"The weekend has landed! All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man. I'm gonna blow steam out my head like a screaming kettle, I'm gonna talk cod shit to strangers all night, I'm gonna lose the plot on the dancefloor. The free radicals inside me are freakin', man! Tonight I'm Jip Travolta, I'm Peter Popper, I'm going to never-never land with my chosen family, man. We're gonna get more spaced out than Neil Armstrong ever did, anything could happen tonight, you know? This could be the best night of my life. I've got 73 quid in my back burner - I'm gonna wax the lot, man! The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!"

Damn I watched almost all of that.

I really liked Titan A.E. back in high school. Not enough animated films deal with space and the future (besides anime).

I watched Sunshine. I was sorely disappointed with the ending. It just got retarded in 10 minutes flat. I thought Event Horizon was much better.

The Thing I have on DVD. Best film Carpenter ever made.

Battlefield Earth I watched once. I thought it was shit but not as bad as some people claim it is. Travolta was really ridiculous looking.

Brazil is a great Terry Gilliam flick. Loved it.

The Cube movies I always loved.

this movie sucks but Travolta's such a badass bad guy. i loved him in Get Shorty and he made Broken Arrow watchable

Tags for this video have been changed from 'honeybunny, be, cool, tarantino' to 'honeybunny, be, cool, tarantino, ringo, yolanda, fonzie, samuel, jackson, john, travolta' - edited by RhesusMonk

> I'd like to mark this 80s, but it was released in 1990...

and his standup was all about the *80s, anyway.
he was pretty big then, but didn't really go anywhere after that.

but he always did a dead-on impersonation of travolta.
and his pacino was pretty good.

I thought EVERYONE knew this (about JT), schmawy! Oh, and I was told that Vintage clips are 25+ years old, and this is well beyond that, so that's how I justify the vintage tag. Yeah, I agree that it is weird to think of this as vintage, but there it is.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I still have difficulty calling anything I remember as new being vintage. Guess I should get used to it.

What gives with the 'gay' tag? Something I don't know about Travolta?

I still have difficulty calling anything I remember as new being vintage. Guess I should get used to it.

What gives with the 'gay' tag? Something I don't know about Travolta?

Danny Glover reads Langston Hughes, he and Bono sing a duet, thereafter which he attends private Scientology function on Travolta's jet, later to return as official spokesfuck for bleeding heart cause that he is unfamiliar with, but after a short briefing, is now a passionate expert of.....

This man is another Hollowwood, agenda-oriented tool.....

I thought it was weirder seeing Travolta speaking in German.

hooray for boobies

"Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist"
To me, the first is possible, but unknown, and the last 2 probable.

As for the "original" original point, i just caught your comment on the recent comments list, and was curious on your view, so poked you. I haven't as yet gone to the originating thread itself, so only saw your comment to dag in isolation.

Religion can be interesting, because the behavior of man is interesting.

Many crimes have been done in the names of both religion and science, but my view on that, is that man has a tendency to commit crimes against man, and to claim ideology's when doing so. Treating any ideology, religeous or scientific, as being consistently the "source" of evil misses the point about the true potential and actualized evil in man himself. Its dangerous, as if you transfer blame to an ideology, you take your eye off man, the true culprit, and can give false credence and support to a competing ideology, simply because you attributed evil to one, making the other "good".

But tis nearly 1am, and ive work tomorrow, so im logging off.

Been fun though.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

Well, I'd had a longer response written out last night further outlining some of my personal views regarding Catholicism but then I guess they got lost in the server switch over or something because the whole site went buggy... oh well, wasn't that important really.

Mostly just wanted to say that yeah Krupo, I meant 'religious' during the rest of the week, that 'only Catholic on Sunday' phrase is one my brother and I have long used to describe our family, but I suppose if taken the wrong way that suggests a whole other realm of meaning.

Also, I think the point bamdrew raises just about sums up the biggest issue I have with Scientology. That it runs like a for-profit business that basically feeds financially off its membership. I mean, say what one will about the amassed wealth of the Catholic Church, but at least just walking in the door, seeking solace, or consulting a priest for spiritual advice costs one nothing, and tithing is optional, am pretty sure with Scientology, Inc. that its pay to play or GTFO. And also, I don't see them giving back to the community in general, Tom Cruise and John Travolta certainly aren't running any soup kitchens for the church thats for sure, in fact, am pretty sure that in general the membership sticks to itself, and only works to improve their own lives... the whole charity thing that kind of retains most religions within my own personal good graces is just about nonexistent with Scientology, Inc. and for that, I hold no special place for them.

i did see this movie. and it was pure pain. horrible. i really can't think of any reason why travolta did sign for this piece of ahhh i don't have words for it. it even gets worse than what you see in this clip...

"I've been told the best crackers in the world can do this in 60 minutes."

Travolta is a racist. On to the front page with you!

Go ahead. It's just vote pimpage!

In reply to this comment by Bakalex:
My reference for this kind of nonsense is the film called "Swordfish", with John Travolta and Hugh Jackman (and optionally Hale Berry). I've not resisted to sift some scene of this jewel of nerd-fest ( **removed sift url** ).

It's huge

(Note : Is putting a link to one of my own sift is considered as self-linking ? BTW, I've removed the URL leading to my sift, even if i'm not the one who posted it on youtube ... Oh man ... I get confused. It's time to go to bed ...)