TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:Actors have one talent and that is reading a script and converting that into a character and even that needs a director. The intelligence to write that script is missing in most of them. A parrot can be trained to speak, it doesn't make them smart. Who cares what they think?

Generally true.......but the analogy falls on its face specifically with Damon. Matt Damon is the co-writer with Ben Affleck of "Good Will Hunting" (1997) and "Gerry" (2002), and with John Krasinski he cowrote the screenplay for "Promised Land (2012). The first of those three titles was a HUGE hit. I agree that what you said is generally true about a lot of the noisy anti-gun pie-holes in Hollwood, but don't make the mistake of failing to respect the intelligence of every one of your enemy's. Yes, a lot of them are dolts, but not all of them are. Some are very smart.......but very wrong. I don't think Obama is a stupid person. I think he is "gifted" with a malevolent intelligence. The problem is that his intelligence is unbridled by a moral center. With Matt Damon, he's actually a pretty smart guy. He just lacks an appreciation of individual liberty. He lacks that appreciation because he has been a pretty rich guy for a long time now, and his wealth has insulated him from the consequences of liberty's loss, so he is not upset by the idea of squashing it for others. Whenever he feels he needs protection, he does like any good liberal, and he just hires someone to get their hands dirty for him.

mbschne wrote:“You guys did it here in one fell swoop, and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07 ... y-country/

Matt Damon should read this: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/10/the ... rstand-it/

"This is how it always seems to work. When pressed, they don’t know what coercion is, how to define it clearly, how to figure out competing claims, or what the historic arguments are in each direction. When they’re not trying to avoid the issue, they always seem to be working it out on the fly like 18-year-olds in a dorm room bull session.

Why are these advocates of force and coercion so curiously reluctant to own up to their own agenda?

Well, the question kind of answers itself, doesn’t it? If you still want to think of yourself as “liberal” and tolerant, while bashing people who disagree with you over the head, would you want to make the issues fully clear and explicit? Would you want to come out and tell people you’re trying to expunge this country’s founding ideals? Who wants to own up to being the party of the mailed fist?

The advocates of government coercion have to evade the central issues, because they don’t want to admit where they really stand—not even to themselves."