Ben Affleck fans

In August I said that the thing that would hurt Ben Affleck the most as he attempted to become Batman was his outspoken politics: “If I were a betting man, I’d say that Mr. Affleck will continue saying and doing things in public that will make it harder for roughly half the nation to lose themselves in his version of “Batman” on opening night.”

Now, in an interview with Playboy, he proves me right.

Affleck: People now know me as a Democrat, and that will always be the case to some extent.

Playboy: Does that polarize viewers?

Affleck: It does, and you can bifurcate your audience. When I watch a guy I know is a big Republican, part of me thinks, I probably wouldn’t like this person if I met him, or we would have different opinions. That shit fogs the mind when you should be paying attention and be swept into the illusion.

Playboy: Still, won’t that happen whether you take positions on candidates or causes?

Affleck: I have misgivings about it, counterbalanced with the larger things I care about. I don’t blindly do this stuff when it makes it harder to do my own job. And there’s an awful lot of gross money-raising going on that has made me want to pull back a bit from pure electoral politics. […]

Yes Ben, if the guy you’re watching on screen is a Republican and you’re a Democrat, it’s safe to say that you’ll have “different opinions.” Your powers of deduction are not quite at Bruce Wayne’s level at the moment, but you are correct.

Here’s the part that is somewhat bizarre for the future Batman to disclose: “I probably wouldn’t like this person…”

There are a lot of things I think about Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and most of Hollywood’s liberal activists, but I only tend to think “I wouldn’t like them” when they come across as elitist jerks. How someone comports themselves dictates how I feel about them as a person — a political party affiliation alone does not. Does Ben Affleck have zero Republican relatives? He must not, or he wouldn’t say such ridiculous things.

I love my fellow Americans. I want to like all of them and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard when guys like Ben Affleck and President Obama keep dividing people.

He’s what President Obama said to Univision in 2010:

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

Here’s what Slate’s John Cook said in his maybe-sorta-kinda piece of satire (but not) titled ‘Thanksgiving Tips: How to pick a fight with your relatives this Thanksgiving.’ It was written just in time to coincide with the White House’s push to get family members to discuss Obamacare over the holidays:

First off, you should wait until everyone’s seated at the table before you try to get things started. That way you have a captive audience that has to watch the fireworks, and everyone is settled in for a nice long time. Getting the topic of conversation to politics shouldn’t be too hard. Stick to short, sarcastic, tendentious remarks to get things going. “I’m thankful for all that free stuff Obama gave me.” Once you’ve engaged the enemy, it won’t take much effort to pivot to whatever particular subject you feel most comfortable with.

Yes, according to the president and his most ardent disciples, your fellow Americans are “enemies.” Does anyone else find it weird that the president won’t call any number of thug-nations around the globe an enemy of America, but he will refer to his political opponents as such? But I digress…

Instead of just admitting that activist actors “fog the mind” of the audience with all sorts of extraneous junk, Ben Affleck lets us all know that an ‘R’ next to your name makes him immediately think that he “probably” doesn’t like you — even though he wants your money.

Why should I cough up my money for ‘Superman vs. Batman (vs. Wonder Woman?)’ when one of the lead actors openly conveys his disgust for me as a person? Because of my love of free markets, limited government, traditional American values and a strong national defense, Ben Affleck “probably” wouldn’t like me? It’s weird.

Yes Ben, it is possible to disagree with someone without being disagreeable. I know it’s hard for someone who lives in a Hollywood bubble, where everyone thinks along the same lines and tells each other how smart they are at cocktail parties (“Pass me the gruyère, will you?”) — but in the real world some of us get along with our politically-diverse family and friends just fine.

If Zack Snyder is smart, he’ll sit down privately with Ben and tell him to shut up with the political commentary until ‘Superman vs. Batman’ comes out. There are a lot of people who aren’t thrilled with the idea of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight, and alienating roughly half the viewing audience out the gate is probably not a good PR move.

Hat tip to douglasernstblog.com reader PersonIsPerson for the story.

Related: Ben Affleck’s outspoken politics hurt his Batman more than his box office bombs

Related: Snyder’s ‘Man of Steel’ hits audiences with big ideas, soars over small-minded critics

Related: Man of Steel Trailer: Harbinger of an epic film

Related: David Goyer is right: The ‘Superman doesn’t kill’ rule hurts the character

Related: ‘Soldier of Steel’ campaign: Gym Jones shows what real men are made of

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

52 comments

  1. Actors/entertainers out spoken Liberal/Progressive opinions have kept me out of many theater and concert box offices for more than 20 years. I have found that, in particular, Affleck’s political ideology bleeds through into his portrayal of his characters.

    The last movie I selected to see with him in the lead was in the character of Jack Ryan, in Sum of All Fears. Affleck’s bend ruined the movie for us. The odd part was that up until then I was unaware of Affleck’s Marxist bend. The reactions and emotional input I observed in the character made me wonder wonder why he was directed that way. As we walked out of the theater I commented out loud to my wife,”That wasn’t MY Jack Ryan!”(been a Clancy fan for decades) A man next to me in the crowd said,”Mine either!”

    When we got home I looked up Affleck and discovered that the movie really reflected his interpretation of the character. I put him on my “do not support” list right next to Barbra Streisand.

    1. Actors/entertainers out spoken Liberal/Progressive opinions have kept me out of many theater and concert box offices for more than 20 years.

      What I don’t get is why these writers/directors/studio heads regularly ask why their products aren’t doing well, when it documented quite nicely all over the Internet. There are millions of “Bruce Franks” out there who are going to listen to Ben Affleck’s insults and say, “You know what, I’m going to take that $25 I would have spent at the movies with my wife and we’re going to spend it on the “2 for $20″ at Chili’s…” In the aggregate, that’s a ton of money.

    2. Just Ben Affleck playing Batman would be reason enough for me to not watch the movie. But his acting skills is another reason. So this movie is a no go and he will NOT get my money.

    3. Prediction: Ben Affleck’s Batman will be really good at winching. 🙂 I’m not sure what else he will bring to the table, but we know Ben Affleck’s wincing skills are second to none.

  2. Thanks for the warning. Mr. Affleck doesn’t need my conservative money. I’ll be passing on his offering when it’s released.

  3. Doug, please don’t tell me you think this movie is going to be titled Superman vs Batman…I hate it when heroes fight and that’s the billing.

    1. There are a LOT of movies that I haven’t bothered to see because of idiot celebrities who mouth off about politics, like Affleck. I remember when Sean Penn wished rectal cancer on those who criticized him, and that’s what made me vow to NEVER watch any of his movies again.

      I love the Jack Ryan series (may Clancy RIP) and I also hated the film version of “Sum of all Fears.” The fact that it was a reboot and they replaced the Islamists with Neo-Nazi businessmen from Austria. Ugh.

      If I were in charge of the movie, I’d sit him down and tell him to keep it to himself.

      Speaking of which, I think the BBC (ironic, because they’re pretty liberal) has done a good job in keeping the stars of Doctor Who in check. Outgoing Doctor Matt Smith does not have a Twitter (he said in an interview tha tit wasn’t his cup of tea), and neither do his predecessors, Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. His successor Peter Capaldi doesn’t, either. Co-star Jenna Coleman doesn’t have a Twitter. In fact, the current executive producer Steven Moffat quit his Twitter because of fans that harassed him and has advised both Smith and Coleman to stay off the internet.

    2. There are a LOT of movies that I haven’t bothered to see because of idiot celebrities who mouth off about politics, like Affleck. I remember when Sean Penn wished rectal cancer on those who criticized him, and that’s what made me vow to NEVER watch any of his movies again.

      Wait, you mean you take offense to someone wishing you rectal concern, Carl? 😉

      I think for most celebrities, less social media is better than more. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I think most of them don’t really know how to navigate the minefield and end up hurting their career.

    3. LOL… that really sealed it for me. It was beyond mean… it was a disgusting statement I mean, I would NEVER say something like that to anyone. It’s just like how a certain former troll wished that I’d never procreate..

      “I think for most celebrities, less social media is better than more. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I think most of them don’t really know how to navigate the minefield and end up hurting their career.”

      I completely agree. A lot of them just wind up saying stupid things on there and the less intelligent among us (LIVs, mostly) regurgitate the celebrities’ stupidity as their own opinions. Just look at Alec Baldwin’s meltdowns on social media. His behavior actually got him fired from MSNBC, which astonished me.

      If I were a celebrity, I would avoid social media (I quit Facebook back in May, as you know.) and unless someone posted something slanderous about myself or a loved one, I would ignore what was being said about me.

    4. A considerable percentage of the public is already contentious at Affleck playing Batman.

      Regardless of politics, this type of commentary just gives members of the public more reasons to uneasy about the idea of an Affleck-Batman. People can be fickle and not see a movie for all sorts of small reasons.

      If I was Affleck, I would be doing my best to sell the idea that an Affleck-Batman could work (at the moment, he hasn’t done this although Matt Damon has tried). I would sell the idea that off screen behaviour and past movie flops wouldn’t affect my performance. Also I wouldn’t use the Batman role to sell politics in interviews (as acting and politics don’t mix).

      This is essentially what Russel Crowe and Christian Bale do already. People may/may not like them in real life but when they all approach a role (particularly a historical one), they go all out. Generally when they do interviews, they stick to talking about the film or their performance, never about politics.

      Hopefully Affleck approaches the role in this way as well. If he thinks talking in a gravelly voice and wearing a black cape makes you Batman (which is what Matt Damon thinks), it doesn’t (just ask George Clooney).

  4. *Sigh* Here we go again. And when the right makes an issue of this, the left will scream “But … freedom of speech!” whereas had someone said something similar about Democrats, the boycotts would be a legitimate exercise in “social justice” or some other such nonsense.

    Kurt Busiek on Twitter recently expressed miffitude at how “us guys” whine about people like him offending half his audience. First he took issue with the term “half” (missing the point), then wondering why we can’t just enjoy his stories (tell that to Ron Marz, for example, regarding Orson Scott Card), and lastly claiming we think he’s “allowed to express his political opinions” … but only “if they agree with ours.”

    As I’ve said a few times in the past, Busiek wanted speech to be fought with other speech (not boycotts) — that is, apparently, until average chums like us actually were provided with the means to do that expressing (blogs). Now we’re “typical conservative malcontent dullards” or something. Speech isn’t fought with more speech (ie debate) but our speech must be belittled merely because we disagree … these guys seemingly forgetting that we’re fans of their industry!

    Which is why I commented (at Avi’s) that the [print] industry must really be dying. It would explain why guys like Marz, Slott, Waid, and Busiek act the way they do on social media. They don’t care what they say anymore … because their industry is disintegrating. Otherwise, it really is baffling how they interact with intelligent fans who express disagreements. I mean, these folks are supposed to be “professionals.” If I were in their shoes and encountered someone like myself, or Doug, et. al., despite how I really may have felt, I’d at least say “Hey, thanks for the thoughts and comments. I don’t agree with much of what you say, but I can see where you’re coming from. I do appreciate the comments and your fandom.”

    1. You had that conversation with Busiek, what, 15 years ago or so? It’s amazing how he has changed his tune regarding speech now that ordinary people have a way to even the playing field via blogs and other forms of social media.

    2. Kurt Busiek on Twitter recently expressed miffitude at how “us guys” whine about people like him offending half his audience. First he took issue with the term “half” (missing the point), then wondering why we can’t just enjoy his stories (tell that to Ron Marz, for example, regarding Orson Scott Card), and lastly claiming we think he’s “allowed to express his political opinions” … but only “if they agree with ours.”

      It’s not that he’s voicing his opinion, but how he voices his opinion. If, for instance, he demonizes me simply because I disagree with him on public policy, it will grate on my nerves. If he’s condescending, I’m going to say something. If the message is that anyone who disagrees with him is a knuckle-dragging rube, I’ll call him out. If he’s like Ben Afflect and says that he “probably” won’t like me simply because I don’t vote the way he does, then I’m not going to buy his product.

      As I’ve said a few times in the past, Busiek wanted speech to be fought with other speech (not boycotts) — that is, apparently, until average chums like us actually were provided with the means to do that expressing (blogs). Now we’re “typical conservative malcontent dullards” or something. Speech isn’t fought with more speech (ie debate) but our speech must be belittled merely because we disagree … these guys seemingly forgetting that we’re fans of their industry!

      That’s the key — they were for fans having the power to talk back … as long is it was all just some sort of academic exercise. Once blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc. empowered us, they changed their tune.

      I added all those “related” items a.) because they’re actually related … but more importantly perhaps because I wanted people to see that I supported the first ‘Man of Steel’ and dedicated time to writing about it. I will support creators who are respectful of fans, and Zack Snyder has done a pretty good job with that. He made a weird Obama comment during the course of the ‘Man of Steel’ promotion, but it wasn’t really something that warranted a blog post. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for Ben Affleck and his buddies to find that balance.

  5. By the way, regarding Affleck, he’d do well to consider Furious D’s “Offend Bore Matrix”:

    The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest.

    (This applies more to Affleck’s pal Matt Damon more than Ben himself, currently, I think.)

  6. Carl often refers to the “low information voter”; and I must say, I enjoyed movies much more when I was “low information hollywood”, at least about their political leanings; I think to much twitter is a bad thing. I was five when my dad took me to the first star wars and I remember being amazed and lost in the fiction/fantasy. Obviously a child’s wonder won’t be duplicated as an adult; but it would be nice to see a fictional Gotham/Batman without having to wonder (or brace for) if I’m going to get political commentary…..I’m hoping to escape that a little while by seeing the superhero movies.

    1. Patrick, it’s funny you should mention Star Wars, since Mark Hamill is one of those guys who likes to jam his finger in the eye of conservative fans: ‘Mark Hamill: Obama critics are insane; if he was sarlacc I’d gladly dive inside’

      At this point he probably didn’t think the next set of Star Wars was going to come out, or that he’d have a part in them…so I guess you could cut him a little slack. Regardless, you’d think someone whose in the public spotlight and who has many fans would be a bit more respectful of their point of view.

    2. Ugh, I remember that…..though somehow I can get thru my day with “Cock-knocker” thinking I’m insane. Hopefully the new movies/actors will focus on a galaxy far, far away and not bash half the voters here.

    3. I do have my concerns about the next Star Wars films… J.J. Abrams did direct Star Trek into Darkness, after all, and the whole movie was a 9-11 Truther’s wet dream, with the Federation planting weapons on the Klingon homeworld to provoke a war with them and Khan being “created” by the Federation. Granted, Abrams didn’t write the film, but he did approve of the script.

    4. And remember, the prequel trilogy (especially the third movie, Revenge of the Sith) was supposed to be some bizarre War on Terror allegory, with Palpatine as Bush and the Clone Wars being fought based on a “false premise.”

    5. Carl, that is interesting; I’ve heard the first three (Star Wars) were sometimes interpreted as thematic of the Cold War; I wonder if it is the writer’s political thought or maybe the story was influenced by the times. I could cut Hollywood a bit more slack for the latter. There’s millions of people in the US, obviously there will be many opinions; I just don’t see the need for Hamel to call us insane or Affleck deciding he doesn’t like us; in the end we have to work together.

    6. It’s hard to say what the exact inspirations for Star War comes from, Pat. Other than the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s, that is. That’s the only constant. Lucas has given conflicting stories over the years about how he conceived the series and how many movies it was supposed to be.

      If I were an actor or a writer, I’d keep my mouth shout about politics, that’s for sure.

  7. The fact that Hollywood replaced Islamist terrorists with Nazi businessmen makes me laugh for one simple reason: if Hitler rose from the grave and blitzed Los Angeles, Affleck and his ilk would fail to object, urging us all to show tolerance. An enemy that Eisenhower and Churchill destroyed 70 years ago is safe to hate, but give a Liberals a real lie enemy in the present time and they becomes mindless baboons.

  8. This is hysterical. So now he is trying to avoid the facts that people don’t want him to play Batman and now it’s because they are Republicans? Here is the truth we don’t like you because you are a big goof! No one will ever take you serious as Batman because even at your absolute ANGRIEST you wouldn’t scare a girl scout. So why this attempt? We both know why because if and when Superman fails you are going to call it a political assault..you are really desperate aren’t you Ben. But guess what… no one believes you anymore and here is what is even funnier.. you know all those Batman fans you are ignoring? Well guess what it crosses over to your other fan base. Once you screw this up you will see a huge decline in your popularity and undeniable the end to your career. So have fun screwing up Batman just know we the very strong fan base are looking forward to seeing how you will play this one.

    1. I can see Jeremy Irons as Alfred…but Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor?…Ummm…okay…though I know he’s played real life crony and dirty business man Mark Zucherberg…I don’t know if I could take his physical appearance seriously…

      Also, any word on how much they’ve messed up Wondie?

    2. Jeremy Irons is a great actor. ‘The Mission’ really affected me when I was younger… Some people might find it boring, but I think it’s an absolutely amazing movie. I’ll never forget the soundtrack, either. It’s still able to bring tears to my eyes. I don’t know why. It just does.

      I can see what they were thinking with Eisenberg, but that will be a hard one to pull off. We’ll see…

    3. I don’t think they’ve messed up Wonder Woman… I just hope they give her the original costume as opposed to the newer one. Just take the Clarke’s Third Law approach to the Greek gods and I think it’ll be good; I know you don’t like that, Emmanuel, but it’s the only way I can see this working out.

      I like Jeremy Irons as an actor; he’ll probably do well. As for Eisenberg… hard telling. I haven’t seen any movies with him in it, that I can recall.

    4. “Just take the Clarke’s Third Law approach to the Greek gods and I think it’ll be good; I know you don’t like that, Emmanuel, but it’s the only way I can see this working out.”

      Funny how you mentioned they should go for the original costume yet you seem rather adverse to them going with the original back story.

      Also, if they do go the Clarke’s Law route, I don’t what you say, they will have immediately shot themselves in the foot and failed miserably, and the film will instantly suck. Why? Because unlike Thor, who was damn well pretty much an obscure no body in the public consciousness before Marvel decided to create the MCU, people have been clamoring for a faithful adaptation of the greatest female superhero icon in the world for decades now that is every bit as faithful as the ones for Batsy and Supes and yes, that includes the fact that she was MADE FROM CLAY BY THE GREEK GODS THEMSELVES and has significant mystical elements to her that Clarke would piss his pants at. It will be even worse if they decide to make the Olympians Kryptonians, but regardless of which particular bad blend of Clarke’s Law they decide to go with, if Hollywood can’t bother to be faithful to the greatest female superhero icon, I don’t care what you guys think or how hypocritical you think it is, but I’m going to ‘sexism’ till the cows come home and it just might make me angry to actually make a blog post refuting you with everything I have. Why? Because it would be absolutely true.

    5. I should’ve known I was opening a can of worms here…. forgot about the last time I mentioned Clark’s Third Law, at my now-idle blog. I fail to see “sexism” here.

      Much as I like her original origin, I just don’t think it would mesh well with the tone of the Man of Steel/DC Cinematic Universe.

    6. “Much as I like her original origin, I just don’t think it would mesh well with the tone of the Man of Steel/DC Cinematic Universe.”

      Then you’re a sexist. For years, practically all of the male heroes out there have had faithful adaptations with origins close to their original comic book origins, so why the hell does the first big screen appearance of the single most legendary comic book heroine have to bow down to the men and have to be the one to give up her own unique origin story and make it just another bland adaptation like the anal pounding they gave to the Asgardians of the MCU?

    7. Doug: I think they largely cast Eisenberg because he is the same age as Henry Cavill, and most recent versions of Luthor have been at or near the same age as Superman/Clark.

    8. I think if that’s true that’s a really bad mistake. To me the most important thing is always capturing the “essence” of a character. When one looks at Mr. Eisenberg, do they see a man who could hold an entire city within the palm of his hand? I don’t. He doesn’t give off a Luthor vibe to me at all, really. I know that he played Mark Zuckerberg … and he did a decent job at it I guess, but a jerky social media whiz kid isn’t the same as Luthor.

      To me, Eisenberg seems like someone who, if you had to cast him as Luthor, I’d put on a show like Smallville. Unless they’re going to bulk him up with some serious Gym Jones it’s going to be a hard sell.

      Right now there is just way too much going on for me. I have no idea how they’re going to balance it all out. The more convoluted it gets, the worse I feel for Superman fans. The dude is getting pushed out of his own movie! How insulting is that? I really want to give this movie a chance, but Warner Bros. seems to be making way too many long-odds casting bets.

    9. It does seem like it’s getting crowded. I mean, it has Batman (obviously), Alfred, Luthor and Wonder Woman. Any there’s too much going on in a superhero film… that’s not a good sign. Spider-Man 3, anyone?

  9. It’s not “sexist” and frankly it’s pretty low of you to suggest that I am for saying that it doesn’t mesh well with the tone of the DC Cinematic Universe. You’re invoking the fanboy mentality again and also playing the sexist card, which is one of the laziest things one can do, along with the race card.

    I should’ve known better to even bring this up, given how far you went off the rails when we debated this back at my blog, acting like an immature fanboy.

    1. In the early comics, weren’t Batman’s parent’s just killed by a robber…but Tim Burton changed it to the Joker for 1989s ‘Batman’? That’s a pretty big change, but at the time I only remember people who didn’t think Keaton could pull it off.

      I’m not sure how someone could make the jump from “this guy disagrees on the potential of Wonder Woman’s origin tale” to “therefore, he must be sexist!” Huh? What? That’s worthy of a Jean-Luc Picard face-palm right there. My brother reads the comments section and sometimes gets a good laugh. I’m sure he got a few out of that exchange.

    2. Yes, they were. They also gave the Joker a name in the 1989 film: Jack Napier, which is unusual because they’ve never revealed his first name.

      I was scratching my head at his “sexist” remark, too. All I said is, I don’t know if the magical origin from the comics would gel with the more sci-fi tone of the movies. Next thing you know, he’ll say I’m “mansplaining” or some such nonsense. 😉

    3. Calling someone a “racistbigotsexisthomophobe” (one word) is one of the laziest things one can do, and like I said, I think it’s pretty low of Emmanuel to call me that. But par for the course. He also once said that I had “no right to complain” about the state of comics, too, because he assumed that I wasn’t writing my story fast enough. Or something.

    4. Yes, I did get a laugh with that exchange! I think I agree with Carl that it’s a better cinematic fit.

  10. Well here’s a startling refresher & what is ironic, Batman is a Conservative/Republican & Libertarian/Independent DC Comic Books Superhero NOT a Liberal/Democrat Superhero. But yet Zack Snyder casted a Progressively Liberal/Democratic Actor(Ben Affleck) as a Conservative-Republican/Libertarian Hero(Batman) & yet Ben Affleck is going to alienate Batman fans who are Libertarian-Conservative/Republicans like myself.

    Honestly Zack Snyder should have never cast Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne(for this very reason), he could provide a mis-interpretation & perverse view of Batman’s political views from the comics that will NOT turn out as accurate to the source material or how Bruce Wayne is really portrayed in the literary works or other media outlets. Besides I can’t even see Ben Affleck doing a great performance as Bruce Wayne/Batman by giving a good accurate depiction of Bruce Wayne’s character based on Bruce’s views, personality, etc. since they are very complex characters. Zack Snyder should tell Ben to keep his mouth shut before the the film is already released in theaters. Telling a Republican fan-base that “he probably doesn’t like them & just wants your money.” is just fucked up & ignorant.

    Even Ronald Reagan who used to be a Democrat & changed tides to being a fully-fledged committed Republican before his passing, has admitted in one his speeches that: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Go figure. You know how Ben Affleck is about his political views. He is one that likes to instigate political arguments over obtuse & pre-conceived topics that are affiliated & relevant to his party that he leans on.

    1. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, Simon. I appreciate it.

      Zack Snyder should tell Ben to keep his mouth shut before the the film is already released in theaters.

      He’s been fairly quiet for some time now. It will be interesting to see how he behaves as the 2016 presidential election gets into high gear. I hope someone pulls him aside and tells him not to get weirdly political as the release date of Batman v Superman nears. The more Ben Affleck talks politics, the more he embarrasses himself. The last time he was on Bill Maher he almost started sobbing. No one wants a crybaby to play Batman.

  11. “I love my fellow Americans. I want to like all of them and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard when guys like Ben Affleck and President Obama keep dividing people.”

    But its okay when neo conservative warmongers like George W Bush say “You’re either with us or against us” and lie us into a fraud war to make profits for the defense corporations. HYPOCRITE

    1. Indeed, that line by Bush wasn’t the brightest, but you might want to get over the tired and FALSE line that Bush “lied us into war.” There is a big difference between a lie and a mistake. After all, the list of prominent Democrats who said exactly the same thing Bush did about WMD is a mile long, and includes the Democrat 2016 frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

    2. “But its okay when neo conservative warmongers like George W Bush say “You’re either with us or against us” and lie us into a fraud war to make profits for the defense corporations. HYPOCRITE”

      Bravo, Silvio! I say that because it’s 2016 an you’re talking as if you’re Janeane Garofalo and it’s 2004. Did you invent a time machine and use it Back to the Future 2-style? If it’s cathartic for you to scream about “neo-conservatives,” Bush, and “warmongers” while throwing in some caps-lock abuse, then feel free to give it another go.

      You never really asked me my opinion on George W. Bush’s “for us or against us” line, so I’m not sure how you can call me a hypocrite. Can you read minds, too? If so, please let us in on how to access such an amazing ability.

  12. Now that the Wonder Woman movie is out (I haven’t seen it yet but plan to soon), I wonder (no pun intended) how Emmannuel will react once he learns that it uses the New 52 origin for Diana: she is the daughter of Zeus and Hipployta. Will he call director Patty Jenkins- a woman- “sexist?” Or how about Allan Heinberg, who wrote the screenplay? That would be interesting to see.

    I suppose he’ll go to the movie with his mentor and bring a pack of vegetables with him that he can eat instead of popcorn.

    1. “Now that the Wonder Woman movie is out (I haven’t seen it yet but plan to soon), I wonder (no pun intended) how Emmannuel will react once he learns that it uses the New 52 origin for Diana: she is the daughter of Zeus and Hipployta. Will he call director Patty Jenkins- a woman- ‘sexist?'”

      I’ll be reviewing Wonder Woman in the near future, Carl. I’m looking forward to your opinions on the movie. And yeah, I suppose I should probably look and see if Emmanuel is still banned…although it’s been so peaceful on the boards since he was put in the penalty box. That was a weird era for the blog! 🙂

  13. “I’ll be reviewing Wonder Woman in the near future, Carl. I’m looking forward to your opinions on the movie. And yeah, I suppose I should probably look and see if Emmanuel is still banned…although it’s been so peaceful on the boards since he was put in the penalty box. That was a weird era for the blog!”

    Thanks, I look forward to yours as well.

    And yeah, it has been peaceful since Emmanuel was banned. Aside from my uncle, I’ve never met anyone who was so prone to flying off the handle about stupid things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s