Best
221 Comments
Post
  • #14
    !
    I'm mildly curious about how a biography of Barney Frank could dance around his sleaziness and corruption. "Elephant in the room" just does not say it.
  • #131
    !
    @Ryuo #14

    Yes, but when comparing Frank's "sleaziness and corruption" one should compare it to a jury of his peers, other politicians, I am sure he is not at the bottom of the pack.
  • #136
    !
    @LEC Good idea - ranking politicians by sleaze and corruption would be a fine documentary topic for Alec Baldwin. I'd put Frank high up the list of sleazes during his tenure, maybe 4th after Harry Reid, Ted Stevens, and Bobby Byrd, but note that 2 of those 3 are dead. Maybe Waxman and Schumer are in Frank's class, too. Wow, this is a fun exercise, since it is subjective.
  • #147
    !
    @Ryuo

    I am going to take a wild guess that all of the ones you mentioned were democrats and in your subjectivity you aren't including republican sleaze balls. How partisan of you.
  • #151
    !
    @LEC

    Actually, Ted Stevens was the leading Senate Republican for a long time, and Schumer is conservative for a Democrat. Reid and Byrd and Waxman are Democrats, but aren't exactly on the political spectrum - they belong to the party of "Me!" Barney Frank is a real doctrinaire Democrat, though.
  • #30
    !
    I wonder if the film will cover Barney's gay lover and the rumored cat house they ran.
    Will it show Barney, being the chairman of the Financial Services committee, give testimony
    on the good health of the banks and Fannie Mae prior to the collapse of the mortgage and housing market.
  • #214
    !
    and show him attacking Republicans who questioned the health of FM and the housing market?
  • #15
    !
    God NO! Why on earth would anyone want to see it? He's creepy at best and uninteresting to boot. No thanks.
  • #84
    !
    Creepy?! I wonder where people get these ideas. I am not saying you are a homophobe or latent homosexual yourself, Tralee, but that is one way I can understand how you can attach such epithets to anyone who is certainly interesting and not the least bit creepy to someone who is not homophobic or a homosexual in denial ...therefore someone with a lot of self-loathing to project onto another in order to relieve their own heart's suffering.
  • #121
    !
    @Raybo I THINK he's creepy, he has a creepy voice, creepy manerisms and strange ideas. You are the one with issues. Jeeze, to call someone a homophobe or latent homosexual (what on earth does that mean?) is just sick and a little creepy too. Take your armchair Psycology 101 (week one) and go analyze someone else. Whew - I am at a loss for words. What next? Let me guess, YOU are a homosexual with a Texas sized chip on your shoulder and see EVERYTHING through the glasses of a disappointed person. If you think he's interesting, fine, I don't believe I said anything about YOU not seeing such a film. Nope, I just said I wasn't interested because HE'S CREEPY! So is John Kerry - what does that make me now? lol - a wanna be wrinkled old hag?
  • #127
    !
    @Tralee
    I didn't call you a homophobe, Tralee: I was very careful not to ...or, a latent homosexual, for that matter. No, I am not homosexual, and am blown away by people who say it is a choice ...a very out-of-touch sentiment/idea in my book. You ask what it means. Well, I guess I'll take your question seriously and give you an answer, the psych 101 comment notwithstanding. I find it quite simple: if someone is a latent homosexual, they have buried homosexual tendencies because, among other things, our society has been pretty tough on them. We are growing, but we are a long way off. I had a friend in seminary (studying for the Catholic priesthood) who, when I connected with him on the internet about 13 years ago confided in me that he was homosexual. He feared that that would be the end our our online friendship. I told him it was fine. Among other things, he told me he used to have sex with his wife at least once a day for all the years of their marriage, even being a homosexual. The last I talked to him, his ex wife and his three kids did not know of his gender preference. So, imagine a guy who is homosexual and cannot even conceive of admitting it to anyone. It would be no stretch at all for him to, especially if he buys the awful things people say about homosexuals, to feel self-loathing. It would be unimaginable for me to think that this is not covered in the psych journals. Even Shakespeare knew of the consequent projection that people do when they feel bad about themselves and try to project it on someone else. Freud got the credit, but Shakespeare, in his genius, got it, too: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I remember it as, "prithee, why dost thou protest so loudly," but my old brain does tricks on me, I guess.
    So, Tralee, rather than accuse you of being something I did not know you were, I offered my only understanding of why someone must be so bothered by someone because they are homosexual, unless their own sexuality is not totally settled within them: then it makes sense. If you find it creepy, so be it. But, I am anything but a creep. In fact, I am a high school teacher who know quite well what at least teenagers consider creepy. In my school, it is not homosexuals, but, maybe, a teacher who looks a little too off and a little too long at a student. Of course, you did not say anything about me seeing the film ...never a point of my discouse (I think). It was labeling him 'creepy'. That is what I find unnecessary and, well, offensive. It would been less offensive if you owned it as just your feelings and not a label of fact, as shouted above, "HE'S CREEPY!"
    Cheers, Tralee,
    Ray
  • #133
    !
    @Raybo LOL - You very carefully did call me names while doing a nice job of CYA - BTW - This FEMALE has been very happily married to a MAN for 47 years. I have relatives (my side and his side) and friends, who are some of the nicest and most loving people I know, smart, articulate, gifted and oh yeah, they just so happen to be gay. Sorta like getting the blonde gene or the blue eyed gene, it does NOT define them, thank God. It's just who they are. So take your armchair nonsense and play that game elsewhere, I am not interested. Your snide and not very well hidden insults (yeah, I know, YOU are sooooooooo clever - snort, giggle) are belied by the fact that YOU read a whole lot more into what I wrote (perhaps YOU are the latent homosexual?) than what I said. I never mentioned his gayness, I mentioned the brothel, his mannerisms (YOU decided they were gay - not me), his role in the housing bust (yeah I know, it was Bush's fault - snicker) and his voice (again - YOU decided it was gay, I sure didn't.) as creepy to me, I also don't like spider webs and greenish mud. I also find John Kerry a bit creepy, but I notice you did NOT touch that bit of news. Why, I must wonder, ahh, yes, perhaps it does not fit into your agenda of calling me (in a very sideways way, a bit covered up - but my IQ is quite high and I got it sweetie) a homophobe or perhaps a closeted and hidden (is that possible?) gay person fighting my gayness? Really, could you be more insulting to me or gay people? See, your view of your intelligence is, well to put it nicely, slightly higher than most would place it. But, nothing wrong with someone with a high view of themselves, really, self-esteem is so wonderful and I find it so pleasant that you have such a high opinion of yourself. Admirable in fact.:)[Two can play this game, of course since I am way smarter than you, I will, of course, win in the end. Unfortunately I could not care less if I win or lose to you. It's beneath me you see, sort of like taking candy from a baby.]

    What I find most alarming though, is that - Dear God - You are a teacher of impressionable kids. Well, thank God, we could afford private school for our children and our grandchildren. I find it very sad that someone with your mind set is teaching the future generation of voters - or perhaps while I find it sad, I can no longer find it uncommon. What I find most disturbing is that you are so incensed by the word, creepy. Hmm, do you have some deep seated issues about that word? Did some bully call YOU creepy at some point? Just what went into your makeup that would trigger such an over-reaction to the word, Creepy? That would be interesting to find out. Did you have a bad childhood? Who was it that caused the physic break when that word is used? Hmmm, this may be an area that YOU may want to explore, you will find, at the end a more even keel when certain words are used and may then be able to reach your full, and hopefully happy, potential. Oh, and BTW - calling someone "Creepy" is not yet on the banned list of words that liberals are gathering. I've read 1984 - several times, maybe it's time for you to do the same. Let me know if you need any help with the concept. I wish you and yours the very best. It's always good to confront the issues of childhood to clear the way for a happy and productive adulthood. Best wishes. Tralee

    PS - Thanks, but there is no need to reply with your thanks for straightening this little issue out. As you said, Cheers.

    Or not - that would probably make me happier. Danka!
  • #137
    !
    @Tralee
    Apologies for the real and/or imagined insults. When I used the words you did not like, I actually did not call you them, did not mean to call you them, but simply threw them out as possible explanations. Yes, I may have read more into your remark. In my defense, I had just read in this same long thread a whole slew of posts that were antigay in nature, and I was feeling quite annoyed at it all. When you referred to Frank as creepy, I did lump your comment in with the rest of them. I'm happily married, too, and am straight. I'm sorry you find me a bad teacher, someone who is dangerous to our kids as a teacher. I am happy that parents, students and colleagues find me anything but like you did with the little you know of me ...maybe clumsily trying to make a point that we don't need to trash someone (as I imagined you were doing with Frank) because we don't like them. You, I am pretty darn sure, would like me in real life, as I no doubt would you. My mindset, I am pretty sure, you don't know. And, to speak to another point in your post, the number one where you indicated your IQ was high, a high number: when I graduated from four-year college, my Princeton Graduate Record Exam score in my major was in the 99th percentile.
    I don't think I was insulting to you or gay people when I suggested that one way I understood someone being so contrary to a person because of his being gay might be their own latent feelings because, it happens, and I was trying to pry out of you why you would call him creepy ...which you never said, so it shall remain unknown to me. I guess it is just a gratuitous insult. So, you may include me in those you find creepy. I am okay with that. But, I'd rather you see my point. Which is: we might all do a little better on this site if we put more restraint on our insulting ways, me included.
  • #7
    !
    I couldn't care less about this film. I don't care for Alec Baldwin and I don't care for someone whose against God, so no desire to see this. Does Alec actually think this will make him acceptable by homosexuals? I don't think so, not unless he becomes one openly.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #13
    !
    Let me begin by correcting your grammar and then move on to the more substantive issue with your comment. The correct word is 'who's', a contraction of who is.

    Frank is not against God nor is Baldwin. So clearly you must have wandered completely off topic.

    And yes, even if the LGBT community and the majority of people in this country who support them, will find this interesting, and it should (if it is any good as a film) give Baldwin a deserved credit with the majority of Americans.
  • #38
    !
    @DeeGee I am sorry, but if you adhere to the Bible's teachings, then you can't be for God and for homosexuality. You can only serve one master.
  • #44
    !
    @ctleng76 Actually, that is false. The new testament is not anti-gay, and the old testament rules of Leviticus do not apply.

    You appear to be ignorant of the early Christian church, which in time and purity of religion was much closer to the historic Christ. They not only accepted homosexuality, they had liturgy for gay marriage within the church, and there were prominent gay saints - notably Sergius and Bacchus, who lived in the same era that our modern Bible was compiled. Sergius and Bacchus were sufficiently main stream in the faith that they were accepted and loudly proclaimed in all branches of contemporary Christianity. There were gay marriages performed into the 18th century, including in the Roman Catholic church.

    Your foundations for being anti-gay are ill-founded in religion, and ill-founded in the natural world, in which same-sex attraction is commonly observed.

    If you believe God created man and animals, you have to accept that he created many of them with innate same-sex attraction as a natural part of who they are. It is exclusively human bigotry and prejudice that tries to make it otherwise.
  • #55
    !
    Read these verses: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7 and Romans 1:18-32. These are all from the New Testament, and they all refer to homosexuality as a sin and a perversion of human sexuality.

    Just because marriages were performed in a Roman Catholic church that doesn't make it ok. Also, these men you refer to were just men.

    My foundations for being anti-gay have nothing to do with "religion". They have everything to do with God's teachings in his word.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    @DeeGee Well, the two together might have more experience with themselves.....one never knows the intimate details of sodomite men.....

    But I digress.....I'm sure Baldwin IS flat and Frank is stale.....and neither are wit it.....
  • #29
    !
    @Knightkore Baldwin can be a pretty good comedic actor. Frank is in fact a very witty and clever man.

    Baldwin is not gay. It should be unimportant that Franks is gay, but it is a credit to him that he overcame the bigotry of the ignorant.

    It is a fair guess that both of them are more accomplished than you are, which gives what they think more credibility and value.
  • #32
    !
    @DeeGee Baldwin's career is over.....so is Frank's.....

    And chose sexual orientation isn't a "big deal" until on defines themselves in that way and chooses to parade that choice in the media.....it is progressive liberals who make it a big deal.....

    By the way Andrew Dice Clay is far and away better than either comedywise.....
  • #51
    !
    @Knightkore Since Frank has retired, I suspect his career IS over. Duh.

    Baldwin? Probably not.

    Orientation isn't a big deal until it becomes a reason for some people to deprive one of rights. Neither is it something to hide.

    Andrew Dice clay is the colon cancer of comedy.
  • R Load more replies

  • #81
    !
    I don't think I would see it unless I was paid a small fortune. Barney was a guy who told the country that F&F were not in trouble a day or so before they tanked.
  • #67
    !
    Even more surprising is that you do care enough to post about my not caring. Please don't say just sayin', you're more intelligent than that to use such a stupid phrase.
  • #47
    !
    Probably because they saw a story about an openly gay ex-congressman. Just the publicly gay thing sets many off into a rapid frenzy.
  • #25
    !
    I respect anyone that actually takes a position on something and changes their view because of logic, reason and growth. I don't agree with same sex relationships or marriage and that is my right just like it was for for Alec Baldwin. The difference is Alec is not being honest with himself or anyone else. He is using the wrong approach to center himself and boost his career.
  • #23
    !
    Appeasers Appeasers Appeasers, Apologize Apologize Apologies And he did nothing but yell out the truth. The worst thing he could have ever done. Now they have him right where they want him. ( OBLIGATED )
  • #8
    !
    Sounds like an interesting documentary. Frank made some extremely significant contributions to the nation during his time in Congress.

    I wonder how good a documentarian Baldwin is....
  • #16
    !
    lol - like what? Being the first and only sitting senator to have his home become a brothel? The housing collapse? Yeah, truly significant (if not especially good) achievements.
  • #34
    !
    @Tralee Franks had no connection to the activity going on in his home.
    In that context, he is certainly superior to the Republican from Louisiana who campaigned as a family values guy supporting traditional marriage, while cheating with his best friend's wife. Or let's not forget Vitter who actually frequented prostitutes -- both of which I think are far more serious faults and actual crimes.(I seem to recall adultery being a crime in Louisiana....)

    Frank was not in any way responsible for the housing collapse.

    Wow. You must be conservative; you're fact averse.
  • #53
    !
    He's executive producer, which usually means he's the money man. I doubt he'll have a lot of say in the final product.
  • #56
    !
    @cpeter133 Depends on how much he was involved in other aspects. I like documentaries; I'll try to see this one. (Maybe see it twice, and with friends, to offset the grumpy homophobes who will boycott it, LOL.)
  • #120
    !
    I have had my belly full of politicians, the last thing I want to see is a movie about one. Entertainment, not Baldwin's pathetic attempt to make amends with homosexuals.
  • #69
    !
    Hang on, hang on. I thought this stupid phuk said he was going to disappear like a fart in the wind because his widdle feewings was huwrt?? I smell somethin..........
  • #91
    !
    Nicely said, my uncouth friend. Maybe you'll use less ad hominems when you are feeling better yourself.
  • #126
    !
    @jamayla
    I think you can do better than being happy because you are not someone else.
    My point is simple: if this is going to be a site where ideas are exchanged, we could use a little less of the "stupid phuk" language and make have a discussion. I know you can do better.
  • #139
    !
    @jamayla
    I am relatively new here. But, being an idealist is old for me. So, I, in my silly way, will ask people to be less offensive. In doing so, I end up too often being offensive myself. Oh, well, gotta keep tryin'.
  • R Load more replies

  • #221
    !
    Frank should have been kicked out of Congress and thrown in Prison along time ago. an you imagine what would happen if a Straight Republican Congressman had been revealed to have a girlfriend 30 years his junior, who was running a prostitution ring out of the Congressman's apartment? But when a Democratic queer like Frank was caught up in that kind of scandal, nobody even made a peep about it. I'm really sick of the double standards and the coddling of "gays" because everyone has to walk on eggshells for fear of being called a homophobic bigot. The "gay" lifestyle is a sewer of sickness and perversion run rampant, and every decent moral human being in any position of power is afraid to say so, because the Gaystapo will crucify them in the Public Square and ruin their career and their life. And, Alec Baldwin is a narcissistic douche nozzle.
  • #220
    !
    I wonder if the film will include that part where Barney Frank's gay partner was running a homo prostitution ring from out of Frank's home. I wonder why this didn't create a bigger scandal and news story than it did…… didn't. No. Just joking! I am not wondering why. I know why. We all know why. The media cannot say anything that would discredit the gay lifestyle, is why. It is all part of their plan to promote perversity and decadence, because…… well, because they like perversity and decadence.
  • R Load more comments...
Post