Tom Cruise Babbles like a Narcissistic Maniac about Scientology

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Several years ago, Tom Cruise did help a bag lady out apparently. I read the story in the newspaper sometime around 1994.

She was hit by a car somewhere in LA and no one was stopping to help her. Tom Cruise not only brought her to the hospital, but he supposedly paid her medical bills. I'm not sure if this story on the internet anywhere.

A little off-topic, but I searched for this story. Didn't find it, but I did find something pretty spectacular.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Several years ago, Tom Cruise did help a bag lady out apparently. I read the story in the newspaper sometime around 1994.

She was hit by a car somewhere in LA and no one was stopping to help her. Tom Cruise not only brought her to the hospital, but he supposedly paid her medical bills. I'm not sure if this story on the internet anywhere.

He anonymously - but later famously - reached into his pocket and dropped $5,000 in cash into a can in a small store in an obscure town in America where he was filming, the can there for a young girl who needed help financially for an operation. That was about two years ago.

But . . . . . Scientology is just plain crazy ass nutso stuff.
Cowperson

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

He anonymously - but later famously - reached into his pocket and dropped $5,000 in cash into a can in a small store in an obscure town in America where he was filming, the can there for a young girl who needed help financially for an operation. That was about two years ago.

But . . . . . Scientology is just plain crazy ass nutso stuff.
Cowperson

If one is as rich as Tom Cruise, should this not be expected? Most of us do not have the opportunity to give huge sums of money away to those who need it most. If we could, would we? How great would things be if this was the norm and not the exception?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If one is as rich as Tom Cruise, should this not be expected?

Absolutely not.

If he does, good for him for making that choice.

If he doesn't, that's his business.

Anything above zero is a credit to him, not fulfilling some sort of obligation other members of society have arbitrarily placed on him.

He didn't have to put $5,000 into that can. He did and walked out of the store. Someone saw him do it, ratted him out and the press tracked him down, sort of like Iginla putting those guys at the Salt Lake Olympics up in a hotel. Do I place an expectation on Iginla to be putting fans up in hotels? No.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Anything above zero is a credit to him, not fulfilling some sort of obligation other members of society have arbitrarily placed on him.

Who has place some sort of obligation on him?

If he puts 5 grand in the can then good for him. I don't think he deserves a pat on the back for it though. At least no more than I deserve a pat on the back for donating 5 bucks to the Heart Foundation.

He makes more than 5 grand eating a banana on the set of some crappy movie. It's nothing to him. Like 5 bucks to the rest of us, if that.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who has place some sort of obligation on him?

.

Textric . . . . in the post above.

If he puts 5 grand in the can then good for him.

I believe I said that. And only that.

Cowperson

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Absolutely not.

If he does, good for him for making that choice.

If he doesn't, that's his business.

Anything above zero is a credit to him, not fulfilling some sort of obligation other members of society have arbitrarily placed on him.

He didn't have to put $5,000 into that can. He did and walked out of the store. Someone saw him do it, ratted him out and the press tracked him down, sort of like Iginla putting those guys at the Salt Lake Olympics up in a hotel. Do I place an expectation on Iginla to be putting fans up in hotels? No.

Cowperson

interestingly combining the 2 stories, and I"ve mentioned this before, I did see a then relatively unknown (circa 2000) Jarome Iginla deposit a huge wad of cash into one of those donation cans in an (nearly vacant) Ottawa hotel lobby. there was no way he knew anyone was watching him , or knew who he was, and he was definitely the only Flame who did it

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Textric . . . . in the post above.

Well maybe. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but he did just say it is "expected". I don't know if there is anything wrong with that. We "expect" pretty much everyone to do just a little bit. I "expect" someone with 250 million bucks to donate to charity, just like I expect myself to do the same even though I only have 25 dollars (in change).

If it came about that he donated exactly zero dollars to charity in 2007 wouldn't you think he's a cheapskate? I would, so I guess I expect him to spread a bit of it around.

[flamesfever]

I think there has always been an unwritten expectation on members of society to help those in need.

We either do it personally, or get the government to do it via our taxes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well maybe. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but he did just say it is "expected". I don't know if there is anything wrong with that. We "expect" pretty much everyone to do just a little bit. I "expect" someone with 250 million bucks to donate to charity, just like I expect myself to do the same even though I only have 25 dollars (in change).

If it came about that he donated exactly zero dollars to charity in 2007 wouldn't you think he's a cheapskate? I would, so I guess I expect him to spread a bit of it around.

This is more in line with what I was getting at. Put it this way: those with the means to give extravagantly who are not doing so are contributing more to what is wrong with this world than they are to fixing it.

I agree to an extent with Cowperson: Good for Tom Cruise to give so much: but this is somewhat relative, is it not? Is it any different than if I give pocket change to someone needing bus fare? It is called human decency, and my point is that we don't see enough of it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If it came about that he donated exactly zero dollars to charity in 2007 wouldn't you think he's a cheapskate?

Nope. But that's just me.

But I'll give you another story. . . . . in one of my old inherited National Geographic magazines, one from about 1964, on a story about Pittsburgh if I recall correctly, there is a picture of the president of Coca-Cola at the time and the notation that he was known locally as "Mr. Anonymous Donor."

I've always thought that would be a rather fantastic nickname to have, although somewhat self-defeating if you've acquired it.

This is more in line with what I was getting at. Put it this way: those with the means to give extravagantly who are not doing so are contributing more to what is wrong with this world than they are to fixing it.

I disagree . . . . as per above. I place no expectation on anyone to contribute back to society. But that's just me.

As a sidebar to a thread hijack, you could belong to the 50% club, those who give away at least 50% of their wealth or their income to charitable works.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe...begins_at_50_/

EDIT: Who contributed more to society . . . Mother Theresa or Bill Gates: The Moral Instinct http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/ma...e0a&ei=5087%0A

Cowperson

[Cheese]

thought id share this link...funny as hell..

Tom Cruise is Nuts

[Cowperson]

The obligatory hilarious "Tom Bomb" column in the New York Post, reacting to the video in question:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008...omb_370956.htm

Cowperson

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The obligatory hilarious "Tom Bomb" column in the New York Post, reacting to the video in question:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008...omb_370956.htm

Cowperson

From the article:

They've taken the kids from pop slut Britney Spears

Thats quite the strong language, even for the new york post.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by troutman

Video is no longer available. Scientology lawyers are already on the case. Don't answer your door or phone today

Got this off the Heathens website re Scientology lawyers...

Scientology tends to go straight to the attorneys (usually the Moxon & Kobrin firm run by unindicted co-conspirator Kendrick Moxon and frivolous complaint filer Helena Kobrin, where Ava Paquette is an attorney). They don't necessarily hit everything all at once, because they usually turn things around very quickly and issue cease-and-desist notices or DMCA notices as they come across a need for them. At the peak of the Scientology v. the Internet war in the mid-nineties, lots of people on alt.religion.scientology were posting a two-line fair use excerpt from OT7 ("1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them individually until you know they received your communication. 2. Go to a zoo or a place with many types of life and communicate with each of them until you know the communication is received and, if possible, returned.") in order to get a cease-and-desist notice from Kobrin or Paquette, referred to as a "Kobringram" or an "Avagram," respectively. (You can see an example here.) This same excerpt was quoted in the Washington Post, and Scientology sued the Post as part of their case against former Scientologist Arnie Lerma and his ISP; Lerma posted much more extensive examples of Scientology-copyrighted material and lost his case. The Post, for their part, won, and Judge Brinkema declared that Scientology had lost its trade secret protection of this material, making fair-use excerpts like the one I just gave completely legal.

A pseudonymous musician using the name "Enturbulator 009" or the "El Queso Allstars" put out some Scientology-criticizing music that includes an excellent song called "Avagram." ("Ron Got Penetrated" is another very good one that uses cleverly edited samples of L. Ron Hubbard). You can find that here.

I wrote an article about Scientology vs. the Internet for Skeptic magazine which is online here, with a lesser known update here.

[Kjesse]

Videos! Videos!

Tom does good works. He makes some good movies. And he's really.... strange.

So what? The world needs something interesting, and he fits the bill.

http://www.lulu.tv//vlog/Freedomfighter1955

[TheDragon]

It's been reposted a few times, for those of you who might have missed it the first time. Hurray for the New Media. They're the same interview, just seperate videos in case they get taken down again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mCYZBplhvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9ll1BOvfI

Or you can just follow Delgar's link!

[troutman]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2hubbard1.html

With the Church of Scientology's legal battalion threatening litigation over the widespread posting of that creepy Tom Cruise video, we thought it was the perfect time to reprise one of our favorite memos, this one from L. Ron Hubbard's FBI file. The February 1963 document summarizes information contained in the bureau's files about the Scientology founder, including contacts Hubbard made with the agency and the Department of Justice. The memo, an excerpt of which you'll find below, notes that Hubbard had corresponded on several occasions with federal agents, apprising them about "complaints about his wife and about alleged communists." But it was a lengthy May 1951 letter that was singled out in the FBI memo-surely because the claims in that missive were insane and clearly indicative of Hubbard's raging lunacy. Read the memo for Hubbard's delusional claims about an early-morning attack in his apartment and the related coronary thrombosis.

[Hack&Lube]

Wow I've just found the entire video. That part we all saw was only part 2/6 of the entire thing. It's utterly ridiculous. You can see the whole video here! Save and spread this around the internet (perhaps reupload it to other video sites) before Scientology's lawyers shut it down!

http://www.lulu.tv//vlog/Freedomfighter1955

[Resolute 14]

The irony here is that by fighting so hard to get rid of the video, the cult has made it newsworthy. In the guise of presenting the news, and enlightening the public, the cult has just given the media a legally protected fair use claim to the video.

Good job, dummies.