jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (38 posts)

"Cold dead Hands" a music video by Jim Carrey. Genesis or Soulless?

  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
    Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago

    Jim Carrey’s "Lonesome Earl and the Clutterbusters".  -wrote a song reference to Charlton Heston NRA statement, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." The wording of one part of Jim’s song was “ he could not enter Heaven, as even the angels could not pry the gun from his hands. All Staged as an episode of Hee Haw in which Heston is a guest star. The video also features The Eels dressed as Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and John Lennon (all of whom were advocates of peace that were assassinated with guns).

    I don’t get insulted if it’s the truth, fearless enough to change, and if it’s not true just move on.

    Ted Nugent (gun nut), Alex Jone (blow horn) and most of all, Fox were very angry by Jim Carrey.
    I’ll say, Jim was genius, It’s about people’s behavior with Guns on earth, not so much about a man’s soul that nobody knows until each one of us, gets to that spirit world..

    How about you, Genius or Soulless ?

    1. profile image84
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Jim Carrey and George Clooney are both talented, but that doesn't mean they have acted with tact.  When somebody, form either side of the aisle, makes statements like this, it does nothing but to drive a wedge between both sides.  It shows no tact, no class. 

      As reported at World New Daily from January of 2003:

      In receiving a special film making achievement award from the National Board of Reviews, actor George Clooney joked that "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."

      Clooney still had a chance to apologize for the bad humor day. When questioned about the remark by New York Newsday, Clooney sputtered: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."

      Talent doesn't necessarily mean that one is acting in a moralistic way.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My simple moral policies -no harm and be honest. Make good sense to allow Clooney and Carrey fit with those idea's and their hard work.  Fox, Negent and Allex promote fight rather than peaceful solutions. I would defend Heston honor if he was a class act like John Lennon or Gandhi.

        War or guns solve nothing. Been to 6 war zone countries, would not be alive today, if I had a gun with me.

      2. profile image0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What a good quote. I love the talent of Jim Carrey and George Clooney and although Charelton Heston was a superstar in his day, he is not even on my radar for the most part... that doesn't mean anything about anything though. How could any of these ppl think that something matters to us b/c it matters to them? I'll make up my own mind about guns, abortion, who I vote for, and what matters to me, thank all y'all superstars for your input though. I'll just file it away where it belongs.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Do you even think Jesus, would approve of guns other than to kill for food?  If a gun kills a soul dose that make him a super human being, or will he get the wrath of God orders - not to kill.
          All that dose not matter according to America road record of hypocrites

          Can't imagine Buddha, Gandhi or Jesus sitting at a table taking about weapons of mass destruction, gun or bombs.

          “If every life is important, and if you’re trying to save people from dying by gunfire, then you can’t ignore nearly two-thirds of the people who are dying by suicide by gunfire.

          GunIn 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. According to (HICRC)

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I read back and I can't really see where Jesus was referenced in this thread... until your last post. That must have been a subject you tried to sort of force this subject into b/c you know I am a Christian?

            My point was that just b/c someone acts for a living, they shouldn't think their opinion has any more weight than any other citizen. I didn't bring religion into this subject at all.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You mean Heston did not make Biblical movies and went to heaven with his gun.?

              We are talking about honorable men throughout history also. Jesus was man in history who did not personally use weapons. Carrey and Jesus did have guards who did have a weapons for protection them.

              Carrey made 5 billion $ wroth of movies and Jesus claim to be King of kings. Makes sense, if you're talking out about guns, swords or bullies by their means of magic entertainment.

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Um... ok then.

              2. profile image84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't care about how talented Carrey is or isn't.  He didn't show class.  The same goes for Clooney.  When is it appropriate to mock somebody who has a fatal disease? 

                Ted Nugent is talented too.  Does that mean you think he's right?

                If you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not gun rights are justified, that's a different thing.  Yes, I believe gun rights are justified; I'm nauseated by the sanctimonious Hollywood liberals who spew venom at anybody who disagrees with their progressive gun-control agenda.  Jim Carrey versus Thomas Jefferson?  George Clooney verses John Adams?  I'll take Jefferson and Adams any day of the week.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Thomas Jefferson was talking about musket guns that take 3 minutes to load. In that time and distance I could run up to them and kick their ass with my bare hands.

                  1. profile image0
                    Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you read the things you say?

                  2. profile image84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you're wrong here.  An experienced shooter, in the American Revolution, could fire three times per minute, not once every three minutes.  Actually, in a pinch, they probably could have pulled off four rounds per minute.  Having personally fired a Harper's Ferry Model 1803, I can say that you're wrong here.  Even so, what's your point?  Is this the argument liberals like to make about how guns have changed, and the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have access to guns with such large magazines and firepower? 

                    The founding fathers chose their words carefully.  They specifically referred to the right to bear arms, not the right to own guns.  One has to wonder why they didn't refer to them as muskets, flintlocks, or even swords, all common weapons back in 1791.  They knew technology would evolve, and current weaponry would become outdated.  That's why they referred to these weapons as "arms."  Were canons against the law back in 1791?  No, arms were legal, not just flintlocks.  What restrictions were there back then?  None.  That's the point.  There were no restrictions on arms, a broad, carefully-selected term.

                    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

                    -- Thomas Jefferson


                    Some would say that the term "gun" was unpopular back then.  That's why, they claim, arms was the terminology used.  That's not true.  Here's another quote.

                    "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

                    -- Thomas Jefferson



                    What's next?  Are we going to say that the founding fathers had no idea how communications were going to change?  Thus, you do not have first-amendment rights when it comes to communications via telephone and the internet?  Freedom is freedom, and it doesn't need to be justified because of a change in technology.  Should freedom of speech be restricted to parchment and quill, printing press, or personal communications?  After all, this was the technology available back in 1791.  This argument doesn't hold water when it's applied to other freedoms, but people who advocate gun control love to use it when it serves their purpose.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think Jim was hilarious. Fux News was funny as well.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I was hoping someone would notice the Video.

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I think there is a very fine line between confronting a bully and being one.  In the recent movie theater murder case one man threw popcorn, the other replied with a bullet.  Who was the bully?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why that dirty popcorn thrower, murder was too good for him!!! lo

      Got strapped so bad in school; that I could not write with my hand for 3 weeks. Why,? because I dropped my pencil a few times. Still today, drop popcorn and pencil all the time, it didn't do me any good.

      Punishment worst than the crime still goes for most, right into the afterlife.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What year was that?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          1963

 
working