OT El Paso shooting: 22 Dead, 24 Inured. Dayton shooting: 9 Dead, 16 Injured

[Jade Falcon]

On one hand your saying its always been that way, on the other your saying its getting worse.

"Getting worse" doesn't mean those things haven't always been there.

then you point to a few who didnt.

And? Where are they? That's my point: they are very few and far in between. MOST of the time, leaders are dicks on some level.

Connecting the dots is literally logic at it’s core

Can also apply to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy, with bits of straw man fallacy thrown in. Today, it is rarely applied to logic itself, especially when it comes to the MSM.

you cannot make a logical conclusion if you cannot look at separate pieces of evidence and put them together.

That's bullshit. The very fact that people think that taking away guns means violence will stop is proof of that bullshit. That's like saying "if I take away dildos and porn, it will stop women from being horny". There is zero logic in that, yet I just put those two "dots" together to form a point. Not everything that is connected by dots uses logic.

Get back to me when Trump ACTUALLY calls for KILLING someone. Until then, it's all a bunch of connected dots without logic and bullshit to me.

If you’re saying bad behavior is absolutely acceptable because thats just the way things are you are indeed propagating and encouraging it.

Yeah, NOBODY has said that, not even Trump. Which brings me back to the point about connecting the dots being applied to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy.

I will not accept that well a lot of leaders have sucked, so I should just accept it and not look for a good leader.

NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ACCEPTING ANYTHING. Stop that crap. In fact, I specifically said:

My advice would be, broadly stated: don't waste effort on the bad, and focus on the good.

...and....

Speaking for myself, I've learned to leave people alone, and they've left me alone in return. That's good enough for me. No sleep lost.

Where you are getting confused is that I said "I, for one, choose to accept reality, rather than screaming obscenities and denying it." Nobody here is encouraging you not to look for the good in people, or look for the better people of our society. I am simply saying that the REALITY IS that this country is full of assholes, and no leader is a saint. And because the world is full of assholes, don't be surprised when one steps up to the podium to lead the masses.

Or perhaps you're getting confused by the fact that I said "Then you're not accepting anyone who has ever been in power, or has risen to the top. Because you are expecting a mythical person that doesn't exist." And if that's the case, I want you to find proof that I'm wrong with that statement.

But nowhere did I tell you to just accept it and not look for a good leader. What I DID tell you is what reality is, and what I choose to live in.

And the reality that I choose to live in was that I got fucking tired of career politicians and out-of-touch elites running this country with their arrogant and condescending attitudes, talking to us like we were a bunch of stupid peasants; as if you didn't go to Harvard or hang out in Hollywood, then you didn't matter. With their fake smiles and self-importance. So I voted for the guy who ISN'T a career politician, who tells it like it is, who swears, talks shit, and blabbers like everyone else in society (that is reality), and doesn't apologize for anything. He doesn't hide his words with pre-typed bullshit, bows and hand-kissing while going on an apology tour around the world; as if we're supposed to feel guilty about something. I like that about Trump, and I don't give a shit whose feelings he hurts in the process.

If you don't like that, then find someone else and vote for them. But I'll tell you right now that clown show called the Democratic Party is completely out of touch with reality and has an old, outdated message that nobody but a small minority of this country still gives a shit about. Nobody but a few people in our society actually spends their waking hours wringing their hands about gender identity, sexual identity, or race identity. That's reality, and I accept it.

Your mileage may vary. You do you; don't waste your time worrying about anyone else.

Social media is still not 99%.

Are you sure about that? How many millions of people just in this country alone have some sort of social media, where they are exposed to everyone's opinions or thoughts? 100 million? 200 million?

Oh, forgive me....79%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/

My point still stands. Social media exposes you to the reality of what our country is like. We swear at sporting events on Saturday, go to church on Sundays, and we fuck our neighbor's wife on Monday. We hold the door open for old women at the mall, and we flip off the elderly driver holding up traffic on the way home. That is reality.

Is that cynical? Sure. But it doesn't make it any less true. I choose reality.

And on that note, I'm done tonight. Sleep calls. Goodnight.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

"Getting worse" doesn't mean those things haven't always been there.



And? Where are they? That's my point: they are very few and far in between. MOST of the time, leaders are dicks on some level.



Can also apply to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy, with bits of straw man fallacy thrown in. Today, it is rarely applied to logic itself, especially when it comes to the MSM.



That's bullshit. The very fact that people think that taking away guns means violence will stop is proof of that bullshit. That's like saying "if I take away dildos and porn, it will stop women from being horny". There is zero logic in that, yet I just put those two "dots" together to form a point. Not everything that is connected by dots uses logic.

Get back to me when Trump ACTUALLY calls for KILLING someone. Until then, it's all a bunch of connected dots without logic and bullshit to me.



Yeah, NOBODY has said that, not even Trump. Which brings me back to the point about connecting the dots being applied to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy.



NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ACCEPTING ANYTHING. Stop that crap. In fact, I specifically said:



...and....



Where you are getting confused is that I said "I, for one, choose to accept reality, rather than screaming obscenities and denying it." Nobody here is encouraging you not to look for the good in people, or look for the better people of our society. I am simply saying that the REALITY IS that this country is full of assholes, and no leader is a saint. And because the world is full of assholes, don't be surprised when one steps up to the podium to lead the masses.

Or perhaps you're getting confused by the fact that I said "Then you're not accepting anyone who has ever been in power, or has risen to the top. Because you are expecting a mythical person that doesn't exist." And if that's the case, I want you to find proof that I'm wrong with that statement.

But nowhere did I tell you to just accept it and not look for a good leader. What I DID tell you is what reality is, and what I choose to live in.

And the reality that I choose to live in was that I got fucking tired of career politicians and out-of-touch elites running this country with their arrogant and condescending attitudes, talking to us like we were a bunch of stupid peasants; as if you didn't go to Harvard or hang out in Hollywood, then you didn't matter. With their fake smiles and self-importance. So I voted for the guy who ISN'T a career politician, who tells it like it is, who swears, talks shit, and blabbers like everyone else in society (that is reality), and doesn't apologize for anything. He doesn't hide his words with pre-typed bullshit, bows and hand-kissing while going on an apology tour around the world; as if we're supposed to feel guilty about something. I like that about Trump, and I don't give a shit whose feelings he hurts in the process.

If you don't like that, then find someone else and vote for them. But I'll tell you right now that clown show called the Democratic Party is completely out of touch with reality and has an old, outdated message that nobody but a small minority of this country still gives a shit about. Nobody but a few people in our society actually spends their waking hours wringing their hands about gender identity, sexual identity, or race identity. That's reality, and I accept it.

Your mileage may vary. You do you; don't waste your time worrying about anyone else.



Are you sure about that? How many millions of people just in this country alone have some sort of social media, where they are exposed to everyone's opinions or thoughts? 100 million? 200 million?

Oh, forgive me....79%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/

My point still stands. Social media exposes you to the reality of what our country is like. We swear at sporting events on Saturday, go to church on Sundays, and we fuck our neighbor's wife on Monday. We hold the door open for old women at the mall, and we flip off the elderly driver holding up traffic on the way home. That is reality.

Is that cynical? Sure. But it doesn't make it any less true. I choose reality.

And on that note, I'm done tonight. Sleep calls. Goodnight.

Trump was/is for the death penalty, and he has called for killing somebody.
I think it was in this thread that Julius posted a link to a video of a group of men he said should be killed for a crime they didn't commit. Guess I win this argument.

You seem to think your version of what people are actually like is reality, and it might be to you, but theres a lot of projecting going on.

Also you talk about out of touch elites and hollywood type’s and all their garbage, like Trump isn't one of them? He is a Billionaire who grew up Rich, who literally never had to do a thing in his life but because he swears and epitomizes what some people on the right think is just “how people are”, which is basically them saying, “thats how I am”, and Im projecting that to everyone else, that makes him more “real”. Trump has lived his whole life as one of the “elite”, staring in TV shows, and movies, and owning Hotels all over the world.

To me as someone who leans conservative on a lot of things it all sounds like deflection and if it was the “lefts” guy, and the same excuses were being made for him, the right would call them on it too.

We can go back and forth all day if the left have anyone better, or if past leaders were in better, but it doesnt excuse Trump of the fact he’s a pretty terrible person, who has used his elite status to take advantage of people his whole life, just like all the career politicians do.

 

[Mediocre Man]

1) No, you can't change it. There has been inequality, racism, bigotry, hatred, and assholes since ancient times. Do you honestly think that a leader is somehow going to make people change? No. There were still shootings and murder and racism in Lincoln's time, just as there was when Obama was in office. That is reality. My advice would be, broadly stated: don't waste effort on the bad, and focus on the good. Trying to change society rarely works, unless you are one of the greats, like MLK or Fred Rogers. But how many other MLK and Fred Rogers are there?

I mean, honestly, what is your other option? Riot and throw a shit flip every time you see someone in a MAGA hat? No thanks. Life is stressful enough without trying to change the dynamic of people. Live for yourself, and fuck everyone else.

Speaking for myself, I've learned to leave people alone, and they've left me alone in return. That's good enough for me. No sleep lost.

2) Nobody is propagating anything. I've not heard Trump once call for killing anyone. And I don't play "connect-the-dots logic", just like I don't believe in conspiracy theories. So I'm afraid I can't help you there.



Then you're not accepting anyone who has ever been in power, or has risen to the top. Because you are expecting a mythical person that doesn't exist.



In reality. Go post your opinions on social media and watch shit fly if you don't believe me....Twitter should be good, in fact. I quit using it for specifically that reason. Or go protest or picket something and see how many negative reactions you get. The world is full of assholes. Whether it's a middle finger in traffic, or a President on a podium.

It baffles me that some of you don't get this. Where have you been for the past decade or two? This country is more crowded, stressed out, and crazy than ever before. Now you're surprised that we have an asshole president? Why is this news to some of you?

You've been quick to dismiss people's posts by screaming OPINION, but then you post an asinine thing like 99% of people are assholes. Please tell me you see the irony.

 

[Lanny]

no....you'll just need to move to Southside Chicago and join the police force....good luck with that

Good luck with passing the background check.

 

[Lanny]

Gross

 

[calvin natt]

"Getting worse" doesn't mean those things haven't always been there.



And? Where are they? That's my point: they are very few and far in between. MOST of the time, leaders are dicks on some level.



Can also apply to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy, with bits of straw man fallacy thrown in. Today, it is rarely applied to logic itself, especially when it comes to the MSM.



That's bullshit. The very fact that people think that taking away guns means violence will stop is proof of that bullshit. That's like saying "if I take away dildos and porn, it will stop women from being horny". There is zero logic in that, yet I just put those two "dots" together to form a point. Not everything that is connected by dots uses logic.

Get back to me when Trump ACTUALLY calls for KILLING someone. Until then, it's all a bunch of connected dots without logic and bullshit to me.



Yeah, NOBODY has said that, not even Trump. Which brings me back to the point about connecting the dots being applied to false premise, virtue signaling, and red herring fallacy.



NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ACCEPTING ANYTHING. Stop that crap. In fact, I specifically said:



...and....



Where you are getting confused is that I said "I, for one, choose to accept reality, rather than screaming obscenities and denying it." Nobody here is encouraging you not to look for the good in people, or look for the better people of our society. I am simply saying that the REALITY IS that this country is full of assholes, and no leader is a saint. And because the world is full of assholes, don't be surprised when one steps up to the podium to lead the masses.

Or perhaps you're getting confused by the fact that I said "Then you're not accepting anyone who has ever been in power, or has risen to the top. Because you are expecting a mythical person that doesn't exist." And if that's the case, I want you to find proof that I'm wrong with that statement.

But nowhere did I tell you to just accept it and not look for a good leader. What I DID tell you is what reality is, and what I choose to live in.

And the reality that I choose to live in was that I got fucking tired of career politicians and out-of-touch elites running this country with their arrogant and condescending attitudes, talking to us like we were a bunch of stupid peasants; as if you didn't go to Harvard or hang out in Hollywood, then you didn't matter. With their fake smiles and self-importance. So I voted for the guy who ISN'T a career politician, who tells it like it is, who swears, talks shit, and blabbers like everyone else in society (that is reality), and doesn't apologize for anything. He doesn't hide his words with pre-typed bullshit, bows and hand-kissing while going on an apology tour around the world; as if we're supposed to feel guilty about something. I like that about Trump, and I don't give a shit whose feelings he hurts in the process.

If you don't like that, then find someone else and vote for them. But I'll tell you right now that clown show called the Democratic Party is completely out of touch with reality and has an old, outdated message that nobody but a small minority of this country still gives a shit about. Nobody but a few people in our society actually spends their waking hours wringing their hands about gender identity, sexual identity, or race identity. That's reality, and I accept it.

Your mileage may vary. You do you; don't waste your time worrying about anyone else.



Are you sure about that? How many millions of people just in this country alone have some sort of social media, where they are exposed to everyone's opinions or thoughts? 100 million? 200 million?

Oh, forgive me....79%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/

My point still stands. Social media exposes you to the reality of what our country is like. We swear at sporting events on Saturday, go to church on Sundays, and we fuck our neighbor's wife on Monday. We hold the door open for old women at the mall, and we flip off the elderly driver holding up traffic on the way home. That is reality.

Is that cynical? Sure. But it doesn't make it any less true. I choose reality.

And on that note, I'm done tonight. Sleep calls. Goodnight.

You said 99% are assholes. Not what % have social media.

 

[MARIS61]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-hunt-movie-deplorables

Hollywood blockbuster that satirizes killing of ‘deplorables’ causes outrage: ‘Demented and evil’

By Brian Flood | Fox News
A controversial movie about privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport is ruffling feathers more than a month before its scheduled release and after tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans. The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire" following the shootings after ESPN reportedly pulled a trailer for the film that had been previously cleared to air on the sports network.

“The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” THR’s Kim Masters wrote. “It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.”

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they hunt “deplorables” for sport.

According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election. The report noted that a character asks, "Did anyone see what our ratf--ker-in-chief just did?"

"At least The Hunt's coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables," a character responds, according to THR.

DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that the movie is “harmful to a culture that surely needs messages of unity and understanding” during the current climate.

“It says something sad about the state of the ‘entertainment’ industry that this movie ever got conceived and produced. Hollywood clearly thinks it is OK to stereotype so-called deplorables and set them up for a hunt,” McCall said. “Thank heavens some sensible outlets are pulling the promotional ads.”

“The Hunt” stars Betty Gilpin and Hillary Swank, who play characters who represent “opposite sides of the political divide,” according to Masters, who added that it was originally titled, “Red State vs. Blue State.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to hit theatres in September but honchos are reportedly reconsidering amid tragic mass shootings.

Political satirist Tim Young makes a living by poking fun at topical issues, but thinks “The Hunt” goes over the line.

“Why would anyone think it's a great idea to have a movie about hunting down someone who doesnt agree with them politically? It's remarkable to me that the left blames Donald Trump's rhetoric for violence, then literally spends millions to normalize the killing of people based on politics,” Young told Fox News.

“We're told over and over again by the left, especially in Hollywood, that this country is more divided than ever and we need to come together... is this what they mean by it? Come together to murder your neighbors that you don't agree with? This film is sick and shows just how hateful the left has become,” Young added.

ESPN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At least two trailers for the film are online but it remains unclear if Universal Pictures’ Blumhouse Productions will proceed with other planned advertisements.

“A high-level insider says top executives want to stand by Blum, one of the studio's most prolific and successful producers, as well as filmmaker Craig Zobel, and see the project as a satire addressing an issue of great social importance. But this person says plans could change ‘if people think we're being exploitative rather than opinionated,’” Masters wrote.

The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire.”

Universal Pictures did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This certainly shows Hollywood for what it really is -- demented and evil. At a time when journalists try to blame President Trump for every act of violence in the world, wannabe Tinseltown terrorists are making sick murder fantasies about right-wingers,” Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News.

A trailer that was published by The Daily Mail reveals that the victims are from areas that typically vote Republican, while a hunter declares “We pay for everything, so this country belongs to us.”

“While some trailers for the film have been pulled, there's an internal debate deliberating the film's next steps,” Daily Mail’s Lauren Edmonds wrote. “But decisions will need to come fast, as there's a promotional blitz planned in September.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to be released on Sept. 27.

“The executives at Universal and those even willing to promote this or run ads for it, should know better than to promote political violence,” Young said.

 

[Chris Craig]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-hunt-movie-deplorables

Hollywood blockbuster that satirizes killing of ‘deplorables’ causes outrage: ‘Demented and evil’

By Brian Flood | Fox News
A controversial movie about privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport is ruffling feathers more than a month before its scheduled release and after tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans. The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire" following the shootings after ESPN reportedly pulled a trailer for the film that had been previously cleared to air on the sports network.

“The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” THR’s Kim Masters wrote. “It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.”

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they hunt “deplorables” for sport.

According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election. The report noted that a character asks, "Did anyone see what our ratf--ker-in-chief just did?"

"At least The Hunt's coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables," a character responds, according to THR.

DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that the movie is “harmful to a culture that surely needs messages of unity and understanding” during the current climate.

“It says something sad about the state of the ‘entertainment’ industry that this movie ever got conceived and produced. Hollywood clearly thinks it is OK to stereotype so-called deplorables and set them up for a hunt,” McCall said. “Thank heavens some sensible outlets are pulling the promotional ads.”

“The Hunt” stars Betty Gilpin and Hillary Swank, who play characters who represent “opposite sides of the political divide,” according to Masters, who added that it was originally titled, “Red State vs. Blue State.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to hit theatres in September but honchos are reportedly reconsidering amid tragic mass shootings.

Political satirist Tim Young makes a living by poking fun at topical issues, but thinks “The Hunt” goes over the line.

“Why would anyone think it's a great idea to have a movie about hunting down someone who doesnt agree with them politically? It's remarkable to me that the left blames Donald Trump's rhetoric for violence, then literally spends millions to normalize the killing of people based on politics,” Young told Fox News.

“We're told over and over again by the left, especially in Hollywood, that this country is more divided than ever and we need to come together... is this what they mean by it? Come together to murder your neighbors that you don't agree with? This film is sick and shows just how hateful the left has become,” Young added.

ESPN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At least two trailers for the film are online but it remains unclear if Universal Pictures’ Blumhouse Productions will proceed with other planned advertisements.

“A high-level insider says top executives want to stand by Blum, one of the studio's most prolific and successful producers, as well as filmmaker Craig Zobel, and see the project as a satire addressing an issue of great social importance. But this person says plans could change ‘if people think we're being exploitative rather than opinionated,’” Masters wrote.

The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire.”

Universal Pictures did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This certainly shows Hollywood for what it really is -- demented and evil. At a time when journalists try to blame President Trump for every act of violence in the world, wannabe Tinseltown terrorists are making sick murder fantasies about right-wingers,” Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News.

A trailer that was published by The Daily Mail reveals that the victims are from areas that typically vote Republican, while a hunter declares “We pay for everything, so this country belongs to us.”

“While some trailers for the film have been pulled, there's an internal debate deliberating the film's next steps,” Daily Mail’s Lauren Edmonds wrote. “But decisions will need to come fast, as there's a promotional blitz planned in September.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to be released on Sept. 27.

“The executives at Universal and those even willing to promote this or run ads for it, should know better than to promote political violence,” Young said.

Terrible idea all the way around. That movie should have never been made.

 

[Strenuus]

Terrible idea all the way around. That movie should have never been made.

Yep. Too bad we have the most idiotic person on the planet sitting in that place with a house thats white. Since people are dying hes probably happy because it isnt him.

Translation: he doesnt care about anyone. Not maris, not marazul, nor any of his supporters. He couldnt care less about anyone in this country. Sucks people got brainwashed by him.

 

[Hoopguru]

Terrible idea all the way around. That movie should have never been made.

On of my beefs with Hollywood and some actors and actress is that they protest against violence but make millions on movies that depict violence in realistic ways that can influence young people.

 

[Jade Falcon]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/the-hunt-movie-deplorables

Hollywood blockbuster that satirizes killing of ‘deplorables’ causes outrage: ‘Demented and evil’

By Brian Flood | Fox News
A controversial movie about privileged vacationers hunting “deplorables” for sport is ruffling feathers more than a month before its scheduled release and after tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they embark on a “deeply rewarding” expedition that involves hunting down and killing designated humans. The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire" following the shootings after ESPN reportedly pulled a trailer for the film that had been previously cleared to air on the sports network.

“The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” THR’s Kim Masters wrote. “It features guns blazing along with other ultra-violent killings as the elites pick off their prey.”

“The Hunt” is billed as a satire that follows wealthy thrill-seekers taking a private jet to a five-star resort where they hunt “deplorables” for sport.

According to the Hollywood trade publication, characters in the film refer to the victims as “deplorables,” which is what Hillary Clinton famously dubbed Trump supporters during the 2016 election. The report noted that a character asks, "Did anyone see what our ratf--ker-in-chief just did?"

"At least The Hunt's coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables," a character responds, according to THR.

DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that the movie is “harmful to a culture that surely needs messages of unity and understanding” during the current climate.

“It says something sad about the state of the ‘entertainment’ industry that this movie ever got conceived and produced. Hollywood clearly thinks it is OK to stereotype so-called deplorables and set them up for a hunt,” McCall said. “Thank heavens some sensible outlets are pulling the promotional ads.”

“The Hunt” stars Betty Gilpin and Hillary Swank, who play characters who represent “opposite sides of the political divide,” according to Masters, who added that it was originally titled, “Red State vs. Blue State.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to hit theatres in September but honchos are reportedly reconsidering amid tragic mass shootings.

Political satirist Tim Young makes a living by poking fun at topical issues, but thinks “The Hunt” goes over the line.

“Why would anyone think it's a great idea to have a movie about hunting down someone who doesnt agree with them politically? It's remarkable to me that the left blames Donald Trump's rhetoric for violence, then literally spends millions to normalize the killing of people based on politics,” Young told Fox News.

“We're told over and over again by the left, especially in Hollywood, that this country is more divided than ever and we need to come together... is this what they mean by it? Come together to murder your neighbors that you don't agree with? This film is sick and shows just how hateful the left has become,” Young added.

ESPN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At least two trailers for the film are online but it remains unclear if Universal Pictures’ Blumhouse Productions will proceed with other planned advertisements.

“A high-level insider says top executives want to stand by Blum, one of the studio's most prolific and successful producers, as well as filmmaker Craig Zobel, and see the project as a satire addressing an issue of great social importance. But this person says plans could change ‘if people think we're being exploitative rather than opinionated,’” Masters wrote.

The Hollywood Reporter reported on Tuesday that “Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire.”

Universal Pictures did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This certainly shows Hollywood for what it really is -- demented and evil. At a time when journalists try to blame President Trump for every act of violence in the world, wannabe Tinseltown terrorists are making sick murder fantasies about right-wingers,” Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News.

A trailer that was published by The Daily Mail reveals that the victims are from areas that typically vote Republican, while a hunter declares “We pay for everything, so this country belongs to us.”

“While some trailers for the film have been pulled, there's an internal debate deliberating the film's next steps,” Daily Mail’s Lauren Edmonds wrote. “But decisions will need to come fast, as there's a promotional blitz planned in September.”

“The Hunt” is scheduled to be released on Sept. 27.

“The executives at Universal and those even willing to promote this or run ads for it, should know better than to promote political violence,” Young said.

On of my beefs with Hollywood and some actors and actress is that they protest against violence but make millions on movies that depict violence in realistic ways that can influence young people.

Yep. I too have had problems for years with Hollywood for the majority of this reason. The real eye-opener was when Quentin Tarantino came out a few years ago strongly in favor of gun control. Seriously. Even my Left-of-Center father had a good laugh about that.

 

[CupWizier]

Yep. I too have had problems for years with Hollywood for the majority of this reason. The real eye-opener was when Quentin Tarantino came out a few years ago strongly in favor of gun control. Seriously. Even my Left-of-Center father had a good laugh about that.

Have you watched any Tarantino movies? Ever see the Kill Bill movies?

 

[Jade Falcon]

Have you watched any Tarantino movies? Ever see the Kill Bill movies?

Oh yes.

Forgive me if I don't take his gun control stance seriously.

And yes, I did like the Kill Bill movies.

 

[CupWizier]

Oh yes.



Forgive me if I don't take his gun control stance seriously.

And yes, I did like the Kill Bill movies.

so a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control? I enjoy the Tarantino movies and I am also for gun control. One has nothing to do with the other. One is real life and one is movies.

 

[Jade Falcon]

so a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control? I enjoy the Tarantino movies and I am also for gun control. One has nothing to do with the other. One is real life and one is movies.

LMAO. Right. Don't preach to me, a law-abiding peaceful gun owner, about what YOU think I should have based on YOUR FEELINGS that guns lead to violence........and then go make films glorifying violence with firearms, while profiting from it. That makes you a massive hypocrite, and no self-respecting gun owner is going to take you seriously about anything. I'm very surprised that I even have to explain that to anyone, whether they are pro or anti gun.

Would you listen to Michael Vick if he started calling for laws regarding dog ownership? I wouldn't.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

so a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control? I enjoy the Tarantino movies and I am also for gun control. One has nothing to do with the other. One is real life and one is movies.

I understand your point, but there is something very hypocritical about much of hollywood to me. They tell us about equal rights, the environment, etc, but those things seem to be more like well everyone else needs to follow it and they don't. I get that its very hard to
make movies, without conflict and resolutions and all of that. Just how can you really say you want equal rights and then continue to typecast Black people into the roles their often in, there are very few non violent Black men in big time movies. How many of them talk about conservation, their carbon footprint, and fly around in private jets and have people bending to all their whims. They talk about objectifying women and then have casting couches.

This isn't to say that everyone there is that way, but there is at least in my opinion a bit of an elitist vibe from hollywood, that all of us “normal” people need to live one way while they continue to use their means to live whatever way they want.

 

[CupWizier]

LMAO. Right. Don't preach to me, a law-abiding peaceful gun owner, about what YOU think I should have based on YOUR FEELINGS that guns lead to violence........and then go make films glorifying violence with firearms, while profiting from it. That makes you a massive hypocrite, and no self-respecting gun owner is going to take you seriously about anything. I'm very surprised that I even have to explain that to anyone, whether they are pro or anti gun.

Would you listen to Michael Vick if he started calling for laws regarding dog ownership? I wouldn't.

wow, where to start. First I wasn't "preaching". Second, I have no problem with gun ownership but see absolutely no need for assault type rifles. I don't need that type of gun to feel all macho and never had a situation where I needed a gun and that's living on this earth for 65 years. Third, so you equate a criminal situations like Vicks with someone who directs and produces movies for entertainment? We definitely don;t see eye to eye on things. I am also totally against the open carry law in Texas as how can you tell a guy carrying a gun from one that is carrying a gun to do a mass shooting? I'm sure your comeback will be that if others are there with guns that bad guy can be shot. True, but how many does he kill before that happens and then you have the possibility of several people pulling their guns out and start shooting and not knowing for sure who the good ones are and who the bad one is.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

LMAO. Right. Don't preach to me, a law-abiding peaceful gun owner, about what YOU think I should have based on YOUR FEELINGS that guns lead to violence........and then go make films glorifying violence with firearms, while profiting from it. That makes you a massive hypocrite, and no self-respecting gun owner is going to take you seriously about anything. I'm very surprised that I even have to explain that to anyone, whether they are pro or anti gun.

Would you listen to Michael Vick if he started calling for laws regarding dog ownership? I wouldn't.

Michael Vick did pay his debt to society so to speak, and has from all accounts changed his life style. So yeah I would probably listen to him, because he has seen both sides. Its not hypocritical if he has changed.

 

[CupWizier]

wow, where to start. First I wasn't "preaching". Second, I have no problem with gun ownership but see absolutely no need for assault type rifles. I don't need that type of gun to feel all macho and never had a situation where I needed a gun and that's living on this earth for 65 years. Third, so you equate a criminal situations like Vicks with someone who directs and produces movies for entertainment? We definitely don;t see eye to eye on things. I am also totally against the open carry law in Texas as how can you tell a guy carrying a gun from one that is carrying a gun to do a mass shooting? I'm sure your comeback will be that if others are there with guns that bad guy can be shot. True, but how many does he kill before that happens and then you have the possibility of several people pulling their guns out and start shooting and not knowing for sure who the good ones are and who the bad one is.

If a person is really offended by some of their hypocrisy's then don't watch their movies as wouldn't that be hypocritical to be offended by them and still watch their movies?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

If a person is really offended by some of their hypocrisy's then don't watch their movies as wouldn't that be hypocritical to be offended by them and still watch their movies?

I would agree with this and its part of why Im not a huge movie guy. Though Ive got a ridiculously long list of movies I would like to watch.

 

[CupWizier]

I would agree with this and its part of why Im not a huge movie guy. Though Ive got a ridiculously long list of movies I would like to watch.

I enjoy watching movies but never associate them with reality as it's simply entertainment to me. Much like how I enjoy watching basketball and many other sports.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I understand your point, but there is something very hypocritical about much of hollywood to me. They tell us about equal rights, the environment, etc, but those things seem to be more like well everyone else needs to follow it and they don't. I get that its very hard to
make movies, without conflict and resolutions and all of that. Just how can you really say you want equal rights and then continue to typecast Black people into the roles their often in, there are very few non violent Black men in big time movies. How many of them talk about conservation, their carbon footprint, and fly around in private jets and have people bending to all their whims. They talk about objectifying women and then have casting couches.

This isn't to say that everyone there is that way, but there is at least in my opinion a bit of an elitist vibe from hollywood, that all of us “normal” people need to live one way while they continue to use their means to live whatever way they want.

Not to mention that they preach and rant against putting a wall at the border, yet they live in gated, walled communities. I also don't see them lining up to take in homeless people....but they're always the first group of douche bags pointing fingers whenever someone tries to do something about it.

First I wasn't "preaching".

Not YOU, Cup. I was using "You" to describe a third person, in this case Tarantino. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Second, I have no problem with gun ownership but see absolutely no need for assault type rifles.

We live in a country of Wants and Desires, not Needs and Requirements. I don't owe you, or anyone else, an explanation about my wants or desires any more than you do.

Nobody "needs" a 650 hp Corvette, but they are legal to own and fun when driven safely. It's a want, not a need. As it should be in this country.

And thus far, nobody has given me a good enough reason why this is okay to own:

....and yet this isn't:

And if anti-gun people took ONE moment to study firearms and ammunition, they would see just how stupid their arguments are because of it.

I don't need that type of gun to feel all macho and never had a situation where I needed a gun and that's living on this earth for 65 years

I see. So because YOU have never had a moment where you've needed one, then nobody ever will.

Okay.

I am also totally against the open carry law in Texas as how can you tell a guy carrying a gun from one that is carrying a gun to do a mass shooting?

This is irrelevant to the current discussion, however I will say that people open carry all the time in this country without issue. I will say that there is a time and place for it (I don't personally agree with open-carrying an AR-15 unless there is a very good reason....going out to eat or going to Walmart is not one of them), but that in itself is a whole other discussion for another time.

True, but how many does he kill before that happens and then you have the possibility of several people pulling their guns out and start shooting and not knowing for sure who the good ones are and who the bad one is.

I both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that the risk of getting shot by another person during a mass shooting, who might mistaken you for the shooter, is a definite possibility. In fact, I've spoken with self-defense experts like Massad Ayoob whom have told me as such.

Where I disagree with your statement is the assumption (mine) that you seem to have this image of every gun owner rushing into a situation, guns blazing. This is the stuff of Hollywood, not reality (another reason not to take them seriously about anything). The fact of the matter is that ALL REPUTABLE self-defense experts very specifically teach you to seek exits and get you or your family or surrounding people to safety as soon as possible. That is your ONLY job. You are NOT required to engage a violent suspect by law, nor is there any shame in seeking safety or getting away from a violent confrontation with your life intact. If your pride takes a hit, then at least you are alive to evaluate it.

That being said, every dangerous situation is different, and there are, literally, a million different scenarios out there that we could go back and forth over. What is tought to gun owners who take up the training and practice the art of self defense with a firearm is to "be prepared, and be alert". And that's really all you can do. Be aware of your surroundings, make it a habit of studying people, and always know your exit points (doors, windows, cover, concealment....note that cover and concealment are NOT the same....etc etc).

Here's a good channel to check out, which has real-world video and explanations for those who practice self-defense with a firearm:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

The channel is called "Active Self Protection". The host might be a bit pompous at times, but skip over the gun reviews, ignore that, and watch the videos of shootings, and listen to his explanations as he breaks down each shooting. He never glorifies anything, and he never encourages people to interject themselves into violent situations.

That will give you a real life glimpse at what the Firearm Self Defense community is REALLY like, without the a-holes and clowns who make us look bad.

Let me know if you have any further questions. I'm always willing to discuss this topic with someone who is willing to be open-minded, respectful, and learn. Even if we don't agree on the topic.

I would agree with this and its part of why Im not a huge movie guy. Though Ive got a ridiculously long list of movies I would like to watch.

Same here. The last movie I saw in the theatre was "J. Edgar" with my father.

When I do, however, watch a movie, I never take it seriously. Hollywood is pretend, and the celebrities there live in a bubble where nothing bad ever happens, and the only thing they have to worry about is how much gas to put in their Bentley. Which is why I don't listen to any of them.

 

[CupWizier]

Not to mention that they preach and rant against putting a wall at the border, yet they live in gated, walled communities. I also don't see them lining up to take in homeless people....but they're always the first group of douche bags pointing fingers whenever someone tries to do something about it.



Not YOU, Cup. I was using "You" to describe a third person, in this case Tarantino. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



We live in a country of Wants and Desires, not Needs and Requirements. I don't owe you, or anyone else, an explanation about my wants or desires any more than you do.

Nobody "needs" a 650 hp Corvette, but they are legal to own and fun when driven safely. It's a want, not a need. As it should be in this country.

And thus far, nobody has given me a good enough reason why this is okay to own:

....and yet this isn't:

And if anti-gun people took ONE moment to study firearms and ammunition, they would see just how stupid their arguments are because of it.



I see. So because YOU have never had a moment where you've needed one, then nobody ever will.

Okay.



This is irrelevant to the current discussion, however I will say that people open carry all the time in this country without issue. I will say that there is a time and place for it (I don't personally agree with open-carrying an AR-15 unless there is a very good reason....going out to eat or going to Walmart is not one of them), but that in itself is a whole other discussion for another time.



I both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that the risk of getting shot by another person during a mass shooting, who might mistaken you for the shooter, is a definite possibility. In fact, I've spoken with self-defense experts like Massad Ayoob whom have told me as such.

Where I disagree with your statement is the assumption (mine) that you seem to have this image of every gun owner rushing into a situation, guns blazing. This is the stuff of Hollywood, not reality (another reason not to take them seriously about anything). The fact of the matter is that ALL REPUTABLE self-defense experts very specifically teach you to seek exits and get you or your family or surrounding people to safety as soon as possible. That is your ONLY job. You are NOT required to engage a violent suspect by law, nor is there any shame in seeking safety or getting away from a violent confrontation with your life intact. If your pride takes a hit, then at least you are alive to evaluate it.

That being said, every dangerous situation is different, and there are, literally, a million different scenarios out there that we could go back and forth over. What is tought to gun owners who take up the training and practice the art of self defense with a firearm is to "be prepared, and be alert". And that's really all you can do. Be aware of your surroundings, make it a habit of studying people, and always know your exit points (doors, windows, cover, concealment....note that cover and concealment are NOT the same....etc etc).

Here's a good channel to check out, which has real-world video and explanations for those who practice self-defense with a firearm:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

The channel is called "Active Self Protection". The host might be a bit pompous at times, but skip over the gun reviews, ignore that, and watch the videos of shootings, and listen to his explanations as he breaks down each shooting. He never glorifies anything, and he never encourages people to interject themselves into violent situations.

That will give you a real life glimpse at what the Firearm Self Defense community is REALLY like, without the a-holes and clowns who make us look bad.

Let me know if you have any further questions. I'm always willing to discuss this topic with someone who is willing to be open-minded, respectful, and learn. Even if we don't agree on the topic.



Same here. The last movie I saw in the theatre was "J. Edgar" with my father.

When I do, however, watch a movie, I never take it seriously. Hollywood is pretend, and the celebrities there live in a bubble where nothing bad ever happens, and the only thing they have to worry about is how much gas to put in their Bentley. Which is why I don't listen to any of them.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth for some reason. I simply gave my opinion. It isn't up to you or myself to make that decision. It's up the the voters and majority of people are for banning an assault rifle and it makes no difference if I study guns or not as my opinion wouldn't change but I'm only 1 vote just like you are only one vote. Are you against the people having a voice on this and putting it to a vote? Congress is our mechanism to speak for us and all the senators and reps should be voting for their states they represent and not their party.

 

[Jade Falcon]

It isn't up to you or myself to make that decision. It's up the the voters and majority of people are for banning an assault rifle

Actually, the majority of people are NOT for banning them. They are used in less than 1% of the total number of shootings in this country. They are attacked because they are scary looking to some people, and those with an agenda use that against them.

And as long as it's legal, I'll continue to own it and purchase more if I feel like it. That actually IS up to me; especially since I'm a private citizen with my own money, and already own an AK-47 which I purchased legally from a dealer. That's my Right as a citizen. And again, I don't owe anyone an explanation on that, any more than you owe me an explanation about what you choose to buy with your money. It's not my business what any other private citizen buys legally with their money, and it's not their business what I buy with mine.

I never attempted to put words in your mouth about anything. Not sure where you got that idea. I'm simply stating my opinion about this.

it makes no difference if I study guns or not as my opinion wouldn't change

LOL. Why don't you want to be more educated on the subject? Are you afraid that your opinion might change?

re you against the people having a voice on this and putting it to a vote?

No, of course I'm not. I do wish, however, that Liberals as a whole would educate themselves about guns properly before they vote on an anti-gun platform. A barista at a Starbucks in Seattle, for instance, is likely to vote against guns, and I highly doubt that she knows a bullet from a barrel shroud. That's the problem. We should ALL be educated about issues BEFORE we vote on them, regardless of what they are. There is nothing wrong with that.

I'm off to eat. I'll get back to you later if you respond.

 

[CupWizier]

Actually, the majority of people are NOT for banning them. They are used in less than 1% of the total number of shootings in this country. They are attacked because they are scary looking to some people, and those with an agenda use that against them.

And as long as it's legal, I'll continue to own it and purchase more if I feel like it. That actually IS up to me; especially since I'm a private citizen with my own money, and already own an AK-47 which I purchased legally from a dealer. That's my Right as a citizen. And again, I don't owe anyone an explanation on that, any more than you owe me an explanation about what you choose to buy with your money. It's not my business what any other private citizen buys legally with their money, and it's not their business what I buy with mine.

I never attempted to put words in your mouth about anything. Not sure where you got that idea. I'm simply stating my opinion about this.



LOL. Why don't you want to be more educated on the subject? Are you afraid that your opinion might change?



No, of course I'm not. I do wish, however, that Liberals as a whole would educate themselves about guns properly before they vote on an anti-gun platform. A barista at a Starbucks in Seattle, for instance, is likely to vote against guns, and I highly doubt that she knows a bullet from a barrel shroud. That's the problem. We should ALL be educated about issues BEFORE we vote on them, regardless of what they are. There is nothing wrong with that.

I'm off to eat. I'll get back to you later if you respond.

Nope. I'm done as i see no reason to drag it out as we already expressed our opinions.

 

[barfo]

Actually, the majority of people are NOT for banning them.

Actually, that's not at all what this poll today says.

How much do you support or oppose each of the following? Banning assault-style weapons
Strongly support 57%
Somewhat support 13%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 14%
Don’t Know / No Opinion 7%

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

so a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control? I enjoy the Tarantino movies and I am also for gun control. One has nothing to do with the other. One is real life and one is movies.

The movies created the mass murderers, simple as that. Before the overkill movies and video games they were something that happened once a decade or so. They exploded with the internet and video/game rentals.

So, no, a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control. They are complicit in these people's deaths, and many more coming the future sadly.

As are the patrons who pay for their artistic sadism.

And now, a Public Service Announcement:

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

The movies created the mass murderers, simple as that. Before the overkill movies and video games they were something that happened once a decade or so. They exploded with the internet and video/game rentals.

So, no, a person can't make films that involve shootings and guns and be for gun control. They are complicit in these people's deaths, and many more coming the future sadly.

As are the patrons who pay for their artistic sadism.

And now, a Public Service Announcement:

Dang it if Mao and Hitler didn't have all those movies and video games.