# I thought he was a good guy



## Sgt45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Actor Steven Segal says that Putin is a good guy and his moves in the Crimea are justified? Sounds as if he's had several too many doughnuts.
Action-Movie Icon Considers Vladimir Putin a ?Brother? & ?One of the Great World Leaders? ? and May Even Move to Russia Someday | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

If I were to see a motivation, I'd believe that Putin will set him up with a sex slave camp like the one he was accused of in Louisiana.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

One of the serious mistakes that our society makes is assuming that movie stars actually know something about the real world.

The world of the movie star is very narrow and confining, the result being that they don't know much about anything except making movies.

Think of the fools who belong to the "Church" of Scientology, a "religion" invented by a science-fiction writer to help him avoid paying high income tax rates.
Think of the recent pronouncement by Gwinneth Paltrow, that being a movie star is so much more difficult than being a single mom among "the little people."
There's lots more. But why bother?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> One of the serious mistakes that our society makes is assuming that movie stars actually know something about the real world.
> 
> The world of the movie star is very narrow and confining, the result being that they don't know much about anything except making movies.
> 
> ...


Let there be no doubt Putin has his agenda, but he is no worse than our president. Besides that, it is really none of our business what they do over there.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Was your _non sequitur_ actually meant to be an answer to Sgt45?


----------



## Imho (Jan 14, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> One of the serious mistakes that our society makes is assuming that movie stars actually know something about the real world.


Well said. It's hard to get a real view of the world when you are surrounded by the sycophants in your "entourage" and a more than an average number are as dumb as a house brick anyway.

I have never been able to understand how people accepted the endorsement of a movie star (or any other entertainer) as a reason to vote for a candidate, buy a product, or support a cause.


----------



## iGuy (Feb 12, 2014)

Not all stars are as dumb as a bag of rocks.... There are a few actual geniuses out there. Some may be azz-backwards on cultural and political savvy, but some do have good brains in their heads.

It's always bad, IMHO, to blanket comdemn a group.... Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind.

Just my .02 cents.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

iGuy said:


> Not all stars are as dumb as a bag of rocks.... There are a few actual geniuses out there. Some may be azz-backwards on cultural and political savvy, but some do have good brains in their heads.
> 
> It's always bad, IMHO, to blanket comdemn a group.... Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind.
> 
> Just my .02 cents.


Everything was fine until you wrote: "Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind."

By writing that, you have "blanket comdemn" [_sic_] me without knowing anything about me...excepting my post here, of course.

I think that your ill-considered, judgemental condemnation is also "Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind."


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Actors and actresses= some one who takes what some one else creates, as some one else directs, while some one else edits out your mistakes. Now we are to take them serious about what they are paid to advertise. Get real.


----------



## iGuy (Feb 12, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Everything was fine until you wrote: "Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind."
> 
> By writing that, you have "blanket comdemn" [_sic_] me without knowing anything about me...excepting my post here, of course.
> 
> I think that your ill-considered, judgemental condemnation is also "Not a good sign of an open, and reasonable mind."


True enough Steve, I don't know you. If you were offended accept my apology. My comment was based upon "One of the serious mistakes that our society makes is assuming that movie stars actually know something about the real world." That seemed a bit strong, and inferred further that as a whole they are quite clueless.

You may indeed be an open minded, reasonable person. My intention was general in nature, simply that making a condemnation of an entire group does not indicate a open mind on said group. In general I find your post insightful and informative.

In spirit I acknowledge that many hollywood personalities are more concerned with image and dollars. But there are those that are not of that ilk as well.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

iGuy said:


> ...If you were offended accept my apology...My intention was general in nature, simply that making a condemnation of an entire group does not indicate a open mind on said group...In spirit I acknowledge that many hollywood personalities are more concerned with image and dollars. But there are those that are not of that ilk as well.


Thanks for the clarification. Apology accepted, of course.

I used to live in Southern California, had an uncle who was a bigwig in the movie industry, am thereby acquainted with several movie actors, and am familiar with the incredibly stupid and asocial behavior of many more of them.
That's not to say that all of them behave stupidly or asocially, of course. The specific case does not define the general case. Indeed, some of them are/were delightful people, chief among which was one extraordinary actor and one directorial genius, both now dead.

What I was decrying, and will continue to decry, is our society's serious mistake of believing that an actor, hired to promote a product or a political cause, knows what he or she is talking about, and should be believed and emulated by the rest of us. This is also true about an actor who volunteers to promote a political or social cause.
I decry our mistake because most actors, particularly those in the movie business, live very narrow lives, and have little idea of social or political reality.

(Note that now I've used the words "_most_ actors.")


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

_**Moved to General Discussion**_


----------



## Sgt45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Steve, I'm beginning to think that your comments could be extrapolated to a large portion of society as a whole. I just saw the youtube video of someone asking college students to sign a petition to nullify the 2nd Amendment, jail/kill all gun owners, confiscate all firearms except those held by police and military - and kids were signing with no second thought. This was a spoof,but the fact that college kids were signing with no thought is just scary and to me, does not bode well for our Republic. Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Sgt45 said:


> Steve, I'm beginning to think that your comments could be extrapolated to a large portion of society as a whole...


Of course!
Most of us just don't think critically.
And it's not education-related. It's universal.

This, then, is a very good argument for restrictions upon the right to vote.
In the Founders' time, only people who owned property were counted as the electorate. The theory was that you had to have an iron in the fire, in order to vote about the possible betterment of the nation and its people. It wasn't a bad idea.

In recent times, the franchise has been extended to younger and younger people. One state now even permits 17-year-olds to vote.
The theory here seems to be that the young are more Liberal and more Progressive, and also more easily rabble-roused, than the rest of us, thereby leading to a manipulable Progressive and socialistic majority.
At the same time, the requirement of property ownership has been dropped, leading to an electorate which will-fecklessly and all too readily-dip their hands into the government till for a handout or a dole.

While property ownership is probably outmoded as a criterion for voting, since it would eliminate hard-working renters and all spouses from the electorate, I suggest that there still needs to be a "means test" as the criterion for voting.
I suggest, as I have always suggested, that proof of having paid federal income tax in the previous year should be the criterion for voting in this year's elections. Having paid tax in, you must be given a voice in how that money will be spent.

The millionaire tax avoider doesn't get to vote. Neither does the dole sucker.


----------



## Sgt45 (Jun 8, 2012)

A-men


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

In a nutshell, Segal is an idiot.

And......he's seen as a fool on Sheriff Joe's Posse by a vast majority of the deputies.


----------



## drafter (Mar 30, 2014)

Segal runs like he's gay.


----------



## iGuy (Feb 12, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Apology accepted, of course.
> 
> I used to live in Southern California, had an uncle who was a bigwig in the movie industry, am thereby acquainted with several movie actors, and am familiar with the incredibly stupid and asocial behavior of many more of them.
> That's not to say that all of them behave stupidly or asocially, of course. The specific case does not define the general case. Indeed, some of them are/were delightful people, chief among which was one extraordinary actor and one directorial genius, both now dead.
> ...


You bet - now I agree with you! There's a whole lot wrong in our world and the entertainment industry has a lot of room for improvement. I read your other post and agree there should be some criteria a bit more reasonable on who can vote. Taxation is a good start.


----------

