to tell you that he's not free to endanger his children. They have a rights, too.
If you must pick on some political ideology, pick on the liberal mindset that makes him feel entitled to a job and makes him think that he has no responsibility for his actions. That's not very libertarian. Sheen has a responsibility to honor the obligations to which he freely committed – his job, his children, etc. If he managed to do that, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place, would there?
i dunno 'bout that. i think in a lot of cases Hollywood does not drive people crazy as much as it just aggravates a pre-existing condition. those folks play make believe for a living- it's bound to attract more than its share of the mentally marginal…
The problem with the idea that only hyper-macho confrontational actions define manhood is that it produces a society filled with Charlie Sheens. It is a race to the bottom in terms of hyper-competitiveness, and creating a dysfunctional society. Sure it produces "sexy" for women, guys who are arrogant, abrasive, obnoxious, assertive, and dominant (or struggling for dominance). But it ends cooperation and dutiful, nose-to-grindstone work.
Filming a show like "Men" is hard work. It requires a crew of 200, a considerable cast, and lots of writers. Everyone has to put aside ego and cooperate. Sheen is nothing without Cryer, and Angus T. Jones, and Holland Taylor. Nothing without a script, camera men, lighting technicians, and more. That means, to even create something as trivial as "Men" requires a different definition of manhood. One that women no doubt find unsexy, but tends towards the virtues of Cryer the actor (consummate professionalism) than breast-beating self-destruction.
It's not an insult; it's a critique. This article includes the classic comments that come from Libertarians about personal freedom and how anybody can do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And my point that no one lives in a vacuum, and so their actions have ramifications outside of one's personal space, stands.
And Sheen's argument is that he has honored his contract and not allowed his behavior to affect his kids.
But you are right to link the logic here to being a critique of liberal thinking as well. Trouble is that as regards personal behavior, libertarians and liberals often sit on the same side of the table: one because it's none of your business, the other because it's none of your business. Sounds like the same immature argument to me, whether voting for Ron Paul or Obama.
This man is sick. I mean, actually sick. The media shouldn't exploit a person's mental illness for grins and giggles. I know, underneath the manic depressive is an a**hole, but still, they should show a little compassion. Or at least show a PSA afterward about mental health disorders. This guy's on the level of the Tuscon shooter.
As long as his money doesn't run out, he can stay this course. Much of his righteous indignation is warranted but if he starts doing drugs again, which seems likely but not guaranteed, he will crash and burn but the truths that he is spraying the room with will still be true. I wouldn't kill the messenger here. This country needs a little more of myofb and less of this second hand smoke nanny bs.
And yet all the dictionaries of the English language would suggest otherwise.
Talk about a poster child for an addict. This tape shows unequivocally an out-of control, full-on addict (probably faked) negative drug test notwithstanding. Every word and action betrays his claims to being clean. Even IF, and again, I doubt it to be true, he is chemical free, he is as far from being sober as an human walking on the planet. His children are in danger. What a waste!
What a coincidence. I'm not interested in Charlie Sheen's stupid life.
He is the poster child for Hollywood.
Absolutely non-caring for the common person.
Totally out of touch with anything other than his egocentric world.
Mine wasn't an attack on Libertarianism nor on individualism, nor did I make the silly assertions you have. Mine was a comment on the illogic of many Libertarians who seem to forget that individual liberty has its limits and that even the Founding Fathers set limits on personal liberty because we live in a society made up of individuals, all of whom impact one another.
Ayn Rand didn't found the United States of America. Anyone who embraces her philosophy is free to do so, but it stands at odds, in many respects, with American history and intentions of the Founders.
The trouble with Sheen is that he's the star on a highly popular show where he is basically playing himself. The public loves the show yet condemns him for behaving exactly the same way in his real life. His character basically abuses the young male actor with sex, drugs, alcohol and the viewers roar in laughter and wring their hands at what he may be doing to his own kids. What of the kids that are watching him on prime time, who view hysterically laughing adults, going to think about that behavior he portrays? Likely worse is that fact that the young actors stage father is an inept fool who is falling into the Sheen characters lifestyle while feebly trying to raise his son. The show is as disgusting as it could possibly be, in my opinion.
Sheen is not the sick one, the viewers who idolize him are. Geez, when will this country wake up to the moral and cultural pit that we're digging ourselves into?
"Trouble is that as regards personal behavior, libertarians and liberals often sit on the same side of the table…"
This is not even remotely true. When personal behavior results in a person screwing up his or her life, a liberal says, "It's society's fault, so government needs to lend a hand." A libertarian says, "Sorry, it's your fault. Deal with the consequences yourself and learn from the experience." This is an important difference that can't simply be glossed over by saying liberals and libertarians both believe in something like the legalization of marijuana.
And as far as personal behavior goes, it's personal. The minute it starts impacting others in a negative way is when it stops being personal.
The distinction is important, and it's why it's legal to drink beer but illegal to get drunk and pee in your neighbor's garden.
Yes. Your point is the fact that he has the money and those around him want to continue helping him spend it – at all costs even to his death. Plenty of examples are available such as Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and the list goes on.
Yes, he is free to do all those things. Are you saying that he should not be allowed?
I would also add there's something incredibly unsympathetic about a 9/11 truther. Normally I would feel bad about laughing at someone like Sheen [that's not entirely true, my girl and I are routinely ripping on Amy Winehouse. As a mater of fact if she drinks too much I start calling her Amy] but some of these Hollywood celebrity schmucks are such revolting people that I have zero guilt laughing at them and the predicaments they've put themselves in..
Not even remotely? The motivations behind why libertarians and liberals so often agree on social issues is immaterial. On a societal level, the net result is the same.
Of course I am… not. Why do conversations with libertarians always lead to such leaps in logic to governmental interdiction?
Then again, why not? The Randian Utopia libertarians wish for isn't founded on logic either, so why should a discussion be?
I'll go with The Macho Response until Hollywoodland condems every single movie and tv show that contains sex, drugs and violence and every single actor and actress invloved in them. The children are watching. Do it for the children.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
You said everything I actually believe in your original post, but you said it in a sarcastic tone that suggests that you don't agree. You then go on to say that no man is an island, meaning that everything that anyone does effects someone else. I read that as your arguement to the "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" stance.
Of course we always wind up at governmental interdiction. Who enforces what is or is not allowed? When a person says "such and such a thing should not be allowed" they never mean that society should frown on it, they mean that it should be illegal, meaning prohibited by the government.
If that was not the point of your post, then I must have missed it entirely, and would be glad to hear what it was really about.
The net result is not the same. Liberals want to remove a law and replace it with a safety net. Libertarians want to remove a law and replace it with personal responsibility. Again, the distinction is important because one encourages recklessness while the other does not.
The idea that personal behavior can be construed as a "burden" on society is the same kind of big government thinking that leads to bans on trans fats and limits on sodium intake because of the health costs related to obesity.
At some point, we'll lose all sense of freedom of choice because some bureaucrat has decided that our personal behavior might impact society in some way. We'll all become criminals. And make no mistake about it, that is always the net result of piling law on top of law on top of law.
It is our moral responsibility to stop rewarding these Hollywood degenerates by watching and buying their product. It might be painful, but the "invisible hand" is the best and most powerful weapon we have against Sheen's (up 'til now rewarded) depravity. He's beaten women, been a druggie, driven drunk and wasted, etc. I have no problem with edgy performances or material, but why are we rewarding this jerk, and others like him? CBS and Chuck Lorre did the right thing. I bet that dumb Truther can be replaced.
Well, I was going to say it, but you pretty much covered it.
One thing that the other poster didn't specifically address is this: Sheen's argument is illogical. A show's potential profits are heavily influenced by what the public thinks of the stars of that show. If people don't want to watch him, they don't watch the show. If they don't watch the show, no one's making any money. The idea that a parent's behavior doesn't affect their children is equally as illogical. I'm sure a family court judge would be happy to enlighten him on this point.
How long do the manic phases typically last? I wonder if the depressive phases of the past were when he did the cocaine, resulting in the feeling he has when his is in the manic phase, but without the cocaine. What happens if he does cocaine when in the manic phase?
And then, like David Crosby, he'll get a liver from someone else (because he can afford it)
I don't know if I've ever watched a full episode of the show. What I did watch reeked of depravity, but sadly, sickly, it was funny! (I guess it's like the train wreck phenomenon; human nature makes you want to look at things you should turn your head away from)
I do hate when reporters start diagnosing them "Are you bi-polar?" I mean, seriously–the reporters are just trying to make money on watching the guy implode.
In the same way that others have leapt to the conclusion that my post contains a hidden desire for governmental involvement, you have assumed a sarcastic tone. I never used the word "allowed" because that wasn't my point. It still isn't. I am simply pointing up that no man is an island. Every libertarian imagines that he is. Mr. Sheen, perhaps more libertarian than liberal, likewise asserts as much. He's a "winner" whom no one should admonish because he shows up for work and pays his mortgage. That is often what libertarians boil it down to. If I can muster the intestinal fortitude to be a jackass and not end up on the dole, then shut yer yap.
Ah, but there are ramifications on society and on this idiot's sphere — and the sphere of every libertarian unless he is independently wealthy, lives alone, on an island somewhere. Point being that the underlying assumptions of Libertarianism are flawed, based on an unattainable and unrealistic hypothetical.
Charlie: Here is what you do:
1) Get your will in order determine which wife is getting what and how much.
2) Have a dumpster of cocaine brought over to your mansion.
3) Add Hookers, Porno Stars and maybe LIndsay Lohan as a topper.
4) Post a security guard who will call an ambulance to pick up you and your fellow partier's bodies.
5) Have the time of your life until your heart explodes into a 100 million pieces.
Sometimes your lot in life is to serve as an example of what happens when things go wrong. Maybe that is who he is to his kids, the example of a wasted life.
I would argue that the Sheen isn't the only one being illogical. Every libertarian needs to logically address the ramifications of their proposed personal freedom. Why? Because no man is an island.
I'm not going to argue the specifics of this rationale, but I ask you to bear with me:
A woman should have the right to an abortion. Does she have a right to use her health insurance when she develops breast cancer, which correlated to the abortion? If so, do I have to pay higher insurance premiums because the woman chose to abort and now will cost my insurance company $1 million to save her life?
The libertarian says yes and yes. But why should I have to pay more for her decisions? Let the libertarian smoke, and drink, and all the rest of his chosen freedoms that have health risks. But why does he think that instead of higher taxes I should pay higher premiums? Libertarian or liberal, others pay the piper in hidden ways.
No man is an island.
I find it hard to believe that Two and a Half Men requires *lots* of writers.
In a word, yes. As bewildering as it may be, my 88 y.o. fundamentalist Christian father thinks it's funny too (and believe me we've had discussions on this, but that's for another time). Sheen's character, I believe, is attractive because it is a lifestyle many people would like to live, i.e., wealthy, talented, hardly works, Malibu beach house, women at the call, etc. It's easy, fun and hedonist – all the pleasure buttons are being pushed at once. But as Sheen is demonstrating in his real life, it is a destroyer of people too.
And, I'm no religious zealot, so my opinion is not based on a theology, but rather on the fact that Sheen's real and fictional characters are viewed by too many to be envious of and to be copied. It is a form of escapism that traps people and can do great harm. In Sheen's case, he can afford to dry himself out, but too many in our society who follow his lead come to the taxpayer to dry them out and rebuild their lives. The moral and cultural, and financial future of our society calls for us to reject both the private and public persona and behavior of Sheen.
Who wants to party with Charlie Sheen? THIS GUY! well….for about 20 minutes or so and then I'd probably be dead LOL
And the underlying assumptions of both Liberalism and Conservatism is that it's ok to sanctimoniously force the public to live in whatever way they consider "best" for us.
I'm no expert, but as a couple people have noted, he is exhibiting classic signs of bipolar disease. Delusions of grandeur, rapid speech, not sleeping, excessive need for drugs and alcohol, promiscuous sexual behavior, etc. He might be either undiagnosed, not medicated, or under-medicated. I knew someone who was not diagnosed until her mid-50s. She went through a manic period, was diagnosed, went on medication and therapy, but still had another manic episode and needed her medication adjusted. It's really sad, especially for those around him who care about him.
And it's a disease…nothing to be joked about.
In any discussion of government, there isn't much of a difference between saying "No man is an island" and saying "It takes a village."
No, the underlying assumption of conservatism is that individual freedom has costs, and so personal responsibility extends beyond financial wherewithal and hard work. Libertarians often ignore both hidden financial and cultural costs which fan out in proportion to individual ignorance. That has an impact on society, which impacts individuals. An immature and often Utopian understanding of this is often the de facto position of Libertarianism. No one here is talking about forcing anything. Encouraging would be a better word.
You can do whatever you like, but I don't have to affirm it, praise it, embrace it, nor condone it, especially when your behavior has tentacles that affect me and our culture, tentacles that you might like to ignore and not think through, but tentacles nonetheless.
Is there a statistic of what percentage of the "Hollywood" community-industry has a diagnosed problem with any kind of substance abuse/addictions vs. a percentage of the general population? Is it higher, the same, or lower than the general population? And what is the rate of success of intervention and treatment among the Hollywood folks for substance abuse/addictions vs. within the general population similarly affected? Has anyone ever studied this or complied data? I Ask because in recent years there are celebs who are very overt in acting out their problems, like Sheen, Lohan, Spears, and I was wondering if as celebs that part of the population had substance abuse or addictions any worse than anyone else or other segments of the population do.
Is Sheen too far gone now for any kind of help by anyone?
You didn't address the implications: Many such individual rights questions impact your neighbor both financially and otherwise. The disdain you hold for islands and villages are definitively true of human society, disdain or not. But the foundational premise of most Libertarian arguments is a shortsighted one that heels to an unrealistic hypothetical: "IF it doesn't hurt someone else, then…" Yeah, but it almost always does.
So, whether a Communist Utopia or a Libertarian one, neither is workable nor founded on the reality of human behavior nor human society. Not liking reality doesn't change it.
I dunno about that, but I'm pretty sure that creative-types that are drawn to movies, art, writing, etc., have a higher percentage of some kind of mental illness or chemical imbalance. That's what makes some of them brilliant…Emily Dickinson, Van Gogh, Elvis…but it can also lead to an early death. Sometimes you can't shine that brightly without burning yourself out.
Even in the general population, a majority of the homeless, are homeless because they have an underlying mental illness that makes them self-medicate with drugs and/or alcohol, and therefore unable to function in a "normal" way.
My father suffered from depression and drank excessively most of his adult life. His father died when my dad was four due to cirrhosis. My father was on the wagon for maybe three years, then spiraled back down in to depression after a failed relationship with a woman, and ended up drinking himself to death. He was found dead in his bathtub with two empty 24-packs of beer in his apartment.
In all of your complaints, I see the silent hand of government regulation as the main culprit. For instance, in a libertarian society insurance companies could deny breast cancer coverage to women who've had abortion. The opposite would be true, as well; companies could decide to cover absolutely everything. The key, though, is that the companies would actually have that choice, and that's not likely to happen in a government where "we're all in this together."
So what's your solution? You seem angry that people can smoke and drink. Do we ban those things? What about fast food? It's equally bad for us, so do we close down McDonald's or have the government mandate a "healthy" menu? What about switching radio stations while driving? Also risky. Better get rid of those radios, right? Promiscuous sex is pretty dangerous without protection. Maybe we need to appoint an army of federal condom monitors to make sure folks are being careful when they get frisky.
What's not workable or founded on the reality of human behavior or human society is the idea that human beings want — or will tolerate — bureaucratic regulation of every single moment of their existence by faceless government officials thousands of miles away. As I said before, the end result is always a nation of "criminals."
Ah, the silent hand of government. You can't argue the case, so you argue a straw man.
But this thread pretty much sums up why Libertarianism will never be more than a marginal position on the national stage — if not on Big Hollywood, where it's a mainstay — because most of the rest of us have grown up. And arguing with a child, or someone with a child's capacity, yields little more than a whole lot of histrionics.
Charlie may be a mess but he's only saying whats been on my mind for a long time.
I just want to eat, drink, and yes smoke what I want without some assclown sermonizing me, or analyzing me with their pop psychology when they think I'm committing one sin or another. I'm tired of being talked down to like I am 4 years old by politicians, journalists, and assorted no life activitists, because I drive a car, fish, hunt, and pound beers on my weekend.
Charlie may end up killing himself but his words are resonating among the masses who are fed up with the "nanny state" on all levels.
There's no straw man. Maybe I should have said "not-so-silent" instead, and perhaps you should pay closer attention to what's going on in this country.
When something like ObamaCare forces insurers to cover kids on their parents' insurance until the age of 26, it's fairly obvious as to why premiums go up. There are thousands of similar regulations — though more hidden — that force you to "share" in the burden caused by other people's irresponsible decisions. You have no choice but to be affected, and that's exactly the intent.
This isn't a free market at all; it's a market designed around the idea that personal behavior should affect everyone else. It's a system built on encouraging irresponsibility and shared blame, and the ultimate goal is to increase reliance on government because that's how all governments gain additional power.
I don't think you're arguing with me anymore, just off on some rant. I pay plenty of attention to the people who are harming our country both politically and culturally. Both are spheres that concern me.
Nonetheless, allow me to say I agree with you. But I assert that personal responsibility goes well beyond paying your own freight. Which brings us back to the start of this thread. If you'd care to re-read it, go ahead.
My entire disagreement was over the misuse of the word "libertarian." A libertarian, while believing in economic and personal liberty, takes responsibility for his or her actions and the consequences of those actions.
And that's something Mr. Sheen, quite obviously, is not doing. He's behaving exactly as I suggested in my first post — like a "libertine," which the dictionary describes as a person who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility.
I'm not a shrink but, I do know that the number and duration of manic phases varies from person to person. Also , there are sub-types of the disorder. They need a full evaluation and diagnosis. I bet Charlie would not go for that.
About 70% of bipolars have substance abuse problems. They're self medicating, but they are really just making their symptoms more severe. It is also hard to tell the difference between a manic phase of bipolar and the high of cocaine abuse. Cocaine can send someone into a manic phase, so I imagine it would make the manic phase worse. These people need to be treated for both substance abuse and bipolar disorder. Their therapy has to be monitored and adjusted and the patient has to take the medication and stay off the drugs. I don't think Charlie would be very good at that.
Sheen has been very wealthy for a long, long, long time. His career was secure in the 80's, and he'd be hard pressed to spend 100million+. And he doesn't owe his kids a darn thing beyond food, shelter and an occasional smack on the rear.
Are we all so easily swayed by some sensationalized "news" reports?
The guy is livin' the dream. Leave him be…
Since Charlie has been acting since he was 12y.o. I'd say the guy is just about burnt out. Any normal thinking human being would have been taxed after 30 years.
He has succeeded, arguably, beyond his father. Defitely beyond Emilio Estevez, his brother. And he is rich enough to never have to worry about money. Nor will his children.
And what, exactly, does he owe his kids? He has provided for them well enough that none will ever have to work to survive. Is he a subhuman creature somehow for deciding late in life to finally cut loose and enjoy himself? AFTER he earned millions and millions and millions of dollars *for himself and countless others over 30years in acting*?
Seriously- I'm more than a little disappointed at how jealous and hateful so many commenters have been here.
I almost thought this was a more reasonable group…
Hear, hear.
18 months at the most.
I'm going to assume that the irony of how similar you sound to the "Macho Response" editorial quoted in the article wasn't readily apparent, yes?
They say the key to happiness in a complex world is to find something small and make it a large part of your life. Find your bliss. Like gardening, painting, or cocaine and hookers. Coke is small, a little thing really, it can fit in the palm of your hand. And Charlie has taken that simple vaporous nectar and made it a central part of his life. His bliss. A hooker? Well, she can fit in your lap, especially if she is a midget. Charlie has just found the happiness all human's crave, he is one of the lucky ones that found their calling in life. He has found his bliss and in finding it, become a beacon to us all. Slings and arrows? No sir, I say thank you Charlie, thank you.
Just kidding, the freak needs to be committed.
If it existed at all it would be on a subconscious level. I read it then I reacted to it.
does anyone know why the kids are named "Estevez" when neither parent is?
lol (you almost had me)
You don't think much of women if you think we all find Sheen's behavior sexy and the hard work of the men who make the show unsexy. Doubtless some women do, but as you mentioned those are the types he has to pay for their services. The rest of us can see him for what he is–pathetic, strung out and probably mentally ill.
Martin Sheen's real name is something like Ernesto(?) Estevez, so Emilio used his legal name while Charlie adopted the "Sheen" moniker, maybe because he started so young…
Another mention of this fool's name! I am sick of hearing about him and won't even read this.
Why is it that wife beating, drug addicted, OBNOXIOUS celebrities like him get so much attention? Ignore him already, and maybe he will shut up!
Sheen is just an ignorant fool who is too much into himself!
"Is there a statistic of what percentage of the "Hollywood" community-industry has a diagnosed problem with any kind of substance abuse/addictions vs. a percentage of the general population?"
I'd like to see some statistics about the percentage of Liberals who have/had substance abuse problems as opposed to Conservatives.
That is not the macho response, it's the childish response. Sheen is not a man, he's a boy stuck in a man's body, lacking the maturity that's needed to face the challenges and temptations that money, fame, and–on a more basic level–adulthood present.
You must be logged in to post a comment.