tom cruise scientology vids
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > tom cruise scientology vids
Posted on Jan 18, 2008 05:04 am
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
Deleted By fortymile
[ Back to Top ]
Jan 18, 2008 09:16 am Thanks for posting, I hadn't seen them yet but wanted to...I'll have to watch them this weekend.
This dude is f-in insane...and now I heard Wil Smith joined the ranks of Scientology...disappointing.
I can humor most religions, most are very similar for the bulk of them and just argue about interpreted dogma and doctrine. This Scientology stuff is really, really weird.
Jan 18, 2008 09:21 am Further proof that aliens are among us.
Quote:
I can humor most religions
By the way, my wife's LDS. Thanks for choosing the Mitt, dB ;-)
Jan 18, 2008 09:25 am I humor them, I don't necessarily agree with them. :-)
That said, go Mitt!
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 12:15 pm Wow, that's pretty mad.
He's obviously setting himself up as their new messiah.
"She said 'I want to know who you are!' and I replied 'I'm a Scientologist!' You'd better go read about Scientology...."
Seems that there's no real Tom Cruise, just a vehicle for Scientology.
Don't drink the Kool-aid.
Jan 18, 2008 12:19 pm Quote:
He's obviously setting himself up as their new messiah.
Actually, he recently revealed that, in fact, his daughter, Sury is the vehicle from which L Ron Hubbard's spirit is returning...
There is wide speculation that Katie was actually impregnated with a frozen sample of Hubbard's spuz.
Sury is gonna be one ****** up kid.
Jan 18, 2008 01:44 pm Just watched 'em...not sure if I have ever seen anyone so full of himself as this guy.
WOW...
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 02:32 pm As a glaring side-step, regarding 'full of himself';
did anybody see the celebrity apprentice last night?
Gene Simmons is so egotistical, he said 'The client is wrong', 'i don't care what the product is called', etc.
He was so pathetic, I felt sorry for him.
Sorry, back to TC - aka The Crusader - aka Tom Cruise.
I'll take a look see later.
Jan 18, 2008 02:38 pm Dude, I was JUST talking to a firend about that show last night, gene basically was taunting The Donald, I love Gene Simmons, he's awesome. He is a major egotistal a-hole...I love the guy!
Personally, regarding the challenge last night, I do think Gene was right, Kodak was wrong.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 02:42 pm baah, he didn't even know what they were looking for, how could he be right.
bottom line: he didn't listen to the client, and did things his own way.
Gene's ideas were actually valid, but Kodak wasn't looking for that, at this time.
Maybe in a few weeks, Kodak will hire him on to do a new ad campaign =).
Jan 18, 2008 02:45 pm You are right, he was wrong as far as what the client wanted, but it was still the better campaign...but then that stupid mouthy lady wouldn't listen either...you could tell Donald WANTED to fire her, Gene taunted him...didn't let him fire her, he wanted to go.
At the end of the day tho, you are right, the client wanted A, Gene wanted...Gene...
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Jan 18, 2008 02:51 pm I haven't seen the show yet. Did Gene get fired?
Jan 18, 2008 02:51 pm yep...
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 03:11 pm shhhhh, don't tell him, it'll spoil the suprise =).
Yeah, that Nely lady was CRAP. Carol was trying so hard to be diplomatic, while letting on that Crazy Lady wouldn't shut her yap.
hah, was kinda fun. The missus said earlier Trace had a big flip-out. I missed that, darnit.
Jan 18, 2008 03:14 pm Yeah Nelly sucks, and she is weird looking. Try injecting a little more ***-fat into those lips! Jeezuz!
Both weeks I have seen she has sucked, last week was making a commerical and she lost to Gene...and that lady is a video producer!
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 03:54 pm I doubt that anyone knows more about merchandising than Gene Simmons...
KISS is an empire of that stuff!
Quote:
Sorry, back to TC - aka The Crusader - aka Tom Cruise.
Not TallChap.
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 03:54 pm Well, he's not a tall chap.....
Jan 18, 2008 04:29 pm Deleted By fortymile
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Jan 18, 2008 04:53 pm Both vids look like they have been taken down. I got a chance to watch a bit of the first one and I couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say. Was he trying to say anything?
Jan 18, 2008 04:56 pm Deleted By fortymile
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 06:43 pm Videos possibly removed due to over abundance of thetans.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jan 18, 2008 10:44 pm No it says the videos removed because of copyright by the Church of Scientology. Or whatever the hell they are. What a scam.
And Gene, ya he is a big A-hole, but he is one rich A-hole because he is a promotional machine. Why do you think Kiss is still such a money machine, not because of anything the others did, its because Gene knows how to sell and promote.
For him the stuck on himself attitude is what gets him in the door. He was picked for that show to be the instigator and stir the pot. Its all just good PR for both he and the Donald. It got all your attention didn't it?
But ya, that Cruse thing is just fargin Nuts.
Jan 18, 2008 11:37 pm the videos are continually reposted at youtube. if you havent seen them you can still find them with a search.
Jan 18, 2008 11:38 pm Deleted By fortymile
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 18, 2008 11:53 pm Makes me wonder about their taking videos down:
if they have a message, don't they want it to be spread?
or,
if Mr Cruise has his OWN message, and the CoS doesn't want him to speak for them?
Does anybody know much about the CoS? Do they hate Psych, or is it just Mr Cruise?
eh, I may look it up, but I'm feeling lazy . . .
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Jan 19, 2008 12:22 am en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
[quote]Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices initially developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a successor of his earlier self-help system, Dianetics.[1] Hubbard later characterized Scientology as an "applied religious philosophy" and the basis for a new religion.[1] Scientology encompasses a spiritual rehabilitation philosophy and techniques, and covers topics such as morals, ethics, detoxification, education and management. The practice and promotion of the Scientology belief system is organized via the Church of Scientology, the first church of which was founded in 1953.[2]
The term "Scientology" and related terms are trademarks held by the Religious Technology Center which grants the mother church of the Scientology religion, the Church of Scientology International (CSI), the right to use the trademarks and to license their use to all other Scientology churches and entities.[3][4] Other organizations that promote the use of Scientology’s related techniques are the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises and the Association for Better Living and Education.
Scientology and the organizations that promote it have remained highly controversial since their inception. Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members.[5][6][7][8][9] Scientology officials argue that most negative press has been motivated by interest groups and that most of the controversy is past history.[7][10][11][12][13] The U.S. State Department has commented negatively in their annual International Religious Freedom Reports on countries that discriminate against Scientologists and their religious freedoms.[14][/quote]
Jan 19, 2008 01:51 am CoS doesn't want negative attention. their goal is to spread. but many people (most people in the world) see them as a cult. potentially embarrassing internal videos are a liability. this was for members, not for the public.
what burns me is the psychiatry thing. it's church doctrine. in the second video he says 'they can't prove it,' referring to chemical imbalances being the cause of mood disorders and mental illness.
i could write 20 paragraphs here. and did. then erased them. it's too complicated to brush aside like that. the really ironic thing is that cruise is sort of right about it, but he probably doesn't actually know the reasons why. it's a coincidence in that sense.
the new theory of depression is sort of beautiful and hopeful. it's not only just chemical imbalances anymore. now it's simpler and cooler and has to do with new neural growth, as mediated by neurotransmitters, the levels of which are affected by what you do. focusing, learning, and exercising are now all definitely proven to boost neural growth in the hippocampus, the mood control room of the brain.
but as with most things, a totally black and white perspective is gonna make you look foolish (unless you're saying positive things about big ben, of course): there are tipping points all through nature. guess what major depression is? a tipping point. a threshold. go too far into it, and you will not recover easily. you are deserving, when you get to that point, of a real intervention, much like you need a shock when your heart stops. the drugs.
if people would just open their eyes, the sane perspective would be this: treat the people who fall over the cliff. get the neurotransmitters up and working again, and thereby get the neurogenesis happening again. then intervene and get them to change the way they live. anything that does the job for the person, even CoS, is fine. whatever makes it happen. but to outlaw the drugs because your religion says so? get outta my science, man. the perspective in this paragraph is the appropriate position for CoS to take. it lets them keep their philosophy while not appearing to be dark agers. me--i actually believe in psychosurgery, through drugs, thanks largely to peter kramer's book 'listening to prozac' which makes an excellent case that certain people are actually prone to sliding into this stuff, because of their genetically set temperaments. but i'll be fair and allow for another viewpoint. i just would want the user to choose. not an external authoritarian agency.
there are so many ways in which scientific illiteracy ***** up the world. it's getting late. i'm waiting for people to wake up.
p.s. the censor missed a serious word here. why?
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Jan 19, 2008 03:20 am Sounds like passionate ideas, taken too far.
I guess when they infringe on other's rights to choose their own direction, then it gets sticky.
I'll have to look into this a little more (thanks for the snip, Herb).
As far as drugs, I'm not a big fan of 'em. I can see some uses, and some examples where the benefits FAR outweigh the detriments, but mostly I avoid them as much as possible.
An interesting drug point: while I was with the missus at a doctor a while ago, he was pushing drugs to fix an ailment, while we were leaning more towards a natural approach. He looked at me totally deadpan serious, and says "Disease is Natural". I actually didn't have a response.
Later I attempted to pull the usefulness of natural vitamins and minerals out of him, and he grudgingly accepted my points. But it was like pulling teeth. He was totally convinced the only solution was FDA approved man-made chemicals. Our direction was un-acceptable to him, and he basically told us to leave: "if you're not going to use my solution, then why did you come here?".
We didn't go back.
