Why the Hollywood Left Hates Bruce Willis
Liberals,.HATE'.America
weekend, Hollywood radicals boil with rage.
Why the Hollywood Left Hates Bruce Willis
By Norman Tines
March 7, 2003
Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, is opening on March 7. He plays
Lt. A.K. Waters involved in a search and rescue mission for a doctor
stationed in the jungles of Nigeria.
Uh-oh, the Republican actor is pissing in the pool of the Left again. The
progressive elite in Hollywood still hasn’t forgiven Willis for his heresy
mouthed before the 2000 election:
"If you guys vote for Al Gore, you're out of your minds… Gore's a
knucklehead… just the lying and mendacity of the last eight years of the
regime that Al Gore was a part and parcel of… I mean, there is only so much
lying the American people will take before they go, 'Uh, this doesn't seem
like a good idea.' You have to look at what he does and what he stands for."
Now you know why the Left hates Bruce Willis?
As a script writer and director, I have witnessed this reality personally
for years. It disgusts my colleagues, all of whom are cutting-edge leftists,
to watch his character running across the screen in a blood-stained
undershirt, blasting bullets into the bad anti-American guys. Such images
are simply just anathema to the Left.
No wonder all the leftists I know in the industry have obsessed for years
with Willis’ so-called "power-couple" marriage with Demi Moore. I have
listened to myriad conversations that savaged both of the actors during
their separation.
Willis’ chance at achieving any kind of redemption in the eyes of the
progressive left hit ground zero when President W. Bush named him as
Spokesperson for Children in Foster Care. Then, Willis really broke the
radical Party line with his quote: "As a dad, I know how important it is for
children to be raised in a loving home." Somewhere here, Willis was implying
that a child needed a stable nuclear family in which to be raised. This
violated more than just one sacred tenet of the radical agenda.
While Bruce Willis proudly stands shoulder to shoulder with President Bush
and the First Lady, unabashedly discussing the needs to nurture American
children, his Hollywood peers are foaming at the mouth. The rambling actor
Ed Harris reflected the disposition toward Willis well by stating, of our
president:
"…we've got this guy in the White House who thinks he's a man… and he's a
good old boy, and he used to drink and he knows how to shoot a gun… that's
not the definition of a man God dammit!"
Indeed, shooting a gun, let alone having one, and possessing muscles is
definitely not the definition of a man. And using your gun and your muscles
to defend America absolutely violates the leftist definition of manhood.
Manhood, for the left, is represented more by the likes of a Michael Moore –
an obese slob who doesn’t look like he could run more than 10 metres without
collapsing into exhaustion or maintain the sexual interest of a woman who
looked anything close to Demi Moore for more than 3 ˝ seconds. Moore is the
definition of man, you see, because he violates the patriarchy’s social
construction of the definition of masculinity; better yet, if Saddam Hussein
led a massive invasion of America with the whole Arab world’s might behind
him, Moore would immediately don Arab-style clothing, start taking lessons
in Arabic, and walk around sporting a Koran for everyone to see.
But not Bruce Willis. One of the strongest supporters of the Republican
Party (minus a short period when he was warring with Bob Dole), he simply
can’t be a "real man" according to the Left, and that is why he has had a
large X on his back for years.
Is it really any surprise, therefore, that the left-leaning media
consistently fire cheap shots at him? Indeed, how could they even possibly
forgive him for failing, unlike every progressive in Hollywood, to grab a
microphone at every opportunity to spout off about his latest cause
regarding "social justice"? That is why the media continues to drag his
character through the mud, criticizing his skills as an actor -- not because
of the skills, but because of the political beliefs that underlie them.
Bartcop.com comments:
"(Bruce Willis) can't act. To be a good actor, you have to surrender
yourself into a role… You have to be able to become that person and
conservatives don't have heart or any compassion, so they can't act their
way out of a paper bag."
And so guess what this is all about?
It is about that Bruce Willis, more than any of his contemporaries, has
defined the modern American hero: an average everyman who has undying love
for his family; a flawed man who struggles with his weaknesses; a man whose
heart is large and instincts strong; a man who exudes masculinity and a
competitive spirit that assist him in eventually conquering the "bad" guys;
the guys that leftists fantasize about prostrating themselves in front of.
The progressive elites would rather see their heroes in torn jeans and
sneakers, ranting and raving about the injustices and oppressiveness of the
U.S. government; they want to see a hero who is always angry about the
"inequality" bred by capitalism and who proceeds to write a poem about it; a
hero who does not own a shred of furniture in his apartment; a hero who is
never seen without his bongo drums; the type of person that Bruce Willis can
knock over with one punch, let alone one smirk.
The progressive elite is also traumatized by the amount of money Willis is
able to garner per film. This trauma has reached a pathological level. At
Cynics Sanctuary, a leftist website, they have called the actor overpaid and
went so far to make a few calculations: they have learned that it would take
an "average Joe" six hundred and sixty-six (6-6-6, get it?) years and eight
months to make what Bruce makes in an average film (US $20 million). Where
is their outrage about the income of Barbra Streisand?
The truth pierces an eternal pain into the Left’s psyche, because the truth
is the unchangeable fact that Bruce Willis generates the business to justify
his salary. In other words, the people pay to see him. The same can't be
said for a Susan Sarandon, a woman who rakes in millions from her salary
from films that don’t make any money because nobody watches them.
The numbers tell the truth and Sarandon is not worth the money she is paid -
but there exists not a whisper from the Left on this issue. Perhaps this
might be because no leftist wants to focus too much attention on the wealth
of another leftist, since if too much attention comes about, it might become
evident that Susan, like all of her radical peers, fails to redistribute her
wealth in the manner the entire left demands that the capitalist system
should do.
But Bruce Willis continues to garner success. And for all of the premature
obituaries the Leftist media has written for the patriotic actor, his career
has survived all of the set-backs the Left so voraciously relishes (see any
review for Hudson Hawk, The Color of Night and Mercury Rising).
And now: Iraq.
Willis’s reaction to the impending Iraq attack was far from that of a
confused and disoriented Sean Penn. According to the on-line version of The
Evening Standard, "This is London," Willis reacted to his Hollywood peers
with immense disgust. News has it that he called President Bush to offer his
service to the military in any future invasion of Iraq. He reportedly said
that he was "sick of the antiwar attitude" of Hollywood and wanted to place
himself beside the men and women who protect the values of the United
States. He was informed, however, that at age forty- seven, he was too old
to be enlisted.
But Willis is not too old to take his message to the American publicly via
the movie screen. Just as America is making a strong case to go to war, Mr.
Willis will be playing yet another America hero totting a gun in Tears of
the Sun, where he plays a loyal veteran officer of a Navy S.E.A.L unit who
is sent into the heart of Africa to rescue a U.S. citizen.
In anticipation of Willis rattling the nerves of the Left again, I happily
say: Yipee-kai-aye.
Norman Tines is the pen name of a screenwriter.
--
"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the
press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of
speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the
freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves
beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the
protester to burn the flag." ~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Super Bowl XXXVII Champions!
Patrick Finucane
> As Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, opens across the country this
> weekend, Hollywood radicals boil with rage.
I like Bruce Willis films.....especially the movie "The Kid". He can be
misguided about bush, not everybody'd perfect, and I'll still see his films.
greccogirl
however small.
Canyon
Liberal guys are threatened by guys like Willis. they know their
women are attracted to real men and they know they themselves don't
have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being a real man as evidenced
by their continuing whimpers about being victims.
--
*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*SIG*
"'electromagnetic force' is dwarfed by the electrostatic forces
present in the real universe" --Kurt Lochner
"The electromagnetic force is mediated by the exchange
of photons. This force includes the electrostatic force
with which we are familiar between charged particles as
well as magnetic forces."
http://www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chm386/fundment/electro.htm
So how does kurt explain electromagnetic force being dwarfed by
electrostatic forces when electrostatic force is part of the
electromagnetic force?
Answer: he can't.
He also can't explain how he got the physics
degree he claims to have when he doesn't even
know high school level physics.
more Lochner gems...
"those losses when the current is travelling through
450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving
them around.."
-Kurt Lochner's theory on DC transmission line reactive
..losses being produced by wind blowing on the conductors..
"You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission
lines aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing
winds, Porker?"
-Kurt Lochner demonstrating his vast education in physics.
Sparkup
"Liberals,.HATE'.America" <LiberalHateMon...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:3e683...@news.meganetnews.com...
> As Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, opens across the country this
> weekend, Hollywood radicals boil with rage.
>
> Why the Hollywood Left Hates Bruce Willis
> By Norman Tines
> March 7, 2003
>
>
> Tears of the Sun, Bruce Willis' new film, is opening on March 7. He plays
> Lt. A.K. Waters involved in a search and rescue mission for a doctor
> stationed in the jungles of Nigeria.
>
> Uh-oh, the Republican actor is pissing in the pool of the Left again. The
> progressive elite in Hollywood still hasn't forgiven Willis for his heresy
> mouthed before the 2000 election:
>
> knucklehead. just the lying and mendacity of the last eight years of the
> regime that Al Gore was a part and parcel of. I mean, there is only so
much
> lying the American people will take before they go, 'Uh, this doesn't seem
> like a good idea.' You have to look at what he does and what he stands
for."
>
> Now you know why the Left hates Bruce Willis?
You can understand how they would not agree with him, yes.
>
> As a script writer and director, I have witnessed this reality personally
> for years. It disgusts my colleagues, all of whom are cutting-edge
leftists,
> to watch his character running across the screen in a blood-stained
> undershirt, blasting bullets into the bad anti-American guys. Such images
> are simply just anathema to the Left.
>
> No wonder all the leftists I know in the industry have obsessed for years
> with Willis' so-called "power-couple" marriage with Demi Moore. I have
> listened to myriad conversations that savaged both of the actors during
> their separation.
>
> Willis' chance at achieving any kind of redemption in the eyes of the
> progressive left hit ground zero when President W. Bush named him as
> Spokesperson for Children in Foster Care. Then, Willis really broke the
> radical Party line with his quote: "As a dad, I know how important it is
for
> children to be raised in a loving home." Somewhere here, Willis was
implying
> that a child needed a stable nuclear family in which to be raised. This
> violated more than just one sacred tenet of the radical agenda.
How? Which "central tenet" of the liberal agenda does claiming that children
need to be raised in a loving home violate?
"A loving home" could mean a family with same-sex parents, with only one
parent, with a grandparent or with adopted parents or whatever.
The only thing that Willis says here is that the child should be loved, now,
show me the liberals who are saying that a child should not be loved.
>
> While Bruce Willis proudly stands shoulder to shoulder with President Bush
> and the First Lady, unabashedly discussing the needs to nurture American
> children, his Hollywood peers are foaming at the mouth. The rambling actor
> Ed Harris reflected the disposition toward Willis well by stating, of our
> president:
>
> ".we've got this guy in the White House who thinks he's a man. and he's a
> good old boy, and he used to drink and he knows how to shoot a gun. that's
> not the definition of a man God dammit!"
Harris makes comment about George Bush's personality and style, how does
this link in with him hating Willis?
>
> Indeed, shooting a gun, let alone having one, and possessing muscles is
> definitely not the definition of a man. And using your gun and your
muscles
> to defend America absolutely violates the leftist definition of manhood.
Using your gun and muscle to attack another country without provocation
would be.
> Manhood, for the left, is represented more by the likes of a Michael
Moore -
> an obese slob who doesn't look like he could run more than 10 metres
without
> collapsing into exhaustion or maintain the sexual interest of a woman who
> looked anything close to Demi Moore for more than 3 ½ seconds.
Aha...ok, so sexual prowess and good-looks define men?
Holy shit m8...get out of the 50s.
> Moore is the
> definition of man, you see, because he violates the patriarchy's social
> construction of the definition of masculinity; better yet, if Saddam
Hussein
> led a massive invasion of America with the whole Arab world's might behind
> him, Moore would immediately don Arab-style clothing, start taking lessons
> in Arabic, and walk around sporting a Koran for everyone to see.
And if Hitler came to power in the US, you would be busy in his Department
of Disinformation.
>
> But not Bruce Willis. One of the strongest supporters of the Republican
> Party (minus a short period when he was warring with Bob Dole), he simply
> can't be a "real man" according to the Left, and that is why he has had a
> large X on his back for years.
Who claimed he was not a real man?
Cite?
>
> Is it really any surprise, therefore, that the left-leaning media
> consistently fire cheap shots at him? Indeed, how could they even possibly
> forgive him for failing, unlike every progressive in Hollywood, to grab a
> microphone at every opportunity to spout off about his latest cause
> regarding "social justice"? That is why the media continues to drag his
> character through the mud, criticizing his skills as an actor -- not
because
> of the skills, but because of the political beliefs that underlie them.
> Bartcop.com comments:
>
> "(Bruce Willis) can't act. To be a good actor, you have to surrender
> yourself into a role. You have to be able to become that person and
> conservatives don't have heart or any compassion, so they can't act their
> way out of a paper bag."
He cant act, but he isnt really an actor, hes an action hero.
Have you seen Bonfire of the Vanities? or Billy Bathgate?
Anyway, critics say actors cant act all the time, you just claim it is
because of his political stance, because you share the same stance.
This allows you to assume the role of the brave underdog that the "powers
that be" are trying to crush.
<snipped: more of the same stuff>
> Norman Tines is the pen name of a screenwriter.
ROFL!
The Frog
wrote:
The liberal definition of a loving family can include a woman, a Yak,
and a fire hydrant. Depends on what the definitinon of "is" is......
The Frog
Sparkup
"The Frog" <jm...@NOSPAMticnet.com> wrote in message
news:b4fdfb81b970302d...@news.teranews.com...
Even if that was true, and not just silly, does that combination mean that
it could not be a loving family?
This is after all what Bruce Willis said...that it was important to have a
loving home.
More lies from some wingnut claiming to be a Hollywood screenwriter.
D'yeux le frère
> definitely not the definition of a man.
Unless you believe the gun stands for a penis, and even then,
making a spectacle of it is not the definition of a man,
it's the definition of pornography.
Fuk of the Mountain
...yes, it does ...a woman, a animal and a chunk of iron does not make
a loving family... unless, of course, you're in Toonville... which I think
is the case...
Sparkup
"Fuk of the Mountain" <klust...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3E68B2AD...@bigfoot.com...
-Bruce Willis
Does it matter how many chunks of metal or animals there are in a home, as
long as the child is loved?
Ed Smith
president this country has ever had: Ronald Reagan. After reading
Peggy Noonan's book "When character was king", coupled with the recent
asine comments made by the left-wingers, I am firmly convinced that
there are not only socialists in Hollywood, but the communists never
left. Sounds radical, but idiots like Robbins, and his alcoholic wife
hate this country and become very enraged when you question their
patriotism. What patriotism? They only came out of the woodwork to
voice their opinion when Bush won the election. Clinton did no wrong
in thier eyes. He was their Saddam, and would have defended him to
the death. (If a Senator can talk about "regime change", I can take
the same liberty).
In any case, I suggest that Susie and Timmy go to Iraq and shield
Saddam from U.S. bombs.
kangdagu
aventure hero as Mr. Bean. Since demi left him there's no one to wear the
pants in the family. Oh well, bruce can promote his movie by 'offering' to
take out saddam hussein, another cheap publicity stunt to save his doomed
movie, but we all know he's a wimp.
Hey bruce, if you've got the cajones, email me. You name a time and place.
John Dyson
>
> Bruce willis, with is scrawny arms and weak body is about as much as an
> aventure hero as Mr. Bean. Since demi left him there's no one to wear the
> pants in the family.
>
talking about superficial body attributes, but the Susan/Tim pair are
just pathetically disgusting sub human beings because of their minds and
advocacy that was obviously meant to sustain a dictator who kills
approx 5000 innocent Iraqis per month WITH NO HOPE of improvement. GWB and
his team have given those poor people SOME hope, and MOSTLY those who are
being killed during this war of liberation are those who were helping to
support the evil Saddam's reign. The people who were dying before were
the very innocent victims of Saddam's resource allocation. Saddam's
regime is still chalking up victims by forcing a 'suicide-by-cop'
senerio with the US military.
Sarandon, Mr Fake President on the West Wing TV falsehood, and other
disgusting creatures (e.g. supporters of communist murderers in
central America) have probably caused enough delay which only INCREASED
the number of innocent dead Iraqis. Of course, opposing GWB (because
of the far-leftist corrupt, disgusting minds) is more important than
the good deed of liberating an oppressed people.
The middle-far right have truly misdefined pornography, because the
leftist mind creates and encourages the ultimate pornography. Stupid
sex and silly superficial violence is NOT the worst porno, but the results of
the western leftist mentality does manifest real world situations that
are MUCH MORE vile and horrible than the vicarious experience in
traditional pornography. Of course, much of the traditional, relatively
less harmful 'entertainment' pornography also comes from the left-wing
mind. These are obvious attempts at transmitting evil by damaged
thinking processes, rather than just the real world manifestations
that the wakko-leftists encourage in other situations.
John
RosebudMMI
>From: John Dyson fr...@dyson.net
>Date: 4/6/03 12:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
johnboy...ya better stop eating those little mushroom because you are beginning
to see up as down...
Molina
views and support for George Hussein I wouldn't walk across the street
to piss on him of he was on fire.
He can suck my ass, I'll never see another movie he is in...him and
Arnold should do some gay porn together.
Alert
"Molina" <siam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5f373e3.03040...@posting.google.com...
Figures. You would prefer what? You want to watch Rosie O'Donnell go down on
her live-in girl friend? Want to scrape cocaine-addled George Clooney from
the sidewalk?
Trouble is that your "heros" do not live in the real, sober world. Nor do
you.
Happy Trails......
OU812
PISSAUNT
SEEING BRUCE WILLIS TAKE IT UP THE ASS ON CAMERA WOULD BE HOT!
And the bush was not consumed.
OU812
You're as sick as me dude. LOL
George ;P