Dear Harvey: Please Get Over Yourself
by Pam MeisterAmericans are debating whether Roman Polanski should be brought back to America to serve the sentence he skipped out on over 30 years ago for having sex (well, raping her, but he pleaded to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor) with a 13-year-old girl. A large portion of society seems to believe that Polanski should face the music for what is truly a disgusting crime, but as we all know, he has his defenders for several reasons: a) he’s a nice guy, b)he’s a brilliant director, c) the art world is being made to suffer, and d) gosh — it was over 30 years ago. To coin a phrase, let’s just “move on.”
We all know that many Hollywood insiders live inside a magical bubble where there are no consequences for anything. Serial affairs, alcohol, drugs — everything is forgiven as long as you can make money for the machine (but they are against capitalism, natch), except that most heinous of crime of all: being a conservative. And we all know that many of them place themselves on a higher plane than those of us little people down here in the theater and stadium seats and in front of our television sets, without whom, of course, Tinseltown would be nothing but a very large (and broke) collection of overinflated egos.
Proof of this “holier than thou” attitude comes right out of the mouth of one of the biggest bigwigs himself: Harvey Weinstein of Miramax pictures:
In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Let’s repeat that, shall we? “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Well, thank goodness for Hollywood. Without them, nothing would get done. Yet, where were we, Harvey? Where exactly were “the little people” during these tragic times?
Let’s see: 403 firefighters, police officers and paramedics died on 9/11 while trying to save the lives of thousands of others, not to mention the respiratory problems of some 300 firefighters afterward and the 422,000 New Yorkers who suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. An estimated $1.4 billion was donated by regular Americans to 9/11 charities. Let’s not forget those who stepped forward to volunteer to help in whatever capacity they could. (This is not to be confused with the “National Day of Service” that is supposed to take the place of a proper day of remembrance.)
Mentions of 9/11 at the next Academy Awards? 26.
Nearly $4 billion was raised by private, non-profit organizations for relief after Hurricane Katrina. (Sadly, much of it was misspent, but that’s not the fault of those who donated.) More than 1 million volunteers made their way to the storm-ravaged area, giving up weekends and vacation plans to help.
Yes, Hollywood held a telethon — to which average Americans donated money — where Kanye West declared, “George W. Bush doesn’t like black people.” I love those touching Kumbaya, bring-the-nation-together moments. Don’t you?
And who could forget Sean Penn’s valiant effort to save helpless victims as he went down, shotgun in hand, and boarded a boat loaded down by his entourage that included a photographer, and ended up bailing out his sinking boat with a red plastic cup. Mission accomplished!
Last, but certainly not least, when it comes to disasters at home and around the world, we cannot forget our fabulous military. When deployed, they always act efficiently and with compassion. And our government is usually quick to donate millions to disaster-ravaged areas too, like pledging $350 million to help in the aftermath of the tsunami in Indonesia back in 2004.
By the way, when’s that telethon to help the victims of the tsunami in American Samoa scheduled?
Don’t misunderstand: if Hollywood wants to hold telethons and concerts and whatever else to raise funds for a good cause, no one’s going to complain. But let’s keep it in perspective. To quote Eugene Robinson (a Washington Post lib, no less):
The Los Angeles Times quoted Weinstein as saying in an interview that he doesn’t believe public opinion is running against Polanski — or that Hollywood is out of step. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said, according to the newspaper. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Hollywood was there, all right, whenever the tragedy was distant, the victims were anonymous and the “compassionate” concert or telethon had acceptable production values that made all the stars look their best. How heroically they rearranged their busy schedules!
Indeed. It brings a tear even to my jaundiced eye — the red carpet, the fabulous gowns, fawning celeb mag fotogs, the goodie bags worth thousands of dollars, the after-hours VIP parties in exclusive clubs…
Back in 2007, Americans gave just under $300 billion to charity, with individuals giving a combined 75.6 percent of the total, donating almost twice as much as the next most charitable nation, the UK . And those in the poorest income brackets donate more per capita than their wealthier counterparts. Was there a star-studded telethon that year (aside from the usual Jerry Lewis gig)? I can’t recall. But how strange that many celebs are reluctant to publicly declare how much cold cash they personally donate to a cause.
So, Harvey, please, take your “moral compass” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. I think Americans are doing just fine without your overrated “guiding light.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
70 Comments
I, for one have decided to do something. 6 years ago I started to interview and record the life stories of our elders. I started with our elder care facilities and trained volunteers to do the same. I felt that if we could capture and archive the everyday thoughts, ideas, wisdom, values and life experiences of these elders, then at least their families would have the benefit of see the country through their parents eyes, long after they were gone. In this way they would still have an unfiltered view of the world the way it was, not by virtue of Oliver Stone and other Hollywoodies re-written version of history.
If you want to help, if you want me to help you do the same for your loved ones please contact me.
See my comment on Whoopi, et al.
Well, that was just brilliant. And right. I'm so sick of those in Hollywood trying to tell me how to live a moral life…Charlie Sheen anyone? They can all kiss my Right Wing, Extremist, Domestic Terrorist, Gun Toting, Children Protecting Azz.
As you rightly point out it's the exaggerated income of Hollywood types that generates a lot of their confidence in world-view.
But that will soon change:
THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF MY WALLET
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-u...
See it, where?
"So, Harvey, please, take your “moral compass” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. " Isn't that where he keeps it anyway? I think Harvey digs deep and pulls the compass out only when he needs to check what crappy direction Hollyweird is heading next.
It appears by the look of Harvey that he has many unfortunate places where the sun doesn't shine! Including his mind, as the UV rays would fry the germs!
Harvey, Harvey, Harvey, lets take a look at that compas shall we. Oh my, this isn't a compass after all, it's a mirror.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kimberly Cox. Kimberly Cox said: I nominate @BigHollywood for the #NobelTweetAwards RT @bighollywood Dear Harvey: Please Get Over Yourself http://bit.ly/hpPof [...]
"Dear Harvey: Please Get Over Yourself"
I have, a long time ago.
Harvey, darling, your compass is broke.
Yes, Hollywood has great compassion, they are very big on understanding. For some time now they have been helping people understand and sympathize with murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other crooks. As actors have long shouted, "What's my motivation?" Hollywood has long delved into motivations. They have helped us understand and empathize with Hannibal Lecter and the heroic leads of Natural Born Killers. Currently they are doing an excellent job humanizing grown adults who willfully seduce naive children. The Reader is not soft-core kiddie pr0n, no no no, it is a monumental study of human passions and foibles as it examines ordinary people who are caught up in and damaged by forces beyond their control!
Sympathy and compassion for Polanski? Of course! After all, Hollywood, as a long-standing educator of the public on proper tolerance and acceptance of human
faultsvirtues, has an obligation to make us understand how our intolerant society has to adjust our perceptions about well-meaning adults who helpfully guide our young people through that awkward initial period of sexual confusion and hesitancy by introducing them to the natural joys of sexual relations.Eliciting compassion from a hateful and intolerant society, such noble work that Hollywood has dedicated themselves to performing for the common good!
“Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,”
Great. After WWII, Blacks popped out children with no daddys at about 25%. Today it is 75%. Where is Weinstein's compassion for the Schvatzes, and who misled them by glamorizing Hell?
Judging from that picture, Harvey's compass points straight to the nearest bakery!
This is the type of inane comment you get when your moral compass does not have a north pole.
You forgot "hard working, tax paying" child protecting azz.
Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn, Will Ferrell………………nothing but a bunch of officious buttinski's!!!
Surprised?…………………………………..Not in the least.
Harvey,
It will be nice to see Polanski back in LA to be sentenced and serve jail time for a crime he commited. Wienerstein, you obviously forgot that when you commit a crime you may have to go to jail. Unfortunately he had the opportunity to leave 30+ years ago to avoid prosecution and now his time is up.
Some poor 13 y/o girl was victimized by that SOB that she must live with for the rest of her life. Where in the hell is your moral compassionate compass in all of that? This has nothing to do with you or Hollywierd so with all due respect I beg you Sir, "Shut the Hell Up"! You should be Thankful that it was not your daughter.
Winerstien I hope you views are not a total reflection of Hollywood and/or the movie industry.
Some one should tell the idiots in Hollywood that it's impossible to have a superior moral compass when one lacks a conscience.
Harvey,
It will be nice to see Polanski back in LA to be sentenced and serve jail time for a crime he commited. Wienerstein, you obviously forgot that when you commit a crime you may have to go to jail. Unfortunately he had the opportunity to leave 30+ years ago to avoid prosecution and now his time is up.
Some poor 13 y/o girl was victimized by that SOB that she must live with for the rest of her life. Where in the hell is your moral compassionate compass in all of that? This has nothing to do with you or Hollywierd so with all due respect I beg you Sir, "Shut the Hell Up"! You should be Thankful that it was not your daughter.
Winerstien I hope your views are not a total reflection of Hollywood and/or the movie industry.
Help us fight corruption – Please sign our petition
http://myfreepress.net/petitions/dont-tread-on-me
If you have already signed, thank you for your support.
The Hollywood elite believe that nothing occurs in this country without them being involved. For example; Good actions by Americans to a disaster, the Hollywood crowd shows up and grabs the credit with the help of the main stream media who reports on it to make it sound as if the good actions wouldn't have happened unless the celebrities didn't show up.
We don't need the Hollywood crowd to show Americans what compassion is and how to do what is right in America. Their warped moral compass doesn't understand compassion or how to do what is right. It only understands publicity and keeping their faces in front of a camera. Just a glance at the covers of the showbiz rags in the super market checkout line tell me more than I need to know about where Hollywood's moral compass is pointing.
Yes, I remember the Weinsteins' big Miramax-produced, star-filled fundraising show post-9/11. The same show where Hillary Clinton was booed, but the booing was removed from the DVD release and re-broadcasts. The same show where Richard "Hamster Boy" Gere had the nerve to tell a crowd full of cops and firemen who lost relatives and colleagues at the WTC how they should feel (he was also booed). The same show whose stars ran like cockroaches when Bill O'Reilly started questioning where that money raised from the show was going. Libertarians Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell were the only ones willing to step up to the plate. George Clooney decided to start a beef with O'Reilly instead…after all, the stars' intentions were good, what else matters, right?
Thanks but no thanks, Weinstein.
He looks like a frequent guest of those "all you can shove down your throat for one price" buffets.
Will someone please post a picture where Harvey isn't standing on his head?
Oh, he's not?
Tina
Don't worry Harvey, your broken compass is still right twice a day…or something.
A side benefit of having Harvey shove his moral compass up his fat ass will be to bring it into close proximity to his fat head, thus allowing him for perhaps the first time to see how badly broken it really is.
Forgive Harvey, for his mouth speaks only words, and words never hurt anyone. You know, it's not like he did ludes with a very young girl then had sex with her. And we love all his movies, it's just we forgot we went without paying, which is why the government should give him money to make more movies we won't see because we would love them.
Harvey, seriously, STFU!
"The Reader is not soft-core kiddie pr0n, no no no, it is a monumental study of human passions and foibles as it examines ordinary people who are caught up in and damaged by forces beyond their control! "
Quoting the fundamental thesis of a movie with a glib sarcastic tone does not undermine it's content.
"adjust our perceptions about well-meaning adults who helpfully guide our young people through that awkward initial period of sexual confusion and hesitancy by introducing them to the natural joys of sexual relations."
Oh, your satire is so fetching! Let me make sure I got your message:
—
Age of consent is divine mandate!
Adults + children = lecherous abuse!
Sex is a calamitous vista of sin, no joy comes of it!
Sexual confusion is only solved by marriage!
—
Here, let me try.
"Social conservatism isn't about moral hysteria and a zealous authoritarian war on perceived moral licentiousness, no no no oh no, it's about personal moral responsibility and human self-restraint!"
Hmm, GOTTA agree with you here. After all, those sicko liberals like to pretend that the boy who had sex with Debra Lafave doesn't cry his eyes out every night, his innocence brutally stolen from him. They have the nerve to think that the boy hasn't fallen into a world of unendurable pain and terrible memories. They treat the whole situation as if the boy was sexually mature for his age, and enjoyed the sexual relationship while it lasted, even if he didn't enjoy the media attention afterwards. How perverted and misguided.
But let's also look at these "artists". Paint a picture, write a book, sculpt, whatever, and you do it alone with rare exceptions. In Hollywood there are teams of high priced people who assist. Yet we are led to believe that the actor, or director is somehow the Auteur. Well, no. And whether it is a recording or a movie the top boys and girls will, without, of course without breaking the third wall, send in the clowns to clean up the mess. Basically, they create as a group, not as individuals. That makes their "creations" the product of many minds, not one. My point is that none of them compare to the best artists before the wretched 20th century arrived. There is no Dickens, no Blake, no Rembrandt, no Bach, no Shakespeare (when did one jump the fence and do something out of their realm?).
Actually, Kanye (still a douche) said G.W. "doesn't CARE about black people", not that he HATED them; point well taken though…
Looking at Harvey, not an easy task, I can't help but think of the stereotype, of the sleazy movie producer with a casting couch.
A moral compass does not work if it sits right next to the polarizing magnet of liberal stupidity.
Dear Pam: Please get your facts straight.
Mr Weinstein and his brother founded Miramax, named for their parents, in 1979. They sold it to Disney FOUR YEARS AGO. Today, they run The Weinstein Company, and still make films.
If you can't be bothered to do your homework, why should we believe anything you tell us? Your misinformation is FOUR YEARS out of date.
Knock Hollywood all you like. I for one don't care.
But please get your facts right, or some might think you don't know what you're talking about.
"…This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America."
~ Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
I am struck by the hypocrisy of Obama's umbrage to $220 billion in interest when his Feb 2009 $787 billion stimulus bill has $347 billion in interest associated with it.
how would Hollywood feel if it had been Father Roman, a Catholic priest, who was guilty of sex with a minor and then fled to avoid jail time? not quite so forgiving, methinks.
Hello Miss Moderator!
What's the matter with you people? You've had more than an hour to correct a fundamental error of fact. Judging by your frightened refusal to post the correction, there must be something wrong with your commitment to scholarship, to accuracy, to simply getting it right.
Four years means nothing? By your theory, Mr Bush is still President.
I understand that you don't want to embarrass your blogger. Fair enough. Just correct her mistake, and you will have done the right thing for her, for accuracy, and for your reputation.
Just think what that money could do in the hands of those who earn it:
http://www.givingusa.org/press_releases/gusa/Givi...
U.S. charitable giving estimated to be $307.65 billion in 2008
– Giving in worst economic climate since Great Depression exceeds $300 billion for second year in a row
2008 estimates of giving by type of recipient
Religion: Religious congregations and other religious organizations received an estimated $106.89 billion, which is 35 percent of the total. This is the second year that giving to religion has exceeded $100 billion. Giving to religion increased an estimated 5.5 percent (1.6 percent adjusted for inflation). Religious gifts account for an estimated one-half of all individual giving, not counting gifts made through bequests (5.6 percent) or family foundations (about 3 percent).
o While our self proclaimed Christian president has failed to find a church in D.C. to replace 20 years in Rev. Wright's Black Liberation Theology pew, "…the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer."
– However, don't lament athiests, "The value of the average religious household’s gifts to nonreligious charities was 14 percent higher than that of the average secular household, even after correcting for income differences."
– Observe the tax base who will have to cover the national debt Mr. President and struggle with record unemployment: "…it is low-income working families that are the most generous group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average. This compares to about 2.5 percent among the middle class, and 3 percent among high-income families."
– Calling communist Van "I'm a community organizer inside the federal family" Jones: "The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.”"
– Despite POTUS and Sheriff Joe Biden's teleprompters, the Keynesian theory of govt spending $1 for a GDP return of $3, to push the Feb 2009 Obama stimulus bill of $1.2 Trillion can not compare to charitable works: "In America, $1 given privately tends to increase GDP by about $15—an excellent rate of return by any standard."
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-...
A Nation of Givers
By Arthur C. Brooks From the March/April 2008 Issue
o Just for you Penn & Teller: American Catholics contribute about one quarter of yearly charity sum, over $22 billion dollars in charity.
– Catholic parishes in the U.S. alone contribute about $6 billion yearly to local church support.
– Catholic institutions in the U.S. including 556 hospitals, 236 colleges and universities, 1,350 high schools, 6,500 grade schools, and 3,000 social service agencies comprise a $100 billion yearly economy.
http://www.fadica.org/us-catholic-philanthropy-pl...
April 15, 2008 – FADICA
U.S. Catholic Philanthropy Plays Prominent Role in Church Worldwide
Speaking of moral compasses, doesn't this say it all about how far we have gotten away from charitable giving and dependency on the government?
– “Americans are different than us,’’ he said. “Us, we believe in handouts. But Americans don’t help individuals. Still, we stand to gain a lot from the presidency. Those of us who are clever, we will gain.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/...
How telling is it that Obama, a self-professed Christian, doesn't offer his own African relatives assistance or for them to seek help from a charity but instead stresses assistance aid from the U.S. government?
Harvey…. You speak of compassion…. where is your compassion for the child Roman Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized? You make me sick.
Depends on how the "based on a true story" movie turned out and how much sympathy it makes or destroys for the priest. If he is portrayed at turning his back on "an intolerant church that does not want to comprehend the nature and depth of our mutual love," then going atheist, they might parade him through the streets on their shoulders and decry how his basic human rights have been violated then provide him with sanctuary to protect him from "unjust persecution."
Doing the sex scenes with an 18 year old who can pass for the portrayed 15 year old, when in reality the kid was 11, will really be a plus.
how many angry neurotic judjmental people!!!!!!!!! scary…
Yoo hoo, ID, will you now "pop up" the previous post?
Rest assured, his moral compass does indeed make use of a "pole," perhaps two.
Wow. Condemns me for things I did not say, apparently takes personal offense at my imagined moral stance, while defiantly posting as untraceable as possible, even using "Anonymous" with a capital "A" to emphasize it.
Why, it's like getting hate mail in a plain brown envelope!
"You will never know who I am, but I offended about what you have said about my, er, my firiend's, um, Hollywood's beliefs!"
Message received, pal, loud and clear!
Wow. Condemns me for things I did not say, apparently takes personal offense at my imagined moral stance, while defiantly posting as untraceable as possible, even using "Anonymous" with a capital "A" to emphasize it.
Why, it's like getting hate mail in a plain brown envelope!
"You will never know who I am, but I deeply offended by what you have said about my, er, my firiend's, um, Hollywood's beliefs!"
Message received, pal, loud and clear!
By "judjmental", do you mean the sort of person who would call another person nasty names? Names like "angry" or "neurotic"?
Scary indeed!
I would think at some point they would figure out that almost no one cares what they think. Sit down idiot.
These lame defenses of Polanski are reminiscent of those offerred for Kathleen Soliah (remember the Symbionese Liberation Army?) aka Sara Jane Olson, who finally was caught after some 30 years and sent to prison for a few years. All we heard after her arrest were "it's been so long", "the times were different then", and my personal favorite "she's such a good cook".
Yes, Harvey should realize that "All you can eat" is just a promotional gimmick, and not a challenge.
You people just don't get it!! The BPs (Beautiful People) get to live by a different law than the rest of us. They can hire the best accountants to avoid their taxes. They bankroll the best lawmakers money can buy to write the tax laws that no one but their accountants can understand. They can laugh at or pontificate about your twisted morality til the cows come home and you, you lucky little toads, get to pay $10 a ticket at the movies for the privelege of being lectured and satirized. The rest of you Little People, you ugly little trolls, you trailer trash swine with your 9 to 5 lives, you can just drop dead. Why can' t you trolls just understand that your purpose in life is to offer slavish adulation to the "creative" artists who illuminate our pathetic, potato-chips and beer world, and to fund their projects? Moral: Follow the money.
From what I know of Mr. W….I'd just say, if he has a moral compass, it is broken…
Mark 12:41-44
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
The whole disgusting business with Polanski didn't come into focus for me until I watched Mel Gibson's "We Were Young Once…" for the first time recently. I don't usually watch Gibson's movies because they're way too gory; however, I watched this one because, for once, it would fit. It's really good, even though it's basically BS. Except for the bayonet charge at the end, you can't see the extent of the BS in this movie until you've seen historical film of the cavalrymen going into the Ia Drang then, or the interviews afterwards (some are available on You Tube); *however,* unless you were there or are very close with someone who was, you can't really appreciate the truth of what those soldiers went through until you watch Gibson's movie, and that's something we all really need to know. There's a genius to Gibson's work here that's hard to describe. (I'm not a Christian, but from the sounds of some, apparently his Jesus movie has this, too.)
Now we all know that Gibson is, at least, an ugly drunk. He may also, for all I know, keep sane by transmuting his inner demons into film, which Polanski is known for, too. However, Gibson didn't rape anyone, let alone a kid; he didn't skip bail or sentencing, and he did his punishment, such as it was for a star (which is whole 'nother issue), like a man. He showed that someone can be a real artist–a genius, in fact, and I say that not as a fan or acquaintance of his–and still be responsible.
That's not so hard. Really. The two qualities are not exclusive.
Much of Hollywood should just get off their high horses, shut up over Polanski the pedophile and skip artist, and learn a lesson from "crazy," responsible Mel Gibson.
You're right, my bad. I'll remember for next time, cuz I'm sure there will be one.!!
Harvey is a has been. His studio is tanking, and his films don't make money.
But he knows what's best for us.
So, Harvey, please, take your “moral compass” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. I think Americans are doing just fine without your overrated “guiding light.”
Hooray!
ps…I think your compass is broken Harvey.
"Condemns me for things I did not say"
As opposed to excoriating a loose-knit group of movie producers for sharing the same overly permissive, liberal "Hollywood beliefs"? Why, it's like getting hysterical dribble in a very bulky, slightly leaking and kerosene redolent box.
"Message received, pal, loud and clear!"
Somehow I doubt you ever receive anything "loud and clear", including those AM radio talkshows.
As far as Polanski, you forgot to mention that he survived the Holocaust and his wife, unborn child and friends were murdered by a cult.
This doesn't excuse the man for rape, but you failed to provide the proper context when going over the reasons why people are sympathetic towards him.
But, often you tend to gloss over major details without fail, so I'm no surprised.
It's sad that Polanski went through all that he did, but those things have nothing to do with what he did. The young girl did nothing to him; he did it to her.
Excuses are like a__holes-evrybody's got one, and they all stink.
Judging from your responses, the both of you who have responded to my comment didn't read my post clearly.
I believe the phrases I used were "doesn't excuse," "context … why people are sympathetic."
Harvey, Whoopi's not available to help clarify my thoughts — Do you mean "moral compass", or "moral, moral, compass, compass"? The battle in the trenches continues. If you and your ilk had it your way, "The Passion of the Christ" and "Narnia" would never have been made. What we continue to see coming out of "hollyweird" is pictures produced by the pedophilia advisory board.
This coming from someone who posts without a picture of themselves.
Pam can't be troubled with facts. She likes to get carried away by her passionate hate towards the opponents who try to make her think like them.
Because, you know, Harvey Weinstein's fat ego is an affront to her very existence and she must comment on it.
Said the pot to the kettle, you buffoon.
If I was making fun of someone's physical appearance, then I would gladly post a photo of myself. But, I'm not. You are. And you're doing it anonymously. "Pot," "buffoon" … whatever.
http://www.facebook.com/vincesmetana
You must be logged in to post a comment.