PDA

View Full Version : Am I The Only One To See The Irony In Hollywood Supporting These Idiots?



NJCardFan
10-08-2011, 08:25 PM
I mean, some Hollywierd types are very, very wealthy so the question is, does stripping the wealthy of their property go for the Hollywierd elite as well?

Apocalypse
10-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Only if their not a progressive liberal with an "Obama '12" sign in their yard.

Elspeth
10-08-2011, 09:13 PM
I can only figure it's image and publicity. They really can't possibly want their own wealth spread out to the protesters or anyone else.


Edited to add: Something I saw on yahoo comments just now: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul

fettpett
10-08-2011, 10:47 PM
those aren't the "evil" millionaires and billionaires

NJCardFan
10-09-2011, 12:36 PM
I can only figure it's image and publicity. They really can't possibly want their own wealth spread out to the protesters or anyone else.


Edited to add: Something I saw on yahoo comments just now: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul

Jim Rohn said that.

Odysseus
10-09-2011, 08:42 PM
I particularly enjoy listening to A-list actors demand income redistribution, but never take it to its logical outcome, which is that we apply it to them. We can start that in Hollywood by pooling all actors' salaries and then dividing them equally among the entire SAG and AFTRA memberships. Instead of the stars getting $20 million per movie, the entire cast can split their salaries. I can't wait to see what Susan Sarandon thinks of that. Then we can do the same with directors, and see how Michael Moore reacts.

Elspeth
10-09-2011, 08:48 PM
Jim Rohn said that.

Thanks. It was posted as someone's comment on yahoo.

Elspeth
10-09-2011, 08:50 PM
I particularly enjoy listening to A-list actors demand income redistribution, but never take it to its logical outcome, which is that we apply it to them. We can start that in Hollywood by pooling all actors' salaries and then dividing them equally among the entire SAG and AFTRA memberships. Instead of the stars getting $20 million per movie, the entire cast can split their salaries. I can't wait to see what Susan Sarandon thinks of that. Then we can do the same with directors, and see how Michael Moore reacts.

I love this. Think of all the writers, bit actors, costume people, grips and best boys that could use the extra income. Because the film is a communal project and no one is more important than any other person, all should be paid equally.

I'll sit and wait for Hollywood to act on that.

:popcorn:

Rockntractor
10-09-2011, 08:52 PM
Jim Rohn said that.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/179.html

Wei Wu Wei
10-10-2011, 01:50 AM
I love this. Think of all the writers, bit actors, costume people, grips and best boys that could use the extra income. Because the film is a communal project and no one is more important than any other person, all should be paid equally.

Do you believe this?

jediab
10-10-2011, 09:48 AM
I particularly enjoy listening to A-list actors demand income redistribution, but never take it to its logical outcome, which is that we apply it to them. We can start that in Hollywood by pooling all actors' salaries and then dividing them equally among the entire SAG and AFTRA memberships. Instead of the stars getting $20 million per movie, the entire cast can split their salaries. I can't wait to see what Susan Sarandon thinks of that. Then we can do the same with directors, and see how Michael Moore reacts.

Not only that, but what about "fairness" and "equality" in how people get paid? Let's see George Clooney get paid the same as the boom mic guy.

Novaheart
10-10-2011, 10:07 AM
I mean, some Hollywierd types are very, very wealthy so the question is, does stripping the wealthy of their property go for the Hollywierd elite as well?

Hollywood stars are union members. There is a long history of entertainers lending their celebrity to the cause of labor and social justice. Having said that, since I don't think that OWS has a single and clear message or demand then I don't know why anyone with celebrity would risk looking like a fool by being out there.

I like the idea of OWS, but as I said the lack of a clear and logical message takes the fun out of a good political action for me. 'Stop the Vietnam War" was pretty basic. The fact that some of the people at the peace demonstrations had other agenda is irrelevant. But, two days ago I listened to NPR and some guy in New York for OWS was going on about how we need to go to direct democracy, where Congress proposes and votes on bills, but where bills of a certain kind or importance must necessarily be voted on in general elections.

noonwitch
10-10-2011, 01:09 PM
Do you believe this?



I do. It takes a village to make some stars look good on camera.

SaintLouieWoman
10-10-2011, 01:22 PM
I particularly enjoy listening to A-list actors demand income redistribution, but never take it to its logical outcome, which is that we apply it to them. We can start that in Hollywood by pooling all actors' salaries and then dividing them equally among the entire SAG and AFTRA memberships. Instead of the stars getting $20 million per movie, the entire cast can split their salaries. I can't wait to see what Susan Sarandon thinks of that. Then we can do the same with directors, and see how Michael Moore reacts.

I had a sales manager once, a trust fund kid whose wife wanted him to get out of the house and keep busy. He had this super idea----to pool the commissions. Those who couldn't sell their way out of a paper bag would divvy the commissions with those who went out and actually sold something.

Guess I'm not a generous soul. I told him that plan of his was ridiculous and transferred departments. He didn't last a lot longer. It seems he was the SIL of the founder and chief stock holder of an extremely large company in STL. The owner of my money thought it would be a good entree into that market. Turned out the FIL thought the same of the sales manager as I did. :D

Redistribution of wealth is indeed only acceptable to the laggards who don't want to work.

Odysseus
10-10-2011, 01:32 PM
Do you believe this?

No, but they claim to, at least when it comes to other professions. From the idiot's manifesto:


Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

To them, there's no difference between a brain surgeon and the janitor who mops up after surgery, and there's a lot more of a skill differential between the surgeon and the janitor than there is between Susan Sarandon and any other aging ingenue.

Elspeth
10-11-2011, 12:05 AM
Do you believe this?

We need a sarcasm tag.

jediab
10-11-2011, 11:08 AM
No, but they claim to, at least when it comes to other professions. From the idiot's manifesto:


Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

To them, there's no difference between a brain surgeon and the janitor who mops up after surgery, and there's a lot more of a skill differential between the surgeon and the janitor than there is between Susan Sarandon and any other aging ingenue.

Reminds me a while back about the flight attendants for a Canadian airline suing because they didn't make as much as the pilots.

NJCardFan
10-11-2011, 12:02 PM
Reminds me a while back about the flight attendants for a Canadian airline suing because they didn't make as much as the pilots.

Wasn't that Canadair? The now defunct Canadair?

Odysseus
10-11-2011, 04:52 PM
Reminds me a while back about the flight attendants for a Canadian airline suing because they didn't make as much as the pilots.

Didn't you see Airplane? A flight attendant can fly a plane, or at least inflate the autopilot. :D