It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sharon Stone supports Charlie Sheen

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Honestly, I think George W. Bush could've done a better job at arguing the 9/11 Conspiracy theory than Mr. Sheen. I've a huge fan of his, love his movies... but he really blew it, I thought. There are so many things he could've briefly touched on to get the clueless public to investigate this for themselves, to really get their ears perked up... but he brought up the least credible and least provable points of the entire theory.




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Whether I agree with his viewpoint or not I don't really think that Charlie Sheen would risk being ostracized and offer himself up for such potential ridicule for a quick plug. How many are going to boycott any film of his after hearing this?

A lot of people find this topic very emotive, what with the thousands of people who died. I think it carries too much weight, is too risky to use it as a quick publicity stunt when it could potentially cause so much harm to someone's career*. He seems to be doing ok career wise doesn't he? Imagine if he were found to be using this, would he find work ever again?

When properly considered I think the suggestion that is all for publicity is a cheap, feeble and transparent attempt at removing any credibility.


*Plus it's disturbingly sick.

[edit on 2/4/06 by Mark Harris]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Funny how Sharon Stone has got Basic Instinct 2 out in theatres now and Charlie has Scary Movie 4 coming out in a month or so..
Have you seen the trailer for Scary Movie 4? The bit that takes the mick out of The President being told about the planes hitting the towers in the school room, only in the trailer it's done about aliens invading.


Talking about grasping at straws, some people will try to discredit someone using the most cynical of approaches.

Don't forget that Charlie is a recovering druggie, another good excuse for dismissing him.......


I for one will definitely be going to see the aforementioned movies, which would not have happened had Charlie and Sharon not appeared in the press with there controversial stance on 9/11.......


Jeez, Agentsmith I had you down as a bit of an intellectual.........



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Actors and actresses kind of do star in movies, I have to say. It's what they do most of the time for a living.

Sheen did bring up some pretty weak points though, imo, for trying to convince anybody. But I doubt CNN was trying to actually convince anyone, or else they'd have Steven Jones or somebody from S9/11T on there. And at least we have another general public poll showing almost 90% stating they don't buy the official story.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
Honestly, I think George W. Bush could've done a better job at arguing the 9/11 Conspiracy theory than Mr. Sheen. I've a huge fan of his, love his movies... but he really blew it, I thought. There are so many things he could've briefly touched on to get the clueless public to investigate this for themselves, to really get their ears perked up... but he brought up the least credible and least provable points of the entire theory.


Ah, and there lies the magic of the media as they tried to discredit him.

You don't REALLY think that what they put on CNN was the most damaging stuff that Sheen said in his interview, do you? In the interview with Jones, he talked about WTC 7, but NONE OF THAT was on CNN. I wonder why? Maybe because WTC 7 does some of the most serious damage to the official story...



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Well, if you think CNN is "in on it" then why did they [CNN] talk about it at all??


-- Boat



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Well, if you think CNN is "in on it" then why did they [CNN] talk about it at all??


-- Boat



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Well, if you think CNN is "in on it" then why did they [CNN] talk about it at all??


-- Boat


Like someone else here said, I think they wanted to make Sheen look like a wack job and discredit him. That would have struck a major blow to the truth movement, which was their intention. But, it ended up blowing up in their faces, which is why they eventually shut it down despite the huge number of people following the story.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

I think they wanted to make Sheen look like a wack job and discredit him.


Putting him on a repected cable news channel discredits him?


That would have struck a major blow to the truth movement,


Why? Is Mr. Sheen a cornerstone of the "truth movement"?



which was their intention.


You mean that what you think their intention was...I for one believe the offical story because it makes the most sense. And the idea of being able to fool everyone is impossible.

-- Boat



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Jeez, Agentsmith I had you down as a bit of an intellectual.........


Yeah, well you wouldn't be the first to make that mistake!


It was more tongue in cheek than anything, but it is funny how these people always come out with these jaw droppers and attention seekers whenever their movie is about it hit the box office. Tom Cruise loves doing it over more trivial matters which still attract attention, like arguing with South Park for instance.

I'm sure Sheen does mean what he says, he obviously must have carried out a lot of research, but the timing is rather convenient.. Still, it's more Stone poking her head up when she doesn't even agree with him just as her movie is out.
I'm sure lots of people agree with him and believe it, I'm also sure there are many that support his right to express his thoughts. But they didn't pick any of them, they 'picked' the one with a movie coming out now..
Nothing too it really, just a sweeping remark on what helps motivate these people sometimes.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
No, he is using the normal definition of the word: found here.


I'm a she
I accept your definition and your link.
Good job boatphone.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
They have money and money means power. These
celebrities are known WORLDWIDE ...


True. But that doesn't make them 'intellectuals'.
They are just rich, well known, self obsessed
hyper-reality half wits. Being rich and well known
doesn't mean you are smart. They think because
they have money and worldly fame then they are
automatically elevated to 'smart'.
And from
the post here ... someone actually calling them
'intellectuals' ... it seems they have some of the
population fooled.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Surely an intellectual is not defined by how many
certificates they can attain?


For the most part ... yes.

If Dr. Rice had been a high school dropout (like Barbara Streisand)
she never would have deeply understood Russia and learned to
speak Russian let alone be capable of being Secretary of State.

If Bill Clinton had barely graduated high school and stopped his
education there, he never could have gone on to be President.
He wouldn't have been capable of doing the job.

The 'intellectuals' you listed are nothing more than loud mouth
and rich LEFTISTS. That's it. They don't understand much of
anything outside their little self imposed hyper-reality circle.

Heck Babs can't even spell the Iraq ... she can't even match
leaders with their respective countries ... and yet this 'intellectual'
faxes letters all over the senate to democrats demanding that they
straighten out all those big bad republicans (who are ALL better
educated than her - which isn't too hard to do).

She isn't even smart enough to be embarrassed when she
shows off her idiocy.

Now to be fair .. sometimes people get degrees and take up
positions that require intellect and they are as dumb as a box
of rocks. But that's another subject all together.

I stand by my opinion .. it's extremely hard to find an
'intellectual' hollywood star.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Why is it that suddenly the Hollywood left (like Janeane Garofolo) are coming out FOUR YEARS AFTER the fact and saying, hey, something's up here?

I've believed for a couple years now that the government was complicit in 9/11! And I'm a conservative! What's taking the Left Coast so long!


I wonder if maybe someone wants the people polarized, because you know right well this will rile up the Bushbots. Just like right before the Iraq war...liberals were being called traitors, ad nauseum (actually, there are traitors from everywhere on the political spectrum). And I admit to having been a Bushbot then. And then someone showed me what was up.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

I think they wanted to make Sheen look like a wack job and discredit him.


Putting him on a repected cable news channel discredits him?


That would have struck a major blow to the truth movement,


Why? Is Mr. Sheen a cornerstone of the "truth movement"?



which was their intention.


You mean that what you think their intention was...I for one believe the offical story because it makes the most sense. And the idea of being able to fool everyone is impossible.

-- Boat


No, putting him on and putting "9/11 experts" on to explain away his thoughts is how they discredit him. Hell, they had a lady on talking about how the conspiracy theories come from a morbid fear of radical Islam.
She says the people who doubt the official story are just so scared of Islam that they would rather blame the govt because they feel they can change the govt.
Wow.

And, are you sure you don't believe the official story because you "love" Bush?
And, they don't have to fool everyone. Even your beloved Bush himself said that you can't fool everyone all the time, so you focus on the ones you can fool all the time.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
If CNN were "in on it" they would not even bring Mr. Sheen on to talk about 9/11. IMO.

-- Boat



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
CNN are only "in on it" in respect of the story that Charlie Sheen is saying something controversial, they in no way agree with what Sheen is saying.

If they were in agreement they would have been asking the questions long before now and would not desist until they had valid answers.

Sheen is a recognisable figure to a vast amount of the grass root population, those people who make up a majority of the working class. Those individuals whos major concerns aren't anything to do with what their administration are up to but whether they can afford to buy trainers for their kids, those people who are the back bone of every society throughout the world.

It's my belief that Charlie Sheen just hopes to make these people aware that they should not be afraid to question those who run our lives.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Hollywood intellectuals

Everyone else is right, there's no such thing....

Maybe I'll become an actor. According to all that I'm reading here, once I learn how to suspend people's belief and make pretend, then my opinion would be as good as gold


Seriously though, why should I listen to an actor over a 5 year old?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Seriously though, why should I listen to an actor over a 5 year old?


I could only think of a couple of answers to that question

1. Alot of people said that when Reagan took office and I agreed.

2. Whether it be the actor or the 5 year old, you might learn something, whatever that might be, listening is pretty cheap if not free.

Mr Sheen isn't asking anyone to believe him, just to do a bit of reading up on the subject, I really do not understand why so many people are getting bent out of shape just because he's an actor, I really don't see the relevance.

If you choose not to investigate, so be it, if you investigate and agree with the official story, so be it, they are your choices to make, it's just good to be informed.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
They have access to the media and this is something neither you nor i have.


Crap, here I was, thinking that the Internet was the everyman's way into the media. Stupid internet, not being the tool of mass communication that I thought it to be!



Originally posted by FlyersFan
I stand by my opinion .. it's extremely hard to find an 'intellectual' hollywood star.


Not to get sidetracked here, but Natalie Portman would qualify, I believe. As would several others. Just, most of them seem to be quiet. Looks like they're smart enough to not make fools of themselves!



Originally posted by Koka
I really do not understand why so many people are getting bent out of shape just because he's an actor, I really don't see the relevance.


Because actors make the connection that because they're in the public eye they're opinions need to be heard. If a random person stood up on a soapbox in your downtown wouldn't you label them as crazy and discredit whatever it is they're saying? More than likely yes. Do we do that when actors get up on their soapboxes?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join