Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

          “Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble.”

    Here's your John Madden quote, cglass.  Seems somewhat appropriate as an antidote to some of the posts from softy...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    Like Yoshi, I'll reserve judgement, and I do want to see it. That said, I've always regarded Brad Pitt as a truly mediocre actor.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    Regardless of the Brad Pitt, I am just very curious as to how they are going to turn the book into compelling movie-fare.  Seems impossible.  Will be interesting to see.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from theYAZZER. Show theYAZZER's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]Have you seen it yet? Yes, I've seen Brad Pitiful, and he is a terrible actor.
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]


    actually, he looks more like an actress. as does leonardo dicrapio.
    unfortunately, paul giamatti can't be in every movie, and johnny depp was too busy playing? a gay pirate.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE] Of course Christ never said anything about LGBT people, so using the Christian religion as a source for your hatred of LGBT people does not pass the smell test. I have no idea what a "physical identity" is, but I do know that being gay is a genetic issue, and that it is present in every mammal, so it IS MOST CERTAINLY natural Matthew 19:1-12  Using the Christian religion as a source for your claim that it is hatred to denounce homosexual behavior as a sin because of the specious claim that, despite this behavior being directly denounced in multiple Biblical passages, Christ never specifically called this behavior a sin, is bigotry.   You do not know that same-sex sexual conduct orientation is genetic, not that genetics validate conduct. It most certainly isn't natural conduct, as natural human and animal life would cease if it was.  Most certainly, behavioral conduct is not a physical identity. It has become a physcial identity by artifice, in an attempt to validate a behavior to bring about legitmizing same-sex sexual behavior based relationships, first in the easier forum of the State, which makes it easier to change the moral institutions where the State derives it's moral codes, the religious sects that have denounced it since the beginning of mankind. In the same-sexual behavioral lobby attempt to use the equal protection clause to further specious claims for the merits of United States wide legitimacy, all men and women have equal protection under marriage laws (marriage being etymology defined as man and woman joined together as one). Equal protection only requires that each person be afforded equal protection of the laws. Any law that allows any man to marry a woman, and any woman to marry a man, is affording equal protection under the law. Of course, State Legislatures are the easier political forums to advance a societal change in values.   A more legitimate case for unfair discrimination can be made for polygamous relationships. At the end of the day, the United States used to reflect the morals of the Judeo-Christian-Deist (Deist founding fathers were all Judeo-Christian taught and belived in God, of course), but it now reflects the secular values of an increasingly hedonist (if it feels good and is consensual and doesn't hurt anyone else if I or we say it doesn't) society looking for ways to legitimize desired behaviors of personal pleasure. Despite protests to the contrary, the rejection of these morals is a terrible example for youth and has netted an increasingly destructive force on the families of my decadent generation.  Needless to say, while some American changes are welcomed as a force for good, despite a Constitution that still makes it the world leader in virtue, the contemporary United States is not an institution to study models of virtue.   America isn't on a slippery values slope, it is in a moral nose dive. Pandora's Box isn''t a fear based analogy, it is a reality. Bad Hollywood actors are a bad way to tell the story of Billy Beane and Baseball. Softlaw - c
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    The judgement you pass on others is equal in sin to their supposed moral transgressions.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from theYAZZER. Show theYAZZER's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors? : The judgement you pass on others is equal in sin to their supposed moral transgressions.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    did you make that up? or do you have a SOURCE for that statement?
    because if that's true, i'm in trouble. not really. i'm a self-proclaimed atheist.
    i only believe in one thing--having another drink. thank you w.c.fields.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors? : did you make that up? or do you have a SOURCE for that statement? because if that's true, i'm in trouble. not really. i'm a self-proclaimed atheist. i only believe in one thing--having another drink. thank you w.c.fields.
    Posted by theYAZZER[/QUOTE]

    I was an athiest until I felt God's wrath at the bottom of a bottle of Johnny Black.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from theYAZZER. Show theYAZZER's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors? : I was an athiest until I felt God's wrath at the bottom of a bottle of Johnny Black.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    he was mad at you for not, at least, offering him a shot before you finished the bottle.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    Recommended further reading on Billy Bean:



    Oops, my bad. Wrong Billy Bean.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxdawg08. Show soxdawg08's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    This another example of Soft's mantra......"I don't care how great the Universe says he is. I say he's a bum".  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    I didn't realize the Oakland A's won during the MoneyBall ERA?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    The judgement you pass on others is equal in sin to their supposed moral transgressions.

    Weak, space, a classic bugaboo. It isn't judgment to denounce depraved moral conduct as set forth in the Bible. "Don't judge me" is about as specious as it gets for specific conduct. I don't do the judging, but calling moral wrong "supposed transgressions" should cause you to pause about your own judgment or end of natural life day.

    And Space, don't make such a fool of yourself by judging gravity of "alleged sin" as the very judging that you claim is a transgression.

    Calling wrong wrong is not judging. I can't impose a sentence of jail or eternal damnation, nor would I wish such a fate on thoes that commit these particular wrongs. Very shallow to use a child's excuse of "'don't judge me" to tolerate by silence what is wrong behavior.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    there are three thingsI know to be true about Brad Pitt...

    1) hIS ACCENT/ACTING IN THE DEVIL'S OWN WAS PRETTY IMPRESSIVE
    2) He is much better looking than almost anyone on the planet
    3) he sleeps with angelina jolie every nite and we dont

    Respect!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]there are three thingsI know to be true about Brad Pitt... 1) hIS ACCENT/ACTING IN THE DEVIL'S OWN WAS PRETTY IMPRESSIVE 2) He is much better looking than almost anyone on the planet 3) he sleeps with angelina jolie every nite and we dont Respect!
    Posted by georom4[/QUOTE]

    1. Seriously? I don't think he could act cold if he were naked in Antarctica.
    2. Well, if you say so ...
    3. I'm doing better.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    4. he dumped the hotter jennifer aniston
    5. He was terrific in Benjamin Button
    6. he gets to star in a baseball movie
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]The judgement you pass on others is equal in sin to their supposed moral transgressions. Weak, space, a classic bugaboo. It isn't judgment to denounce depraved moral conduct as set forth in the Bible. "Don't judge me" is about as specious as it gets for specific conduct. I don't do the judging, but calling moral wrong "supposed transgressions" should cause you to pause about your own judgment or end of natural life day. And Space, don't make such a fool of yourself by judging gravity of "alleged sin" as the very judging that you claim is a transgression. Calling wrong wrong is not judging. I can't impose a sentence of jail or eternal damnation, nor would I wish such a fate on thoes that commit these particular wrongs. Very shallow to use a child's excuse of "'don't judge me" to tolerate by silence what is wrong behavior.
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    Equivocate if you must Softy.  Tolerance is golden rule.  We see the world in different lights I suppose.  To me, who someone has sexual relations with is about as meaningful as Ellsbury using a reverse pivot in his swing.  But I guess it is the same for you, and yet, it means the opposite.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    Equivocate if you must Softy. Tolerance is golden rule.

    No equivocation, Space. Tolerance is most certainly not golden rule. And to equate a baseball player with morality is flippant and reflects a poor value system that is very popular in my generation.

    Tolerance is misused with hate as a bugaboo to advance approval via indifference or endorsement of a new value system. Tolerance means to permit or accept that which one finds objectionable. I will be continue to exercise my moral obligation and civic duty to denounce what is now popular to agree with or tolerate. My conscience is clear, being given the intelligence to know right from wrong. 

    Knowing my generation's value system, I have no problem being the square who disapproves of what they will claim is not only popular but what is right. And equating group behavior to skin color for political advancement purposes should certainly be insulting to anyone with any intelligence and respect for wisdom. That excludes you, Space. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]Equivocate if you must Softy. Tolerance is golden rule. No equivocation, Space. Tolerance is most certainly not golden rule. And to equate a baseball player with morality is flippant and reflects a poor value system that is very popular in my generation. Tolerance is misused with hate as a bugaboo to advance approval via indifference or endorsement of a new value system. Tolerance means to permit or accept that which one finds objectionable. I will be continue to exercise my moral obligation and civic duty to denounce what is now popular to agree with or tolerate. My conscience is clear, being given the intelligence to know right from wrong.  Knowing my generation's value system, I have no problem being the square who disapproves of what they will claim is not only popular but what is right. And equating group behavior to skin color for political advancement purposes should certainly be insulting to anyone with any intelligence and respect for wisdom. That excludes you, Space. 
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    Um, OK.  really no idea whatseover what that last point is about.  But, hey, go for it.  I think it is great, however, that you are trying to fight the right fight.  You should always speak up for morality.  No issue with that whatsoever.  I take issue with the whole judgement on homesexuals thing though, because I have gay friends who are the best people I know, beautiful human beings, and I am offended at your backwoods outdated bigotry on the matter is all.  But there we are.  What you see as the deepest of moral sins, I see as insignificant as a reverse pivot.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

     I take issue with the whole judgement on homesexuals thing though, because I have gay friends who are the best people I know, beautiful human beings,
     
    It's not a judgment of people, it's an affirmation of what the Bible states on individual behavior. It may make you and or your friends feel better to refer to a group as gay, but there is no physical identity for behavior.

    Your moral mistake is two-fold. One, you falsely assume that I consider any person to be inhuman because of faults or imperfections. Two, you foolishly allow yourself to be floating with the current of the crowd. Understandable, but mistakes, nonetheless.

    To your disbelief, I, have acquaintances who call themselves and self-identify themselves as "gay". I respect them as I respect any human being for their good qualities, talents, works and deeds. However, they understand that while we are brothers, they cannot be friends until they recognize wrong and reject contemporary values on sexual behavior and relationships. It isn't about all people making mistakes, it's about not admitting that a mistake is in fact a mistake.

    I am offended at your backwoods outdated bigotry on the matter is all

    "Backwoods" is a bigoted term, just as "Bible thumper and clinger" is. Get back to me when Paul is outdated bigotry on "the matter". Perhaps "if it feels good and involves two consenting adults that doesn't physically hurt anyone else" is a value system that should be outdated and never dated to start with.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    you guys are fag-g-ots, a bunch of slacked-jaw yokels, re-tards. Oh, did i offend anyone here? .... relax people, words are just words here.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE] I take issue with the whole judgement on homesexuals thing though, because I have gay friends who are the best people I know, beautiful human beings,   It's not a judgment of people, it's an affirmation of what the Bible states on individual behavior. It may make you and or your friends feel better to refer to a group as gay, but there is no physical identity for behavior. Your moral mistake is two-fold. One, you falsely assume that I consider any person to be inhuman because of faults or imperfections. Two, you foolishly allow yourself to be floating with the current of the crowd. Understandable, but mistakes, nonetheless. To your disbelief, I, have acquaintances who call themselves and self-identify themselves as "gay". I respect them as I respect any human being for their good qualities, talents, works and deeds. However, they understand that while we are brothers, they cannot be friends until they recognize wrong and reject contemporary values on sexual behavior and relationships. It isn't about all people making mistakes, it's about not admitting that a mistake is in fact a mistake. I am offended at your backwoods outdated bigotry on the matter is all "Backwoods" is a bigoted term, just as "Bible thumper and clinger" is. Get back to me when Paul is outdated bigotry on "the matter". Perhaps "if it feels good and involves two consenting adults that doesn't physically hurt anyone else" is a value system that should be outdated and never dated to start with.
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    Do you also consider it immoral to plant your fields with two kinds of seeds, to pick up grapes that have fallen to the ground, to wear clothing of two kinds of material, to cut your hair at the sides, to clip the edges of your beard, and have a tattoo?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE] I take issue with the whole judgement on homesexuals thing though, because I have gay friends who are the best people I know, beautiful human beings,   It's not a judgment of people, it's an affirmation of what the Bible states on individual behavior. It may make you and or your friends feel better to refer to a group as gay, but there is no physical identity for behavior. Your moral mistake is two-fold. One, you falsely assume that I consider any person to be inhuman because of faults or imperfections. Two, you foolishly allow yourself to be floating with the current of the crowd. Understandable, but mistakes, nonetheless. To your disbelief, I, have acquaintances who call themselves and self-identify themselves as "gay". I respect them as I respect any human being for their good qualities, talents, works and deeds. However, they understand that while we are brothers, they cannot be friends until they recognize wrong and reject contemporary values on sexual behavior and relationships. It isn't about all people making mistakes, it's about not admitting that a mistake is in fact a mistake. I am offended at your backwoods outdated bigotry on the matter is all "Backwoods" is a bigoted term, just as "Bible thumper and clinger" is. Get back to me when Paul is outdated bigotry on "the matter". Perhaps "if it feels good and involves two consenting adults that doesn't physically hurt anyone else" is a value system that should be outdated and never dated to start with.
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    If you choose to live your life based on ancient writings from captive Jews, who themselves borrowed freely from Sumerian myths (like the flood/garden of eden) that's your business...to tell other people that they should share your myopia is hilarious...you might as well tell them to continue practice blood-letting and other cultural vestiges of primitive times...I think I will choose to not let that collection of tales dictate to me how i should live.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from frankn. Show frankn's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    Softy I feel sorry for you. " Whatsoever you do unto the least of my brethen you do unto me".  That's what makes Christianity great; that's the kind of God I revere.  You can look into Leviticus all you want and any other Old Testament book complete with slaves, murder, adultery, bigomy, etc..  Jesus forgave and preached love.  I've fought in two wars; raised 4 children; and currently have 17 grandchildren and have lived to the ripe old age of 88.  I've found the people who are the least tolerant are usually the ones who dislike themselves the most and sometimes hide who they really are or what they've gone through from the world.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    In Response to Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?:
    [QUOTE]Is this some bigoted shot at the LGBT community Softy? I knew you hated Native Americans, I didn't know you were a despicable gay-basher as well. No, it's not bigoted. But your comment is. I have a cherokee ancestor.
    Posted by S0ftl@w[/QUOTE]

    Just one????
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from saxydogg77. Show saxydogg77's posts

    Re: Bratt Pitt and Moneyball? Why do they ruin true stories with Hollywood image bad actors?

    I find it altogether unsurprising that along with baseball, I disagree wholeheartedly with Softlaw on politics, religion and even f'n Brad Pitt.  Pitt was great in Fight Club and especially The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which, I believe, was seen by approximately 16 people.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share