Alec Baldwin & Val Kilmer: Two Retarded Celebrities

I think we ought to put Val in with a room full of Vietnam Veterans and let them “fix” his misconceptions.

Ahh, the pieces of human flotsam and jetsam that end up in Hollywood.

what is scarey is people idolize these people as leaders and rolemodels. how can they? they don’t even know who they are. all we know is that they live a lie, their lives are lies, they get paid to play dressup and makebelieve. it could be that there jobs make them think that they really are the vietnam vet, or the president and that their words have merit. they are a frightening bunch. most are addicts and alcoholics and would sale their mothers for more fame and fortune.

“A plane load of Saudi sociopaths hit the World Trade Center and the Congress.”

It was four planes, none of which hit “the Congress”, and unfortunately they were not loaded with Saudi sociopaths, you damned idiot. I am ashamed to live in the same country as you.

He doesn’t even know it was the Pentagon that got hit, that’s how clueless Kilmer is. And Kilmer wants to run for office? Talk about dumb blonde exhimbos. Bush got a free pass for the past six years? Tell that to Jay Rockefeller and Schmucky Schumer who in 2003 created the infamous Rockefeller Memo wherein they plotted to misuse any intelligence and other source to discredit Pres. Bush until he and the republicans were defeated. These democraps are horrific and this country that voted for them will soon experience buyer’s remorse but by then it may be too late.

Laura, can you link us to your specific PursuingHoliness.com… post with the comment so we know what we’re talking about?

Curt, INRE the interview comment:

[Kilmer] I understand it more. It’s an actor’s job. A guy who’s lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He’s some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that’s why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn’t get on the football team, couldn’t finagle a scholarship. They didn’t have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.

Kilmer was born in 1959. By the time he was able to enlist… let along to be subject to a long defunct draft, it was 1977. We exited Vietnam of all US personnel in 1975.

Just what the heck is he babbling about??? That he assumes his “actor training” leaves him more qualified to represent someone who lived thru Vietnam is beyond insulting.

BTW, I have passed Mr. Kilmer many a time on the Warner lot back in the 90s. I’m not even oversized in anyway, but *I* could beat the snot out of the guy…. Looks good… if you like “petite” packages. Perhaps this diminutive stature lies behind his tough talk and unsubtantiated qualifications for “shooting somebody”.

Baldwin? What can you say about the guy. When even liberal Kim Basinger boots him out, there’s little redeeming anything there about him as a human. Leave him alone. He’s got to live with himself for the rest of his life. That ought to be punishment enuf, dont’ you think? For one so consumed with publicity to be so dang inconsequential???

Sorry, MataHarley, here it is. The exact same comment was posted – and verified – at Military Matters, so it seems to be legit.

Okay, Laura… getting the gist now. To repaste here for ease, someone calling themselves “Val Kilmer” using a Eugene, OR campus IP decided to deny the above quote in the article. Per Laura:

[note from Laura - This comment was submitted by someone logging in from a college campus in Eugene, OR, with an email address beginning with "valshelpers@." This is not the first time he's tried to weasel out of something he said, although there is no retraction at the original article. If there were, or even a note that said he'd requested a retraction, or a contemporaneous denial, I'd take his claim not to have said it a good deal more seriously. As it is, I'm calling BS.]

I don’t see much way for Kilmer to slither out of this himself. Sometimes an unfortunate byproduct of thespian talent is to be somewhat self consumed, and oblivious to any reality but the director’s.

Which brings me to Cary. LOL Trust me, guy. That you even hang out on a political site puts you cuts above the other thespians I know. But I do try to separate one’s talents from one’s personal political standings. I hope others do the same.

This is the unfortunate part of fame as an actor. I do sometimes wonder if they realize what fools they are made of when they espouse political opinions to some idiot reporter. It’s not likely they make policy, mind you. Nor should anyone construe that their comments were made specifically to nudge opinions in their directions.

I know how these things works… they may have been chatting, answered a question, and found it cut/pasted into the interview. And in the US of A, even actors are allowed to have and express opinions.

But my personal advice? If you’re going to espouse an opinion as a public figure even on the aside? At least be informed. Keep this in mind, Cary. I have high hopes for your fame and financial success! :0)

However Kilmer’s will not stop me from viewing future Kilmer movies. Baldwin? That’s another story. Hang… he never had enough talent to attract me anyway unless teamed with Sean Connery (i.e. Hunt for Red October).

You never go full retard.

Gaffa, what is your point specifically? That you believe Clinton’s post 911 “I did what I could” rantings via his book??

There is no doubt that 911 was not planned on Bush’s watch alone. By most accounts this was five years in the planning.

So again, I ask. Just what is your point? To absolve the previous admin of intel culpability?

Not to mention, Annenberg’s “FactCheck”??? Would this be the same who managed to help thwart open documentation to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?

Cary, you may want to add a few to your list… like celebs that have been traveling to visit the likes of Chavez, Castro, etal… and acting as US apologists while there. Hanoi Jane is old news… but certainly not off the endangered list for disdain. The list to give her company in our newer conflicts has, unfortunately, been ever growing.

And INRE Black Hawk down, you may like to investigate Saddam’s influence and part in that as well. And, of course, I’m going to hope you know that those who mutilated our US soldiers were Somalis trained by Bin Laden.

You mean Tom Hanks who called Mormons who voted against prop 8
un-American. No, he strikes me as another Hollywood lib
who only “helped” or “supported” our troops for his own ego, not
because it was the right thing to do.

My experience with libs has been that they RARELY do something
for someone else. It is almost always so they can brag about
what wonderful people they are and/or feel good about themselves.
I recall on one forum where a lib called our soldiers stupid for
joining the military. Yet he liked to claim he worked at a VA
hospital and say that proved that HE was the one who cared
about our soldiers while we did not.
I’ve heard them called “selfless narcicists” and it is the
perfect description.

Cary -A lot of Mormons gave a lot of money” does not = church money. I guess you could call the individual givers citizens. That they may be Mormons is another story.

Black Hawk Down was not seen as truthful by many who were also involved in Somalia. It was not just USA & nor were the Americans the only ones caught out in that anarchy.

Did not Sarah Palin have a good quip about the Baldwin bros ? Played them off perfectly.

All Hollywood stars suck.

@ MataHarley

My point being that Clinton didn’t miss every opportunity. In hindsight I’m sure he could have gone that extra mile as could of Bush in hinsight in the 8 months prior to 9/11 which I’m sure was planned years in advance. When Bush came to power I don’t think he was particularly interested in foreign policy and probably for good reason.

@ Hard Right
Wouldn’t be a better world if there wasn’t so much bs talked about who’s american, unamerican, not a patriot etc. You obviously has a disdain for liberals (something you share with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). This talk reminds me of McCarthyism. At the moment I’m reading Pandora’s Keeper about the lives of those who worked on the atomic bomb. Would you be one of those who would have supported the witchhunt against Oppenheimer because of his communist connections? Was he un-American and a traitor? To me the only thing which is un-American is to be against free speech and attempting to deny people free speech. You don’t have to agree with it.

@Curt
Exactly – their opinions should count no more or less than anyone else. Does that include Reagan and Schwarzenegger? Or do politicians views count more?

Vain and self-affected, actors usually are the scum of society, who cannot make themselves useful in other occupations. And the male actors are especially jackasses.

Only in the west are they idolized and looked up to as intelligent and role-models.
Every year they plumb greater and greater depths of stupidity and arrogance.

Val Kilmer? Put him in the jungle in vietnam and he would piss in his pants in one minute.

As for Clinton dealing with terrorism, give me a break. That guy is a pornstar, not a fighter. He’s never held a gun except his own in his life and aggression to him is getting blown by Lewinsky.

Everytime it came to whack these terrorists, Clinton found some way to avoid it. The guy has no real balls, period. He is a lover and not a fighter. Bush could slap his face and make him into a sobbing mess in ten seconds flat.

Although notoriously liberal, there are a few actors who are conservative. I like to think that because they actually have some class, they don’t typically use their profession and access to the media as their soapbox. Maybe I am wrong and they avoid sharing their belief system because it isn’t the “in thing” to do in Hollyweird?

I also agree with Curt in that I don’t typically avoid movies with certain actors because of their beliefs. My exceptions are also Sean Penn and Jane Fonda! My pops is a Vietnam Vet. I feel it is one of the few things I can do to support him and the others that were subjected to her insanity during the war. Sean Penn irritates me to no end.

Maybe when we eventually get this country back into shape and into a positive system, we can share in that common goal of living in a country with leaders of which we may all be proud? I know for me, I am just trying to lay low and avoid the next 4 years which I am anticipating will be some of the worst years in my life…politically speaking, of course!

Perhaps moving to the beach and disconnecting myself from MSM will make it all so much better? Ah yes…I like that idea. Oh wait, but with all that “global warming” the oceans are going to swell and I will be flooded out. Now what?

Thank you Curt and MataHarley

@sigmundringeck:

Actually, in a profession that has a 90% unemployment rate (when the economy is GOOD), most actors DO work in other professions. You’ll find us in food service, sales, customer service, reception, teaching, writing, and sometimes even politics. Heck, we may even turn out to be one of the most beloved and admired Presidents in the history of our nation. The actors you see on tv represent less than .5% of the 10% of us who are working at any given time. If acting is such a nothing, easy job, then why do we find so many whom we consider to be bad at at it? It’s not easy at all, we devote our hearts and souls – and while our art requires us to be completely emotionally open and available, our business requires a very thick skin. We deserve as much respect as anyone else. We are entitled to our opinions as much as any other American in any profession, we are even entitled to say stupid, uniformed things and to call others out when they do so. It’s true that the fact that some whose professions have put them in a spotlight for what they do, does not mean they’ve earned a platform for what they don’t know. Blame those who give it to them.

@GaffaUK: Speaking of McCarthyism what did you make of this, Gaffa?

@GaffaUK:
Huh. We are at war. They are POWs and should not be able to use the US court of Law. This is the most confusing and infuriating thing about how people do not realize this is a war, not a police action.

Did we send lawyers after the German Army or Japanese Army in WWII????

IF this was any other war, these prisoners would have been shot on sight

@Aye Chihuahua:
Yes you are correct. I forgot to add that actually, in WWII or any other war they would be considered spies or un-lawful combatants ad could be shot on site.

Gaffa#37.

First, I missread your Fonda statement. Yes I agree her actions fall into the treacherous, if not completely treasonous, category. So sorry.

INRE the “holding without charges” comment. Why is it everyone chooses to ignore actual history?

There most certainly was a carefully planned system in place to interrogate and charge enemy combatants that were held on foreign soil (i.e. detain and try thru military tribunals at Gitmo). They were never to be held without charges, but if found to be a risk, held until combat’s end as allowable via the Geneva Convention. These are not soldiers of state. They are stateless gangs of Islamic thugs.

That system was steadily thwarted, eroded, delayed and finally abrogated by legal challenge after legal challenge by ACLU lawyers. This is *not* holding them without charges. Any delays in their justice were caused by these legal actions.

A prime example of this entire process is exemplified by Judge Pohl, who refused to delay the hearing and process at Obama’s “request” in the interest of justice and due process rights that include a speedy trial.

Today, because of Obama, they are genuinely being held without charges. Unlike Bush, who had his every attempt for trials thwarted, Obama is REALLY holding them without charges while he “ponders” on what to do.

So I’d say if you have a beef with deliberate delays of justice, and holding people without charges (or even a process in which to charge them), you start pointing your finger at the ACLU and Obama. Because they are the only ones throwing the monkey wrench into the system that was set up for enemy combatants.

He did a photo op to the adoring world. And they are so stupid that they can’t see what he is doing is exactly what they have been falsely accusing Bush of doing for years.

@GaffaUK:

And unlawful enemy combatants is so weak as to be laughable.

What’s weak about it Gaffa?

What’s laughable?

Were these people wearing uniforms?

Were they fighting and hiding among civilian populations?

It’s all clearly defined in the Geneva Conventions.

Whether those laws and standards are “outdated” is a matter of opinion. The fact is that those are the laws and standards that we have to work with. Those are what must be applied.

Gitmo is an embarrassment to US values and democracy.

Actually, Gitmo is a perfect representation of US values. Our efforts to be “sensitive” and “politically correct” led us to putting the prisoners there rather than in front of a firing squad or gallows, which is also clearly defined in the GC’s by the way.

Unfortunately if you are a democracy then we have to play by higher values than Al Qaeda etc.

Last time I checked we weren’t beheading civilians or using retarded citizens or children as bomb bearers or flying plane loads of civilians into buildings or blowing up people waiting in line for employment so I don’t think we have to worry about our value system being in any way comparable to that of Al Qaeda etc.

So capture them by all means, get the info you need and if there is any credible evidence of criminality then send them to trial and throw them in jail.

What you’re ignoring in your argument here is the simple fact that there was a system in place to do precisely what you are pointing out should be done.

That system has been fought at every turn and is now being undermined and disassembled at every turn.

So now, the bridge has been crossed. The prisoners are in Gitmo limbo.

Can’t try them in US courts because the rules of evidence would guarantee their release.

Can’t try them in military courts because BO has eliminated that option at least for now even though Congress and the courts have agreed that is the way to proceed.

Can’t continue to hold them because of the bleeding heart lefties whining about it.

Can’t return them to their home countries because a) their countries don’t want them or b) they may be tortured or killed which would cause more whining and crying from the left.

Can’t take them back to the place of their capture for field trials, etc because BO won’t allow that either and the lefties’ heads would be asplodin’.

So, what’s your solution? Got a couple of extra bedrooms?

Of course, BO’s Atty General disagrees with you. So does the Solicitor general nominee:

Solicitor general nominee says ‘enemy combatants’ can be held without trial

Reporting from Washington — Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

Heh.

How is the new improved HopeyChangey BO legal team position different from the Bush legal team position exactly?

Oh, that’s right. It’s not different.

That ought to cause some additional anxiety amongst the bed wetters.

What’s stopping US citizens being treated the same way? Or are you all protected in you remain on US soil? Would you want to be thrown in jail without knowing what the charge is, without trial? Or would that never happen in the US – unlike so many other countries throughout the world and history.

You’re right. We’re protected here in our own country. We don’t have to worry about being thrown into jail without charge or trial. It doesn’t happen here.

It’s called the US Constitution.

@Aye Chihuahua

My solution – send them back to their country of origin for all those it is believed cannot be tried in US courts for whatever reason. And I reckon the US has enough clout to do this. If they are in danger – tough. Whilst I prefer Obama to Bush – I’m not going to agree on everything Obama does or believe.

Rather than trying to get other countries which are where they are not from and who don’t want them – take them in. It’s the US mess and the US needs to clean it up.