Mickey Rourke: "Bush Was In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time"

[echo_bravo]

Rourke: 'Bush Was In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time'
8 January 2009 11:04 PM, PST


Actor Mickey Rourke sympathises with U.S. President George W. Bush - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York.

The Hollywood tough-guy spoke out about his political views in a candid interview with Britain's GQ magazine, and admits he doesn't understand why so many people blame Bush for a string of world issues - including Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the West.

And the actor, who claims he didn't follow last year's historic U.S. election battle between Barack Obama and John McCain, urges the public to consider the tremendous pressure the controversial president was under following the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

He tells the publication, "President Bush was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't know how anyone could have handled this situation.

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.

"It's too easy to blame everything on one guy. These are unpredictable, dangerous times, and I don't think that anyone really knows quite what to do."

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

And the star is baffled by the U.K.'s approach to fundamentalists - insisting he was taken aback by the freedom of speech allowed in the U.K.

He explains, "I was in London recently and I couldn't believe all these hate-talking fanatics you have over here who are allowed to carry on doing their thing even when a bus full of women and children gets blown to pieces.

"I know you've deported one or two of them, but it seems crazy. I think there is worse to come, something terrible will happen to either America or the U.K., or France even. I don't think these fundamentalists should be allowed to talk all this crap, and brainwashing these young kids."

Source:IMDB
_______________________________________________



Well, I think its safe to say you can basically kiss his Oscar chances goodbye.:(

[JJFlamingo]

Kudos to Rourke for taking what happens to be (in 2009) the anti-establishment stance, but he probably should have saved it for after the Oscars. The voters should go for the best PERFORMANCE, not best political views, but if he takes the Globe and the SAG, I wouldn't count him out yet...:D

[Taffey Lewis]

"I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it.
(

I don't really share Rourke's perception with that. The Republicans definitely have a Christian/Judaism alliance and are definitely pro-Israel. But i'm not sure if it has much to do with the Crusades. I mean the Crusades were like the battle against the Ottoman empire, preventing a muslim invasion. And the Jews have been battling it out with the Muslims for far longer. I think the current war isn't about preventing an invasion, but protecting America's friends, namely Israel, and also about oil.

I agree with Rourke that Bush wasn't that bad, he sure wasn't great, but not bad. And I think a lot of the main problems are to do with the economy, problems created by Bill Clinton's administration, where ammendments were enforced allowing some people to run banks and run the stock exchange like a casino. Unfortunately Clinton wont be remembered as the man to blame, and Bush will.

[The Postmaster General]

Geez man, does he also tell us how he prepared for Y2K in that interview? Maybe talk a little bit about the Macarana?

[bigred760]

I don't think people blame Bush for 9/11 or terrorism. I personally think Bush did a pretty good job responding to the 9/11 attacks. I just think he screwed up taking on Iraq. That's where his "popularity" began to slide.

[screamer581]

I agree with Rourke that Bush wasn't that bad, he sure wasn't great, but not bad. And I think a lot of the main problems are to do with the economy, problems created by Bill Clinton's administration, where ammendments were enforced allowing some people to run banks and run the stock exchange like a casino. Unfortunately Clinton wont be remembered as the man to blame, and Bush will.



Yes, blame Clinton! It's all his fault. *sighs*


I also don't blame Bush for 9/11or terrorism. Just everything else.


We better be careful here guys.


So, uh.. so Penn or Rourke? :)

[ilovemovies]

I don't think people blame Bush for 9/11 or terrorism. I personally think Bush did a pretty good job responding to the 9/11 attacks. I just think he screwed up taking on Iraq. That's where his "popularity" began to slide.

He did win his reelection afterall.



I don't think this is going to heart Rourke's chances for the golden boy I have to say.

But if he looses it won't be to Penn. I still think Penn isn't going to win since he's already won. I still say that if it doesn't go to Rourke then it'll go to Eastwood.

[bigred760]

I still think Rourke is the frontrunner, and will win. Eastwood may not have an acting Oscar, but he has two acting nominations, and two Oscars for directing. I think Hollywood will like Rourke's comeback story.

[ilovemovies]

I do agree. I think it's definitely going to Rourke. BUT, I was just saying if it DOESN'T go to Rourke then I believe it'll go to Eastwood and not Penn.

[bigred760]

I do agree. I think it's definitely going to Rourke. BUT, I was just saying if it DOESN'T go to Rourke then I believe it'll go to Eastwood and not Penn.

HA! I just reread your post and see what you mean. Sorry . . . stayed up late for the game last night and woke up early for work this morning. :D

[Taffey Lewis]

We better be careful here guys.


So, uh.. so Penn or Rourke? :)

Yeah, I guess this isn't a politics forum.

Back to film, I want Rourke to win. But I would bet on Penn winning.

[screamer581]

Yeah, I guess this isn't a politics forum.

Back to film, I want Rourke to win. But I would bet on Penn winning.


Other way around for me. I want Penn to win, but I think Rourke will win. Both were great though.

[echo_bravo]

Yes, blame Clinton! It's all his fault. *sighs*


I also don't blame Bush for 9/11or terrorism. Just everything else.


We better be careful here guys.


So, uh.. so Penn or Rourke? :)

I think Penn has got it in the bag. I dont like him as a person. I think he is a smug selfcentered prick HOWEVER he is a damn good actor and his performance in Milk was fantastic.

And this isnt directed at anyone but I just decided to post this article because Oscar season is here and I wanted to know how this might fuck up Rourke's chances.

[jaw2929]

Fucking moron, just like his president.

[Euclid]

I don't want to sound like I'm slogging on Mr. Rourke's comments, I do understand and appreciate where he's coming from. Still, for an actor, I think he's well off his mark. I agree, one can't simply say it was "his" or "her" fault. It's never that cut and dry. There are various elements at work and placing the blame squarely on one set of shoulders is stretching it. The blame doesn't lie with one person, it lies with a multitude of people.

That said, this President and his administration - barring a few exceptional individuals - have functioned in a phenomenally inept and ignorant manner. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove et all. All governed more by knee-jerk, religious, self righteous and misinformed actions and less by rationality, reason and responsibility.

The torch hasn't yet been passed on and already this President and his administrations two terms are widely regarded to be one of the worst in history. And for good reason. The fabrication of facts and implementation of fatal policies have been staggering:


Iraq and WMD's
Ignoring CIA intelligence
Binning the PDB's
Feeding completely fabricated intelligence to Colin Powell for his UN address
Guantanamo Bay
Rendition
Utter disregard for the basic military and C.I.A tennants
Racing towards Afghanistan and Iraq with no sound strategy whatsoever
Disbanding of Iraqi Armed Services aka De-Ba'athification
The now famous "Axis of Evil" speech which pretty much negated any and all probabilities for a peaceful resolution with Iran.
The one sided approach to Israel. In the process alienating Palestine, in turn, creating an even more unstable region, and far more unsafe Israel and Palestine.


That's just a small specific portion and we haven't even touched on his environmental and foreign policies. It's accepted that for the past 8 years, there wasn't one President of the United States, there were essentially three. It was an equal opportunity Presidency. Therein lies the problem, when you hand the reigns to someone who isn't prepared for the job and when it comes time to make the hard decisions, is easily brushed aside by stronger and far more ambitious individuals.

From George Washington to George Bush, we understand that each President can be called out for their share of mistakes. Only that when you look at said list, President Bush can't help but stand out and it's difficult to ignore. Of all the Presidents and administrations... This one bears the greatest culpability.

Along with a host of other issues, I was always disturbed by how easily President Bush disregarded the merits of the separation of church and state. Being proud of and taking strength from one's faith is an admirable quality, but constantly peddling it as a tool with which to create a divisive atmosphere is abhorrent to say the least.

Now in all fairness to President Bush, we can't squarely blame him for one thing. The economic disaster. The seeds of this fiasco were planted well ahead. What with Phil Gramm's crusade for deregulation of Wall Street and Alan Greenspan's magnanimous approach to out-of-control mortgage lending. Even still, George Bush and his administration could have taken steps to lessen the inevitable blow. So they're not entirely in the clear. Somehow, I don't think they ever will be.

"I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?" This is another problem. If you aren't, then how can you comment on any given issue. It's blind hate and patriotism that lands people in very wrong places. If we can't educate ourselves on these sort of issues then we just become mindless drones. Gladly accepting of anything that's being told. Which is a sobering thought.

[Bourne101]

This will not hurt Rourke's chances in the slightest. It's an opinion, one that has been expressed my many people, many people also disagree, that's life. It's not as if he's saying something completely blasphemous and terrible, he's just saying that as hard as Bush's job is in the first place, it became even more difficult because of 911.

I'm still saying Rourke FTW.

[john_rambo]

Hey, Mickey Rourke has an opinion, power to him for expressing it. I never want to judge someone for giving their opinion if it isn't hurtful, or just for attention.

[jolanar]

Hey, Mickey Rourke has an opinion, power to him for expressing it. I never want to judge someone for giving their opinion if it isn't hurtful, or just for attention.

Exactly, it's not like he was saying Bush did a great job or anything. He even went as far as to admit to not being politically educated. He just thought Bush had an even harder time because he was elected at a bad time. And I really don't see how anyone can disagree with that. How anyone can insult over it is just mind boggling.

[Euclid]

Exactly, it's not like he was saying Bush did a great job or anything. He even went as far as to admit to not being politically educated. He just thought Bush had an even harder time because he was elected at a bad time. And I really don't see how anyone can disagree with that. How anyone can insult over it is just mind boggling.

No one is insulting anyone. Everyone has the right to an opinion, I couldn't agree more. But there are specifically two things that stand out in Mickey Rourke's comments.

1. He admits to not being educated about political matters but he goes on to make a political statement of sorts. Which is indicative of a much larger problem. A scotch-tape approach to understanding issues.

2. Rourke and a few others point to the fact that Bush merely found himself to be in an impossible situation. I understand this to a degree but I cannot accept this as a full on explanation. It's far too convenient. Wrong place at the wrong time cannot and does not explain away everything. Besides, all of us are defined by how we handle certain situations. We're all subject to this to varying degrees.

An example that comes to mind. Around 250 BC India Ashoka The Great established a few edicts. One of these edicts protected animals. He banned the killing of certain animals and established the first known animal hospitals. The thinking was, a persons true nature shone through in how they treated something that was essentially defenseless.

Point being. How we read and react to any given situation, often times speaks to who we really are and how we really think. Well intentions aside, there are simply too many documented instances of this administrations almost maniacal approach to decision making. Wrong place wrong time doesn't explain away everything... Sorry.

[The Heart Collector]

Kudos to Rourke for taking what happens to be (in 2009) the anti-establishment stance, but he probably should have saved it for after the Oscars. The voters should go for the best PERFORMANCE, not best political views, but if he takes the Globe and the SAG, I wouldn't count him out yet...:D

I'm not sure what this post means. Are you saying there is something worthy of praise in taking a view opposed to the established view, always?

Or are you saying there is something specific about this situation, as in there is something good about being a Bush apologist?

He admits on the very same interview that he is not "politically informed", so why are you giving him kudos for having an uninformed and absurd opinion?

[The Heart Collector]

I don't think people blame Bush for 9/11 or terrorism. I personally think Bush did a pretty good job responding to the 9/11 attacks.

There were terrorist attacks in major Western cities (London and Madrid) after 9/11. So certainly Bush's response was not able to prevent Western targets from being attacked. You could argue that he protected America, but that'd be with 1) no evidence that there were specific attacks thwarted 2) no evidence that the modus operandi of Al Qaeda is to repeatedly attack the same western country 3) good evidence to believe otherwise 4) his protection merely diverting terrorists elsewhere.

How is that a "good job"?

[hoojib127]

He did win his reelection afterall.

Yeah, by using scare tactics and having lapdogs turn minorities away from the polls. :p

Honestly, I can't believe how anyone didn't see through his bullshit from day one. I knew from the moment he announced his candidacy for President he'd be a disaster...and whaddya know, I was right! He'll likely go down with Nixon, Hoover, and Grant as one of our worst executive officers ever.

But let's face it: we haven't had an above-average president since Kennedy. We haven't had a GREAT president since Truman. I'd like to think Obama will change that, but the odds aren't on his side...especially seeing as he's going to have to try and clean up all the messes Bush and his cronies made.

And enough with the two-party mentality. EVERY name/party you see on those election day ballots should have equal opportunity. The Democrats are spineless and the Republicans are corrupt. Why settle for choosing the pile of shit that stinks slightly less? :confused:

[Luv2Run]

The 2 party system boils down to a choice of bullshit or chocolate covered bullshit. Whether or not you get chocolate just depends on if you're "liberal" or "conservative". Clinton sucked. Bush sucked. Obama will suck. Pundits (and media) on both sides will try to convince you otherwise... it's the same boring-ass, stupid-ass shit that's been going on since news men said they didn't have an opinion (wink-wink). There is NO DIFFERENCE between any of these guys- they're all politicians. and remember, "the only thing worse than a politician is a child molester". If you can tell me where that quote is from, that will make this post worth it to me.

Anyway, Rourke's work has always been interesting to me. I can't wait to see this movie, but because of the roller coaster ride of good acting and bad acting he's done over the years, I'll have to wait for DVD on this one.

[JJFlamingo]

I'm not sure what this post means. Are you saying there is something worthy of praise in taking a view opposed to the established view, always?

Or are you saying there is something specific about this situation, as in there is something good about being a Bush apologist?

He admits on the very same interview that he is not "politically informed", so why are you giving him kudos for having an uninformed and absurd opinion?

Because surely Rourke realized that people out there (like you) would make judgments on his character based on his non-conformist stance, especially when he's in line for an Oscar this year, and yet he still was brave enough to say what he said despite the shitstorm he will receive for it. That takes guts...:D

As I said, he could have timed his saying that until after they handed him his Oscar, but perhaps that's not such a big deal to him anyway...:(

[The Heart Collector]

Because surely Rourke realized that people out there (like you) would make judgments on his character based on his non-conformist stance, especially when he's in line for an Oscar this year, and yet he still was brave enough to say what he said despite the shitstorm he will receive for it. That takes guts

But thinking Bush is not bad is not a "non-conformist" stance.

What does the Oscar have to do with anything? Marion Cotillard said the 9/11 attacks were faked before she won her Oscar. Is she a brave non-conformist soul?

[edonline]

Rourke: 'Bush Was In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time'
8 January 2009 11:04 PM, PST

...

Rourke also confesses he was so angry after 9/11, he wanted to fight the war on terror himself.

He adds, "I'm not politically educated. But I do know that after 9/11 I wanted to go over there, you know what I'm saying?"

...


So why didn't he? Thousands of American and other nations' men and women went, many of them giving their lives or getting harmed in the process of fighting "the war on terrorism". Heck, there were even many celebrities who went to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc to entertain the troops. If Mickey was so angry, he could have volunteered to spend some time with the troops or perhaps visit a veterans' hospital or charity group.

[The Postmaster General]

Honestly, given these comments or not, I don't think Rourke will win the Oscar. The Academy isn't exactly ga ga over gritty roles. It won't surprise me though, when people start screaming that his loss was solely political, because of these comments. Like I hinted at in my first response, I really don't have any clue as to why Rourke is talking about this stuff to begin with. It's a pretty outdated topic at this point. I almost find him bringing it all up to be somewhat suspect of his intentions. Maybe he saved some talking points from all the interviews he's been not getting over recent years, and decided to let loose.

[JJFlamingo]

But thinking Bush is not bad is not a "non-conformist" stance.

What does the Oscar have to do with anything? Marion Cotillard said the 9/11 attacks were faked before she won her Oscar. Is she a brave non-conformist soul?

You should know better than anyone these days (especially with younger people) that Bush-bashing makes you more "hip" than anything imaginable nowadays. I've seen open-mic nights at clubs where people get up and say the most depraved shit of what they'd like to do to Bush and people whoop it up like they're watching George Carlin live at Carnegie Hall. For any celeb to go up in an interview and while not necessarily being a apologist, imply that Bush has gotten somewhat of an unfair rap, is the VERY DEFINITION of nonconformity as we begin the Obama era here in 2009, and like I said, if Rourke truly believes what he says, then I applaud the courage it takes to make such a stance, whether you or I agree with it is a different matter. ;)

As for Cotillard, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't her comments come AFTER the Oscar win (which explains why her career went promptly in the toliet after winning Best Actress)??

[ilovemovies]

Honestly, given these comments or not, I don't think Rourke will win the Oscar. The Academy isn't exactly ga ga over gritty roles. It won't surprise me though, when people start screaming that his loss was solely political, because of these comments. Like I hinted at in my first response, I really don't have any clue as to why Rourke is talking about this stuff to begin with. It's a pretty outdated topic at this point. I almost find him bringing it all up to be somewhat suspect of his intentions. Maybe he saved some talking points from all the interviews he's been not getting over recent years, and decided to let loose.

Maybe he didn't bring it up?

He was probably asked.

People complain sometimes when celebrities talk politics but they don't usually bring it. They are usually asked for their opinion.

[Euclid]

Honestly, given these comments or not, I don't think Rourke will win the Oscar. The Academy isn't exactly ga ga over gritty roles. It won't surprise me though, when people start screaming that his loss was solely political, because of these comments. Like I hinted at in my first response, I really don't have any clue as to why Rourke is talking about this stuff to begin with. It's a pretty outdated topic at this point. I almost find him bringing it all up to be somewhat suspect of his intentions. Maybe he saved some talking points from all the interviews he's been not getting over recent years, and decided to let loose.

I haven't seen the film yet, I will soon. That said, I really hope people don't judge his caliber of performance given these comments he has just made. As misinformed as they might be, it would be a shame if that were the reason he wasn't given a fair chance. Look, I may disagree with the man on this particular subject, but that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to treat him unfairly. Judge him for the merits of his work and little else. At least that's my take on it.

You should know better than anyone these days (especially with younger people) that Bush-bashing makes you more "hip" than anything imaginable nowadays. I've seen open-mic nights at clubs where people get up and say the most depraved shit of what they'd like to do to Bush and people whoop it up like they're watching George Carlin live at Carnegie Hall. For any celeb to go up in an interview and while not necessarily being a apologist, imply that Bush has gotten somewhat of an unfair rap, is the VERY DEFINITION of nonconformity as we begin the Obama era here in 2009, and like I said, if Rourke truly believes what he says, then I applaud the courage it takes to make such a stance, whether you or I agree with it is a different matter. ;)

As for Cotillard, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't her comments come AFTER the Oscar win (which explains why her career went promptly in the toliet after winning Best Actress)??

Okay, before I start, I'd like to say that I'm not insulting anyone nor am I trying to be sarcastic. Flamingo... The problem here is this. In the fervor of the moment, a great many bought what the Bush administration was selling. They rallied around their President and backed him up. Only to eventually find out that they were lied to and manipulated away from the truth.

Now that the Bush Presidency is ending, any hope he has left to protect his "legacy" is rooted firmly in, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time or an outright denial of facts. It's an oddly Nixon-esque way of going about it. And we all know how long it took for the American people to come to terms with and get past Nixon. Accountability. It's all about accountability. People want it and I don't blame them.

Aside from Colin Powell, no one at that time in the Bush cabinet had ever served in the military or had any sort of military combat experience. How angry would you be if your son or daughter died in some desolate corner of the world for nothing. Having been put there by people who had no idea what it's like to be in a foxhole with bullets whizzing past you. Not having any military experience is one thing, completely ignoring the advice of those who do... Let's just say the word stupid doesn't even begin to touch on it.

Anyways, put aside party politics, red or white, republican or democrat. People would be angry, people are angry. And for good reason. That's why there's such an influx of people who despise the Bush administration. They are just now taking stock of how many different ways this administration has let them down. They are finally tuning into these facts and they don't like what they see.

This isn't about fashion, although, I can imagine a few jumping on the proverbial bandwagon for the hell of it. Acting like automatons and mouthing whatever the guy next to them is saying. Then again, these kinds of people will always just go along with the majority. In any case, for most people, it isn't about being "hip" or wanting to imitate George Carlin. It's about being aware of whats taken place and coming to a realization.

Yes. Credit to the man for speaking his mind, no doubt about that. But, if the man is going to address an issue like this. It's only fair that he should, for all intense and purposes, be aware of the facts. It isn't about being a "non-conformist" or going with the majority consensus. It's about being aware of these things. Seeing through from the political and religious rhetoric and getting down to the ugly facts.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Rourke's reconstructive surgeon was in the wrong place , wrong time .

[The Postmaster General]

Maybe he didn't bring it up?

He was probably asked.

People complain sometimes when celebrities talk politics but they don't usually bring it. They are usually asked for their opinion.

Yeah, that's a solid point because also look at the source. There's also been a lot of talk on the boards recently about how articles get jazzed up and sometimes the interviewee is presented as having an MO that they really didn't have. The topic about Bush might have been 1/20th of the entire interview, but it's written like that's all he talked about.


I haven't seen the film yet, I will soon. That said, I really hope people don't judge his caliber of performance given these comments he has just made. As misinformed as they might be, it would be a shame if that were the reason he wasn't given a fair chance. Look, I may disagree with the man on this particular subject, but that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to treat him unfairly. Judge him for the merits of his work and little else. At least that's my take on it.


I definitely agree, but just don't think this particular thing is a reason he won't win. He'll probably play a sweet-natured but dimwitted busboy in 4 years and win the Oscar, and everyone will say he should have won for The Wrestler. As much as people are saying how he had the best performance, the Oscars being the Oscars probably aren't going to favor the story of a professional wrestler - that's just the way they are. For Rourke's sake and fans of the movie, I hope I'm wrong, but you have to admit it would be a little off from their previous winners. Maybe not just because of it being so gritty (as I've heard) because Denzel did win for Training Day, but I dunno, just doesn't seem like something The Academy usually favors.

[Preston_79]

He admits on the very same interview that he is not "politically informed", so why are you giving him kudos for having an uninformed and absurd opinion?

Who in Hollywood is politically informed? There are plenty that are politically active, but there's no telling if they're actually informed. I suspect many are just passionate and outspoken, but sheltered idiots. At least he admits it. GQ probably raised the question about it. It's not like Rourke goes around talking politics all the time.

And this makes his opinion absurd? No more so than any of the schmoes who talk in the politics forum.

[someguy]

Why did you turn his post into something about celebrities being dumb? He wasn't even talking about that.

And yes it is an absurd opinion. 'Wrong place at the wrong time' is a bad excuse/justification.

[The Heart Collector]

As for Cotillard, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't her comments come AFTER the Oscar win (which explains why her career went promptly in the toliet after winning Best Actress)??

You are wrong in that the comments came after the Oscar win. You are also wrong in the notion that her "career went promptly in the toilet". It hasn't been a year since she won the Best Actress award, and she is slated to appear in Michael Mann's new film, as well as Nine, a high-profile musical. Certainly these two films will be the most widely viewed films she's done by far.

You wish her career had gone in the toilet for defaming America, but that has not happened.

And this makes his opinion absurd? No more so than any of the schmoes who talk in the politics forum.

Because it is absurd. The war in Iraq and every subsequent bad policy happened a considerably long time after 9/11. Besides that, the justification and evidence for the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Qaeda. So it's absurd to suggest that because 9/11 was so bad, that suddenly makes George W. Bush less bad.

It's one thing if the war in Iraq had been a month after 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden lived in Iraq. That'd be somewhat understandable. But that wasn't the situation at all. Does this idiot deserve pity because apparently one year and a half after 9/11 he was still spazzing out and invading countries from shock? C'mon.

[SkyNet]

i fail to see how this hurts his oscar chances?!

What is wrong with expressing an opinion?? I do certainly disagree with him on some of the points he made, but it is his opinion, and the dude is still Mickey Fucking Rourke!

People are too quick to jump on other people for discussing opinions that differ from their own, almost as if some people in this country wish we lived in a Communist society!

[JJFlamingo]

You are wrong in that the comments came after the Oscar win. You are also wrong in the notion that her "career went promptly in the toilet". It hasn't been a year since she won the Best Actress award, and she is slated to appear in Michael Mann's new film, as well as Nine, a high-profile musical. Certainly these two films will be the most widely viewed films she's done by far.

You wish her career had gone in the toilet for defaming America, but that has not happened.

Once again, let me correct you, I never said I WISHED for her career to go in the toliet, I was just wondering how an Oscar-winning Best Actress would virtually disappear from the spotlight so soon after. However, it would appear that you made a quick little sidetrip over to IMDB...:D

[Euclid]

Yeah, that's a solid point because also look at the source. There's also been a lot of talk on the boards recently about how articles get jazzed up and sometimes the interviewee is presented as having an MO that they really didn't have. The topic about Bush might have been 1/20th of the entire interview, but it's written like that's all he talked about.





I definitely agree, but just don't think this particular thing is a reason he won't win. He'll probably play a sweet-natured but dimwitted busboy in 4 years and win the Oscar, and everyone will say he should have won for The Wrestler. As much as people are saying how he had the best performance, the Oscars being the Oscars probably aren't going to favor the story of a professional wrestler - that's just the way they are. For Rourke's sake and fans of the movie, I hope I'm wrong, but you have to admit it would be a little off from their previous winners. Maybe not just because of it being so gritty (as I've heard) because Denzel did win for Training Day, but I dunno, just doesn't seem like something The Academy usually favors.

Agreed. On both counts. It's becoming easier by the day for media to distort the facts. It's almost becoming a prerequisite to check and recheck the primary source of information. As for Mickey Rourke's Oscar chances. Bubba, I'm with you on your analysis.

They do tend to play the safe and conservative card all to often. Considering Denzel's win for Training Day. I think his Oscar win was as inevitable as death and taxes. There was so much goodwill behind him, not to mention, a host of quality performances already in his resumé. It was bound to happen.

It would be nice to see the people involved cut away from the norm, and start voting on merit and less with a political notion. Then again, I'd also like to fly to the center of our galaxy, naked as the day I was born, with a Heineken in one hand and Monica Bellucci in another. Sadly, I don't think either of those things will happen.

i fail to see how this hurts his oscar chances?!

What is wrong with expressing an opinion?? I do certainly disagree with him on some of the points he made, but it is his opinion, and the dude is still Mickey Fucking Rourke!

People are too quick to jump on other people for discussing opinions that differ from their own, almost as if some people in this country wish we lived in a Communist society!

I was waiting till someone pulled out the communist connection. Why is it that people think it's wrong to correct someone. Be it an opinion or otherwise. Whether it's a simple case of misinformation or a blatant disregard of the facts. It's still well off from the truth. So it stands to reason that people will feel the need to point that individual in the right direction.

If someone were to come up to you and try to convince you of the sun revolving around the earth. One of two things will happen. A) You will take a few short steps back and book it! B) You will try to point them to all the data proving otherwise. It's much the same case here. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree with you in one part though. Everyone has the right to an opinion and people are too quick to jump to conclusions. I've been guilty of it a few times myself, we all have at one point in time or another. But given all that has been documented about this subject. Surely, Mickey Rourke's comments are not exactly full on.

[Jon Lyrik]

Bush was an ineffective tool of people like Dick Cheney. Now, if someone wants to defend him and his cronies, I'd like to know. It'd at least ballsy at this point in time.

[Taffey Lewis]

So it stands to reason that people will feel the need to point that individual in the right direction..

I wonder if the individual will be thankful for your arrogance and what you perceive to be the right direction.

[The Heart Collector]

What is wrong with expressing an opinion??


Yes, what's wrong with us expressing our opinion that Mickey Rourke is a tool? Mostly this thread has not suggested that Mickey Rourke should keep his mouth shut or anything close to that.

[Preston_79]

I certainly don't blame 911 on Bush. Those guys that hijacked the planes were taking flight lessons before Bush was in office. This shit was planned during Clinton's term, but guess what, I don't blame him either. I'm really not interested in pinning the blame and if I were I'd pin it on every president we've had over the last 60 years if I even gave a shit.

Wrong place at the wrong time? These are just the spur of the moment words coming from a regular person who's not politically savvy. He's just running his mouth for an interview. That bit about wrong place wrong time seems irrelevant anyway.

After 911 we can go ahead and rip Bush apart. He made many mistakes. Who in their right mind can't see that? Is he the worst president we've ever had? I'll wait and see how things play out over the upcoming years.

[The Postmaster General]

All said, I saw The Wrestler the other night, and even if he doesn't win, I do hope Rourke gets a nomination.

[Potter82]

Well, he was definitely in the wrong place.

As for the part about the wrong time, I think another person in his position could have become a great president or at the very least, a much better one.

Take Lincoln or FDR, both presidents dealt with times of national crisis, both rose to the occasion, and are now considered to be among the best ever American presidents. On the other hand, you have presidents like Hoover and Buchanan who faced difficult times and failed to effectively address these challenges.

Bush definitely falls into the latter category.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

It's easy to empathize now, especially now that Bush is on his way out and has been slumping through with laughably low approval numbers for over two years now. It's harder to forgive when you take yourself back in time and remember all the statist policies, hateful rhetoric, and the sheer arrogance that his administration displayed throughout these eight years. I could go on and on about his failures but that isn't even what bugs me the most. The fact that he just does not care if the American people, the same people who voted him into office at least one of two times, like the job he's doing or not is unbelievable. It's good to not base decisions on polls, but to have a thirty percent approval rating and not even wonder why you're disliked or what you can do to get on an even level with the American people is arrogant and totally unacceptable for someone in such a position. He can try all he wants, but to simply not give a shit about that kind of thing implies either a major ego or just a huge undiagnosed personality disorder. It makes one wonder if he really does think that he was handpicked by God to serve.