Liam Neeson can stick it

[Bluestream]

Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
I think it's interesting when these Hollywood types that make millions off of shoot em up movies come out against the tools that made them rich.


So anyone who plays a drug addict should not be against drug use?

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
I think it's interesting when these Hollywood types that make millions off of shoot em up movies come out against the tools that made them rich.


So anyone who plays a drug addict should not be against drug use?


That's a valid point, though usually when people play drug addicts, it's in a negative light. It's not really glorifying it.

Liam Neeson's roles tend to glorify violence, so what he's saying can be seen as hypocritical, and that's kind of how I see it. But he may also just be trying to cancel out his glorification of violence.

I own one gun that rarely sees the light of day. When it does, it's at a range or on private rural land. I personally don't think that's a "[censored] disgrace," but Liam Neeson is entitled to his opinion. It is ironic though that his movies have done far more for the gun industry than any of my purchases.

 

[ryansride2017]

I didn't post this because I think no one should have anti-gun views (although i will fight to my grave protecting the right to own firearms)....i posted because he has such views but has no problems picking one up when it comes to making a buck.

 

[CT8]

I think Movies mostly suck and really don't want to support most of the Hollywood crowd. Money is the only power we have yet we give our power away with out though.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: CT8
I think Movies mostly suck and really don't want to support most of the Hollywood crowd. Money is the only power we have yet we give our power away with out though.


I agree with the latter part of what you said. People don't even realize they are being propagandized by some movies.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: ryansride2017
I will watch the upcoming Spongebob movie before I would watch any of his movies. To basically say, I don't like guns but I will use them to make millions, is hypocrisy at its best.

Liam Neeson


By the context of the post I assume that Liam Neeson is an actor? I'm happy that I have better things to do than support Hollywood actors by watching their movies. And I'm certainly glad that I don't get my knickers knotted up over their meaningless views.

The advantages of a TV and movie free lifestyle continue.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Trav
Europeans have a different viewpoint about guns. I can understand him given where he was raised and where he lived in the early days.
The man is a great actor and has every right to his personal views, i don't like him any less as an actor for them. Jana Fonda, well thats another story!
Not saying i agree or disagree with him, thats my business.

The Swiss sure do.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland


That link is not working for me, and I don't understand why there was a reference to the Swiss in the first place.
Can someone explain.

I think the guy is entitled to an opinion. For what it's worth?

 

[ryansride2017]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit


By the context of the post I assume that Liam Neeson is an actor? I'm happy that I have better things to do than support Hollywood actors by watching their movies. And I'm certainly glad that I don't get my knickers knotted up over their meaningless views.

The advantages of a TV and movie free lifestyle continue.


Your entertainment options are definitely your own choice (and i respect that) but characterizing it as "meaningless views" in inaccurate when you fleece the public from millions, if not billions, via hypocritical views.

 

[MrHorspwer]

The guy has his opinion. He's free to vocalize them as he sees fit. You have the oppertunity to see his movies because you agree with him, not see his movies because you disagree, or simply not care about his opinion and watch whatever you'd like. It's pretty simple actually.

What isn't lost on me is who's reporting on it: Fox News. The same Fox News who's commenters supported Paula Dean's right to free speech when her words lander her in hot water. I'm sure they're going to be right by Liam's side on this one too, lending their support for his right to speak. Right?

I also find it curious who is squeaking the loudest about this: Para-Ordanace. I didn't know Para was the firearm supplier to Taken 3. I do now. Funny how that worked out for them...

 

[dlundblad]

He is European.. they are a bit liberal when it comes to guns. Not sure what sort of thing Ireland has going on, but I am sure only the thugs have them.

Harrison Ford is anti gun.. I will be watching the new Star Wars in theatres. Sylvester Stallone is anti gun too. I love Rambo and will continue to watch it.

I have a few good liberal friends as well. We are still friends, go out together for drinks and honor each others opinion.

Life is good.

 

[JHZR2]

I think some take the hypocrisy thing too far. Walk in a train station or airport in Europe and you'll see more guns then you do in the Pentagon. And I go in the Pentagon routinely. Look at the Euro GUN violence numbers and you'll see pretty consistently low ones, which would make it tough for someone of European descent to argue of the necessity of having substantial guns in the civilized Euro countries (-and by extension, the usa is pretty darn civilized too). It's just a different viewpoint that Fox News could capitalize on to sell advertising and make money. And you've been had.

To play ostrich and say there is no problem, when there obviously is one in at least some segments (inner city, mentally ill, etc) is just plain wrong. But so is a set of commentaries using expletives to discuss an issue that isn't defined properly in the argument.

It's clear there are too many guns because there are a ton of irresponsible owners who are either killed by them, kill someone accidentally with them, or manage to have them stolen through incorrect storage and securing. And then the 150k or so guns that this happens to, per year, are in the hands of criminals. So each year that's 150k or more too many guns added to a cumulative list. And that is a disgrace.

But as far as I could see, he didn't make a meaningful argument to justify his comments.

Of course Fox News could sell lots of advertising to the people it can get worked up over such a thing.

 

[cbear]

He's just like George Clooney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Daniel Craig, etc...

 

[Shannow]

As long as he confirms his views by only hiring security that don't carry, then he's more than entitled to his view.

I agree with him regarding the difference between fantasy and reality, but to me the hypocrisy is where he puts his trust (and I don't know what he does for security)

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Trav
Europeans have a different viewpoint about guns. I can understand him given where he was raised and where he lived in the early days.
The man is a great actor and has every right to his personal views, i don't like him any less as an actor for them. Jana Fonda, well thats another story!
Not saying i agree or disagree with him, thats my business.

The Swiss sure do.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland


That link is not working for me, and I don't understand why there was a reference to the Swiss in the first place.
Can someone explain.

I think the guy is entitled to an opinion. For what it's worth?


He was pointing out that the most Swiss have guns in the house. True but because they have a home guard.
Its not like they have no gun laws or regulations.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I think some take the hypocrisy thing too far. Walk in a train station or airport in Europe and you'll see more guns then you do in the Pentagon. And I go in the Pentagon routinely. Look at the Euro GUN violence numbers and you'll see pretty consistently low ones, which would make it tough for someone of European descent to argue of the necessity of having substantial guns in the civilized Euro countries (-and by extension, the usa is pretty darn civilized too). It's just a different viewpoint that Fox News could capitalize on to sell advertising and make money. And you've been had.

To play ostrich and say there is no problem, when there obviously is one in at least some segments (inner city, mentally ill, etc) is just plain wrong. But so is a set of commentaries using expletives to discuss an issue that isn't defined properly in the argument.

It's clear there are too many guns because there are a ton of irresponsible owners who are either killed by them, kill someone accidentally with them, or manage to have them stolen through incorrect storage and securing. And then the 150k or so guns that this happens to, per year, are in the hands of criminals. So each year that's 150k or more too many guns added to a cumulative list. And that is a disgrace.

But as far as I could see, he didn't make a meaningful argument to justify his comments.

Of course Fox News could sell lots of advertising to the people it can get worked up over such a thing.


JHZR2 you go in the Pentagon routinely?

 

[dnewton3]

I'm going to tip-toe very carefully here, so as to not violate our zero RSP policy. I am speaking to the topic of professional trades and personal opinions of entertainers.

There are three ways to "vote". By "vote" I mean support or not support that which you prefer.
1) using your finger; pulling a lever at the polling booth
2) using your feet; move to a location where the predominant position is same/similar to yours
3) using your dollars; purchasing that which you like, versus not what you don't


In this regard, I think we're talking about #3 here; the first two will not alter the scenario. I cannot affect entertainers with #1 or #2. However, #3 is the way I "interact" with them (indirectly, obviously, and not personally).

I generally have liked Liam's movies. And so I've purchased tix to see them. Now I don't like what he said; I will no longer "vote" for him with my dollars.

But that is not unlike my attitude towards MANY others in the overall entertainment professions (movies, TV, radio, music, sports, etc). I truly love much of the older music of John (Cougar) Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen. But of late, their "position" (by statements and/or actions) on many things has me not supporing their lives any longer with my cash. Same goes for some comedians (Cosby, Barr, etc among others), actors (hereforementioned Neeson, Ford, Hanks, etc) and actresses (ScarJo, Alba, etc) and TV volks (Mahr, Letterman, etc). Some entertainment folks have even become cross-overs and multi-media folks doing TV, music, movies, etc (Madonna, O'Donnel, Degeneres, Kimmel, BonJovi, Shelton, etc). Most of these folks are good at their craft, but when they veer off point and think that my money spent on them means that I support their position, that's where I pull the plug. I am smart enough to enjoy and appreciate that they are often good at their craft, and I can separate their fantasy world from the relaity in which I live. No problem there. But why is it that they think my money should empower them to espouse their personal beliefs outwardly, publically? I don't "pay" them to talk about stuff off-camera or mic. If they would not speak out, I would not care about their position. But once they do speak out, they now make it part of my overall consideration package as to whether or not I "like" their position. Once they go public with their private thoughts, they make it open for me to choose to stop supporting them.

I used to work at Ford; now work for one of the largest HVAC makers in the world. Do any stars of the entertainment industry care what I think about: guns/drugs/politics/religion/abortion/suicide/homicide/gender bias/ gender preference/race/ethnicity/etc? Probably not. But then again, I don't make my living in hyposcrisy, either. I don't beg them to buy my cars but then deride fossil fuels. I don't ask they buy our air conditioners, but they ramble on about the evils of released refrigerant, and then excpect that they care or will alter their behavior.

This is my greatest "beef" with the overall entertainment industry at large. Somehow, somewhere along the line, they made the mistake in thinking that I was paying them for their opinion rather than their performance. Stick to what you're good at, and shut up about the rest. I fully agree that we have an open marketplace and they have the "right" to talk about anything they wish. But once they do so, I then have the "right" to cut off my portion of the cash flow. Unfortunately, that overall industry is a self-fulfilling prophecy; they feed on themselves and are self-congratulatory. They are about as "inbred" as you can imagine when it comes to topic "X" and the nepotism of thought in the entertainement field is mind-numbing at times. RARE is the person that can break out of the mold and still succeed in entertainment.


P.S. - I include sports in this as well. Remember the infamous Pistons/Pacers brawl? That's when I quit supporting my local Pacers. Remember the fight and aftermath of the Cinci/Xavier game; " ... We got a whole bunch of gangstas in the locker room, not thugs..."? As a pro athelete, are you being paid to hold hands and chant you "can't breathe"? Are you being paid to hold up your hands in protest of cops? No, you are not. If that is what our sports teams are becoming (and those are NOT isolated incidents by any means), then I'm not supporting them, either.



But then again, maybe some of you will no longer buy our hvac products based upon my rant here ...

 

[dlundblad]

I know a lot of conservatives who drive union made vehicles.. Not all unions are bad, but more often than not, they swing left.

I also know a few who choose not to drive anything union made.

How far are we willing to go? Lol.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Now if we can just get the bad guys to agree there is too many guns, then problem solved! See, its really simple.

 

[grampi]

I don't like or dislike actors based on their personal views. I couldn't care less about them. Mel Gibson is a fruit cake in his personal life, but his movies are awesome. What difference does it make what they do off-screen (unless they're involved in something illegal)?

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: grampi
I don't like or dislike actors based on their personal views. I couldn't care less about them. Mel Gibson is a fruit cake in his personal life, but his movies are awesome. What difference does it make what they do off-screen (unless they're involved in something illegal)?

+1

Frankly a lot of the people here on BITOG in general and within this thread specifically would be well served to have their own publicly-expressed (and conveniently anonymous) sociopolitical views ignored by their colleagues and customers.

jeff