I'm sick of whiney actors.....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well... no. I have heard them both talk about their politics but I'm not trying to prove anything here.

I've haven't heard Bruces Willis say anything in public. In fact, I didn't even know he was conservative until you said so. And the only place I've ever heard Nugent say anything was either on his reality show or on a show where he was invited as a guest.

Here's an example of Alec Baldwin using his privilige to address Congress

Here's an example of Tim Robbins abusing his privilege to gain access to the media for the purpose of imposing his opinions

Here is Sean Penn abusing his privilege of fame

Notice he starts out by saying "What is Hollywood doing here today" as if he's speaking for everyone in Hollywood.

The challenge is on you BH to produce evidence supporting your claim that Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent voiced their opinions in a public venue without solicitation or invitation.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I'm just saying they're under no obligation to shut up after their job is done. ... Why should they shut up after work? None of us do...

They are under no moral obligation to make sure sheeple know their opinion is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the rest of ours.

Really?!? Can you conjure up a news conference to voice your opinions? This is the issue. You can keep trying to argue it's their right but this is not what we're discussing here.

I believe the responsible thing for them to do is to exercise a little humility by realizing what they're doing creates an unfair advantage over others. The responsible thing for them to do is to run for public office if they want their opinions heard and acted upon.

People who run out of meaningful things to say often obfuscate the issue with meaningless comments such as yours.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If what I'm saying is so meaningless, why do you continue to respond? I'm not obfuscating. I'm discussing this issue of celebrities sharing their opinions. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm obfuscating.

It's obfuscation if you try to change the subject such as your "real people" comment or bringing up "free speech" argument. I never implied that I thought actors aren't "real people".

I will say, however, that actors are different in that they have extraordinary influence because of their notoriety and fame. I believe there is an unwritten responsibility they have to not abuse their privilige.

That's because the only thing the news media cares about are the ratings.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Agreed. So, like I said, I think your frustration is misdirected. The news media is at fault, not the actors.

If no one paid any attention to them (actors) they would be out of steam and left with little choice other than to keep quiet. But people give too much credence to what actors say and because of this the media will persue the ratings. The responsible thing for the public to do is take the same position that I'm taking here on this subject. But I suspect most are interested in what actors have to say

Notice, forestlady, he didn't say anything about the Gubenator, Arnold Schwartzenegger. Now that's a man who doesn't deserve to be in office, let alone elected. But some people in California got over their dislike of Hollywood to elect him.

Talk about steroid-induced, women-grabbing, language-garbling, motor-cycle crashing (not even having a license), union busting politics.

Does he count in this dislike of actors and actresses?

But don't count FFS out. He may be onto something.

Conservative, flip-flopping actors should never run for office, let alone governor.

Reagan and Schwartzenegger both destroyed California. They should be put among the pantheon of actors mentioned above in FFS' rant.

Sean Penn at least donated his money and time to help save lives during Hurricane Katrina. I'm glad he did. And for that he deserves to be off the list.



[edit on 26-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Here it is folks: Another hack who refuses to take the time to read the author's posts before attempting to spread his/her ignorance.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Notice, forestlady, he didn't say anything about the Gubenator, Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Like him or not at least he's got the cojones to run (AND WIN) public office instead of just whining about everything (as I paraphrase myself again!!)

Originally posted by ceci2006
Now that's a man who doesn't deserve to be in office, let alone elected. But some people in California got over their dislike of Hollywood to elect him.

Talk about steroid-induced, women-grabbing, language-garbling, motor-cycle crashing (not even having a license), union busting politics.

.....Yet; HE STILL WON!!

Originally posted by ceci2006
Conservative, flip-flopping actors should never run for office, let alone governor.

Talk about anti-American rhetoric!!

Originally posted by ceci2006
Reagan and Schwartzenegger both destroyed California. They should be put among the pantheon of actors mentioned above in FFS' rant.

Your ignorance is astounding. RU Still in primary school?

I suggest you ask some fellow Californians (who are older than 14) about what effect Jerry Brown and Gray Davis both had on that state.

BTW: Nice attempt at thread-jacking by an extremist liberalist! Go create your own thread if you wish to discuss a different topic.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Sean Penn at least donated his money and time to help save lives during Hurricane Katrina. I'm glad he did. And for that he deserves to be off the list.

I never said that Sean Penn (and others) are "bad" people. In fact; I'll even go so far to say that their behavior (as it relates to this thread) is well intentioned. Sean Penn donating his time and money to help those in need doesn't change the fact that I don't want to hear about his political views. And being a member of the military I can assure you he doesn't speak for me or most others in the military when he talks about "our sons and daughters dying in Iraq" in his anti-war rhetorical rants!


[edit on 26-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by forestlady
P.S. - If Reagan had not been allowed to express his political opinions, how the hell do you think he would have gotten elected?

There it is: More proof that extremist liberals only interpret what is convenient for them regardless of what's actually written.

On several occasions in this thread I've made the exception for actors who actually run for public office. In fact; I stipulated that to be the only time when I care to listen to what they have to say. REAGAN RAN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!!!

Originally posted by forestlady
What do you have against actors anyway? You really seem to hate actors, period. As well as liberals. You have several axes to grind, don't you?

I have no problem with actors as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and do what they're supposed to do--ACT!!

I also have no problem with moderate liberals (or moderate conservatives for that matter). It is the extremist liberals and extremist conservatives who are so wrapped around their ideology that they are incapable of understanding reason and logic that counterpoints their beliefs.

Your harping about Reagan expressing his opinions while running for public office, despite several statements I've made about this, is an example of of this phenomenon.


[edit on 26-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

There's no need to be insulting toward my answer. After all, as a member of the military, you are fighting for all of our rights of the Constitution. That especially means the First Amendment.

Speaking of, I've decided to use my First Amendment Rights and speak my peace about "whining conservative actors". You don't like whining actors. I don't like them either.

And that womanizing Bill Cosby? Don't get me started.

So, to tell you the truth, it's not anti-American rhetoric that I'm spewing. It's the truth. Face it. Arnold is a woman-terrorizing, governor who has to pay off his accusers instead of facing them in court. He didn't even have the guts to speak against his SS soldier father. And Reagan probably had Altzheimer's in the governor's seat in California as well as the White House. You don't think he honestly led the country on his own, do you?

The only thing that sets them apart from the liberal actors and actresses is that the conservative actors can't think for themselves. They had to pay for vocal coaches and speech writers to do it for them. They lack the vision or the aptitude to be leaders. In fact, others had to hold the puppet strings. Lest we forget Schwartzenegger's meeting with the infamous Ken Lay before the "recall" attempt.

And we wouldn't want to go there with the last, drawn out suffering days of the Gipper, do we? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.



[edit on 27-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Here's an example of Alec Baldwin using his privilige to address Congress

You don't have to prove that these guys are voicing their opinions to the public. I don't watch much TV but I'm not dead. I believe you.

The challenge is on you BH to produce evidence supporting your claim that Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent voiced their opinions in a public venue without solicitation or invitation.

I don't accept the challenge. I have nothing to prove. This thread (according to you) is not about whether or not celebrities do this. That's understood. It's about your belief that it is unfair that celebrities have influence and 'clout' enough to have their personal political views heard by many people. AND it seems you believe they have some sort of responsibility to keep their unsolicited political opinions to themselves.

And you have every right to have and voice those beliefs. I strongly disagree with you.

If you don't want to hear these actors, don't listen. If you use your will to choose to listen to them, then I don't understand your complaints about how unfair it is and how they're responsible to shut up when you're listening. I personally think you want them to shut up because they make a certain amount of sense and you don't want other people to start thinking about the good points these actors are making. I think you're scared.

Anyone who has an audience, whether it's an actor, a musician, a radio personality, an author (isn't writing a book just another form of voicing one's opinion?) is perfectly within their rights and moral behavior to voice their opinions. Yes, no one's forcing anyone to read a book, but no one's forcing ANYONE to listen to these actors or other celebrities.

This is a FREE SPEECH issue, whether you acknowledge that or not. Just because you don't like what they're saying, doesn't mean it's unfair.

Really?!? Can you conjure up a news conference to voice your opinions? This is the issue.

So we're discussing the "idea" that it's unfair? I don't think it's unfair. I think you're wrong. I think it's fair. What specifically makes it unfair for a person to voice their opinions to as big an audience as they can get? What's unfair about that? This is America!

I believe the responsible thing for them to do is to exercise a little humility by realizing what they're doing creates an unfair advantage over others.

And you have every right to believe that. But it is you who are having unreasonable and unfair expectations of people. They are acting fairly. They're not holding a gun at someone's head to have their opinions heard.

I never implied that I thought actors aren't "real people".

But you are implying that in using their right to free speech, they are acting unfairly. There's nothing unfair about it. No I can't conjure up a press conference. But if I wanted that kind of power and influence, I could pursue a line of work that would allow me that. This is America.

I believe there is an unwritten responsibility they have to not abuse their privilige.

Since when is speech considered a privilege? And since when is speaking to an audience considered abuse??? I believe it's only because of their liberal views that you have any problem at all. Do you feel the same about Rush Limbaugh? How about Bill O'Reilly? Ann Coulter? Charlton Heston? Do they have (or did they have) this same obligation to shut up? Or is it just actors (and not other celebrities) who have this trumped-up responsibility? If so, why? What's the difference between actors and radio personalities and authors?

The responsible thing for the public to do is take the same position that I'm taking here on this subject. But I suspect most are interested in what actors have to say

I don't give a flying crap what they say. And I disagree strongly with your idea of what is responsible! The responsible thing for the public to do is encourage and fight for EVERYONE'S free speech and secondly, the responsible thing for the public to do is to gather as much information as possible and to THINK and make our decisions for ourselves. NOT to censor people just because they happen to have a job that puts them in the public eye and NOT to blindly believe ANYONE, whether it's an actor or the president!

What you're advocating is self-censorship because "you don't think it's fair". And I cannot disagree with you more. Calling self-censorship a "responsibility" and disguising it as "humility" is one of the sickest, anti-American, Anti-Constitutional things I can think of.

I'm sorry, but I just disagree so strongly. And it's because I believe in the right and responsibility of every American, rich or poor, famous or not, right or left, religious or agnostic, black or white, to voice their opinion to anyone they wish.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by forestlady
P.S. - If Reagan had not been allowed to express his political opinions, how the hell do you think he would have gotten elected?

There it is: More proof that extremist liberals only interpret what is convenient for them regardless of what's actually written.

On several occasions in this thread I've made the exception for actors who actually run for public office. In fact; I stipulated that to be the only time when I care to listen to what they have to say. REAGAN RAN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE!!!

Originally posted by forestlady
What do you have against actors anyway? You really seem to hate actors, period. As well as liberals. You have several axes to grind, don't you?

I have no problem with actors as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and do what they're supposed to do--ACT!!

I also have no problem with moderate liberals (or moderate conservatives for that matter). It is the extremist liberals and extremist conservatives who are so wrapped around their ideology that they are incapable of understanding reason and logic that counterpoints their beliefs.

Your harping about Reagan expressing his opinions while running for public office, despite several statements I've made about this, is an example of of this phenomenon.
[edit on 26-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

It's very easy to slap the label of "extremist liberal" on me so you can dismiss what I'm saying, isn't it? But you have no idea what my political views really are, do you? In some things, I'm conservative, others I'm liberal. But you can't just pigeonhole people so you can dismiss their views, it's alot more complicated than that. And this has nothing to do with my or anyone else's politics, you yourself have said that before.

YOu know, you're missing something very important here; the fact that many, many actors donate thier time and money to alot of philanthropic causes. Don't forget the concert to raise money for Hurricane Katrina, Audrey Hepburn and her work with UNICEF, Angelina Jolie, too many to list here. They use their position to further the causes that they believe in, such as ending world hunger, raising money for victims of catastrophes, heck Bob Hope entertaining the troops every Christmas.
And Ceci, I agree with everything you said 100%. I have lived in California almost all of my life and I rememeber the Reagan regime and how he threw all of the patients in mental institutions out on the street; also how he ruined California. Arnold, on the day before the election, was found to have raped a number of women. Nice guy. And he wasn't elected, everyone in California knew that, he was railroaded in. The people of California didn't want a recall. Interesting that neither of these men have eveer done any kind of philanthropic work. But, hey, these guys are heroes because they ran for office? Please, if you want to make your case, you should have started with those two. I would agree with you there that those 2 at least, should have shut their mouths.
BTW, Reagan was quite the vocal Democrat when he was prez of the Screen Actor's Guild - way before he ever thought of running for office.

Freedom for Sum, you will never convince anyone of your views by insulting them and their intelligence. Period, end of story.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't accept the challenge. I have nothing to prove.

You asserted Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent both have made unsolicited public comments like the other actors. I'm saying I don't believe they have. The reason this may be an issue is because I believe moderately conservative and liberal actors exercise that humility I mentioned before and subscribe to that "unwritten rule" that extreme liberalist actors do not. Generally speaking; it's standard protocol to submit references that support your claim lest, you risk credibility otherwise.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This thread (according to you) is not about whether or not celebrities do this.

Wrong!! I've repeated myself several times now proclaiming this thread is NOT about whether they have the right to do this. I have to do this because you and others keep emphasizing this as the issue. It isn't.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's about your belief that it is unfair that celebrities have influence and 'clout' enough to have their personal political views heard by many people.

What specifically makes it unfair for a person to voice their opinions to as big an audience as they can get? What's unfair about that? This is America!

AND it seems you believe they have some sort of responsibility to keep their unsolicited political opinions to themselves.

I think you're starting to get it. It is because of their fame (that I helped them achieve) that they are able to reach a wider audience.

To me; there's little difference than an equally qualified black person getting the same job I'm applying for because of affirmative action. It is his/her equal right to have that job but an unfair advantage if they get that job as a result of preferential hiring because of race.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you don't want to hear these actors, don't listen. If you use your will to choose to listen to them, then I don't understand your complaints about how unfair it is...

It has nothing to do with my will. It has everything to do with the exposure they get (because of their notoriety) when I'm trying to get caught up on the news. I'm put into a position where I have to switch to another channel to get away from ignorant blathering.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I personally think you want them to shut up because they make a certain amount of sense and you don't want other people to start thinking about the good points these actors are making. I think you're scared.

This is a FREE SPEECH issue, whether you acknowledge that or not. Just because you don't like what they're saying, doesn't mean it's unfair.

Darn!! I thought we were getting on the same page. Back to the "Free Speech mantra ((sigh!! :@@)

It has little to do with their message or whether I like it. As proof, I've stated a few times now that this applies to ALL actors; liberal AND conservative. This is why I keep asking you to provide a reference about Ted and Bruce. It is you who keeps bringing up whether or nor I agree with these actors. This leads me to believe that you keep mentioning their right to speech only because you agree with them because the most vociferous actors are liberal.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Anyone who has an audience, whether it's an actor, a musician, a radio personality, an author (isn't writing a book just another form of voicing one's opinion?) is perfectly within their rights and moral behavior to voice their opinions. Yes, no one's forcing anyone to read a book, but no one's forcing ANYONE to listen to these actors or other celebrities.

Repeat after me: We're NOT discussing their rights ((getting out recorder to save my voice))

A book is very much like the author having his/her own television/radio show. It sits there QUIETLY on the book shelf at Borders just as a television show exists quietly on the channels until it's deliberately selected for viewing and listening.

I won't deliberately select the station if I know some actor will be interviewed or is giving a speech. It's rediculous when I'm forced to change the station when I was perfectly happy just moments before.

I believe there is an unwritten responsibility they have to not abuse their privilige.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Since when is speech considered a privilege? And since when is speaking to an audience considered abuse???

The privilege I'm speaking of relates to their status of fame and notoriety. They have no right to that because they can be stripped of their fame if they lose their fan base. And they would have no legal recourse (ie: no constitutional guarantee to get their fame back).

You seem to be unable to argue your point (for the actors' expression of their unsolicited opinions) without bringing up the Constitution; despite the fact I've stated, repeatedly, that I'm not arguing whether it's their right. I am asking you to use logic and reason to explain why they shouldn't exercise humility in the way they express their opinions.

It's really an issue of public display and I offer this as an analogy: Let's consider a woman one could easily find within the pages of Playboy who provocatively dresses in a revealing manner (none of the "sensitive" areas exposed directly). She decides to take a walk in public touring by several schools, primary and secondary, along the way. She's not breaking any laws and, is in fact, well within her rights to do so.

Now I, as a man, would likely enjoy such a spectacle. But don't you think there's an element of humility that's not being respected here? Some might be offended by her display. Likewise; I'm offended by much of what these actors say. Yet I apply the "rules of humility" to everyone; including conservative actors and, UHEM, this woman.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe it's only because of their liberal views that you have any problem at all.

Again; it's not their views or their message. It's the manner (using their fame) in which they express it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you feel the same about Rush Limbaugh?

Has his own show and is entitled to say what he wants.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How about Bill O'Reilly?

Has his own show and is entitled to say what he wants

BTW: I think O'Rielly and is difficult to watch because of his interviewing techniques. So I don't watch his show that often.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ann Coulter?

Is frequently invited on shows to express her opinions.

BTW: I can't stand Ann Coulter. I consider her to be an extremist conservative.

You forgot Al Franken.

He HAD his own show and when he did he was entitled to say what he wanted.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Charlton Heston?

Was NRA president and expected to give his views on the constitutional right of gun ownership. If you were offended by these views being aired in public when you weren't expecting it; well I can understand.

What association is Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, or Tim Robbins president of? (Not a rhetorical Question) If you know of such an association; please tell me.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You asserted Bruce Willis and Ted Nugent both have made unsolicited public comments like the other actors.

Actually, I didn't. Here's what I said:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I notice you didn't mention vocal conservatives Bruce Willis or Ted Nugent and their "worthless and mundane" opinions.

Ted Nugent

In the 1990s, Nugent found he could use his effervescent persona and his modicum of fame to articulate his singularly alarming worldview through any medium he could get a hold of.
...
[He] found that people would listen to his pro-gun, right-wing, anti-gay, sexist, anti-liberal, meat-eating, bowhunting, nationalistic spoken word rants.
...
He also has a thing about making sure the world knows whose opinion on matters of choice matters most, explaining on a Detroit radio show that, “Anybody that doesn’t think it is better to blow someone’s brains out than to be raped, deserves to be raped! If you don’t think your life is worth it then please go out there, don’t wear any underpants and get RAPED!! Cuz you deserve it…” (WRIF-FM, Detroit, Nugent as guest D.J., September 23, 1991).

Bruce Willis

Action hero Bruce Willis pledged on-air to offer $1 million to any civilian who turns in Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (bounties payable to military personnel are not allowed). In 2003, Willis put out a similar million dollar contract on the capture of Saddam Hussein.
...
Mr. Willis doesn't get any more of a free pass to political relevance than soapbox-perched entertainers, but his money is certainly as green as anyone else's. Therein lies the qualitative difference between bemoaning national policy from one's celebrity spotlight and what Willis is doing.

Now... Is it "unfair" that Bruce has this money to throw around? Because likely, you helped him make it... And I love how this story is spun to make his political views seem righteous compared to the other actors who don't throw money at some issue or another...

I'm saying I don't believe they have.

Then I wonder how I know about their political views? (Although I believe Bruce is turning around on 9/11). If your point is that extreme liberal and extreme conservative people tend to be vocal about their politics whenever they get a chance.... well... Duh!

If you're saying you don't like it, that's fine.

It's when you start making the judgment that their actions are unfair or morally lacking or indicate a lack of humility, that's where we disagree. I think it's perfectly fine for them to get their message out there any way they wish. I DON'T think it's a lack of humility.

To me; there's little difference than an equally qualified black person getting the same job I'm applying for because of affirmative action. It is his/her equal right to have that job but an unfair advantage if they get that job as a result of preferential hiring because of race.

If he's equally qualified, then he deserves the job, same as you. Regardless why they decide on him, if he's equally qualified, there's no unfairness. If he was less qualified, then you'd get my sympathy vote.

To carry your analogy in a different direction, if you were as famous as Jane Fonda, but the news show wouldn't let you express your opinion on their show, THAT would be unfair.

The reason this may be an issue is because I believe moderately conservative and liberal actors exercise that humility I mentioned before and subscribe to that "unwritten rule" that extreme liberalist actors do not.

I've never heard about this "unwritten rule" to keep your mouth shut...

Generally speaking; it's standard protocol to submit references that support your claim lest, you risk credibility otherwise.

I'm willing to take the risk. But see above.

I have to switch to another channel to get away from ignorant blathering.

Welcome to the world of TV viewing. If you don't like what's on, you either contact the channel or turn the TV.

This leads me to believe that you keep mentioning their right to speech only because you agree with them...

As I stated long ago, I haven't even heard what they're saying! How could I agree with them?

I am asking you to use logic and reason to explain why they shouldn't exercise humility in the way they express their opinions.

Well, then listen to me. I DISAGREE with you that it's a matter of humility. I can't explain what you're asking of me because I don't agree with your premise. I don't agree that those who don't share their opinions are doing so out of some exercise of humility.

Now I, as a man, would likely enjoy such a spectacle. But don't you think there's an element of humility that's not being respected here?

Not necessarily. If she's comfortable being minimally dressed in public, and she's not breaking the law, I support her 100% and I don't make the judgment that she should be as hung up about sexuality as most people are. I don't think she "should" feel ashamed.

Some might be offended by her display.

I would say that's their problem. People get offended far too easily in my opinion.

Likewise; I'm offended by much of what these actors say. Yet I apply the "rules of humility" to everyone; including conservative actors and, UHEM, this woman.

Well, you can apply these "unwritten" "rules of humility" to anyone you please. I do not. I think people should make their own rules as long as they're legal, and NOT try to live according to others' expectations.

Is frequently invited on shows to express her opinions.

You don't think these actors are invited on shows to express their opinions? You think they've got a gun at the producer's head? Just like Ann Coulter, the actors are invited on the shows. And I believe I said long ago your frustration is misplaced. Why don't you hold these news shows responsible for the guests they schedule?

If you were offended by these views being aired in public when you weren't expecting it; well I can understand.

I wasn't. I totally support the second Amendment. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't be offended by someone voicing their opinions about it and I would support them addressing as wide an audience as they could get.

As said we're doing the exact same thing the only difference is we don't have the same spotlight or channels to voice our opinions into.

At the end of the day strip down the fact they entertain people or are thus meant to in movies and have lot's of money etc. they are just human beings like the rest of us and who is one human being to silence another from speaking?

Again you may not want to hear someones opinion or thoughts yet that does not make them any less valid for other people may want to hear them and going back to having money being 'famous' etc. Some people want to hear these peoples opinions especially because face it alot of people want to be rich and successful and have fans and be elevated like them and to hear them have problems and moan and maybe share some of the same opinions.

You know why? it's cause people can them judge them against themselves it gives them the chance to think they're lives are just that bit better or makes them think hmmmmm i wanna do that or think about things differently. That's why the cult of celebrity exists and you can't escape it at the moment for the masses always need a standard to aspire to be, judge against, be entertained by etc.

It's the hope that hey there normal or there whiny bitches i should have what they have i wouldn't complain that keeps these people in the spotlight and keeps some people reading about them and they in turn entertain them with more this and that like an endless cycle

for example Britney's breakdown entertaining it makes them feel better about themselves. I aint going to go into it but again it's highlights what i've metioned above.

You see deep down most people want to be like or better than these actors and celebs so that's why you'll continue to hear about them cause without the people they are nothing.

Here is a whole list of Hollywood conservatives that
Freedom for sum chose to overlook.

www.freerepublic.com...

I hope each and every one of these notables expresses him/her self in anyway the see fit; In any forum or lack there of.

Liberal, Conservative, or wacked out crazy.

Freedom of expression for ALL regardless of occupation, political leaning or sexual orientation or shoe size.

In never ceases to amaze me that the ideology of Sum seeks to restrict the freedom of expression that our founding fathers envisioned.


God help us!!!

Haha... Just to lighten the mood a bit. At least they aren't talking about that gold digger Anna 24/7... Here we are on the verge of sending troops into Iran and that's all I can find in the main stream media...

Originally posted by whaaa

Freedom of expression for ALL regardless of occupation, political leaning or sexual orientation or shoe size.

Exactly, Whaaa, I couldn't have said it better. That sums up the whole thing. I agree with everything you said.

Like it or not actors indeed anybody else has the right to voice thier opinions irregardless. Each person also has the right indeed the obligations to listen to all aspects of an issue study and reach thier own opinion which may or may not be in accord with yours, mine or anybody else's. I'm not obligated to listen to anyone's opinion or agree with it. I do however feel an obligation to educate myself on issues by doing my own research and reaching my own conclusion. These public figures are expressing themselves as they have the right to do. FFS I really feel that you are the one who is giving their opinions far more weight then they actually deserve.

Please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors as I'm very tired only 6 hours of sleep in 48; I'm a little punchy.

Originally posted by whaaa
Freedom of expression for ALL regardless of occupation, political leaning or sexual orientation or shoe size.

In never ceases to amaze me that the ideology of Sum seeks to restrict the freedom of expression that our founding fathers envisioned.

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Like it or not actors indeed anybody else has the right to voice thier opinions irregardless. Each person also has the right indeed the obligations to listen to all aspects of an issue study and reach thier own opinion which may or may not be in accord with yours, mine or anybody else's.

I am amazed; astounded even; by the degree to which the minds here are so lockstep in ideology that they are too impotent to understand, despite my repeatedly saying so, that NOBODY, including me, has advocated that they (actors) don't have the right to free speech!!

Absolutely amazing!! And it highlights perfectly the degree to which America is so divided culturally; left and right; while those, like myself, who are in the middle, and stuck to watch the ensuing train wreck!! It's like a person of religion who latches onto the bible when they perceive their Jesus/God sentiments have been violated.

It's such an extreme degree of closed mindedness; in my view.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Ok FFS let's see if I can make myself a little clearer. I don't believe anybody is saying you don't believe in Freedom of Speech; what I believe is being commented on is your percieved belief that they don't have the right or at least they shouldn't speak their minds publically. That is the aspect I at least,have the most problem with. They do indeed have the right to call press conferences at state their beliefs where ever they wish just as we have the right to either pay attention to them or ignore them. Frankly most of the time I ignore them.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I am amazed; astounded even; the degree to which minds here our so lockstep in ideology that they are too impotent to understand, despite repeatedly saying so, that NOBODY, including me, has advocated that they (actors) don't have the right to free speech!!

I understand that. You're acknowledging their right to speak, you just think they should be "humble" enough not to. Right?

And it highlights perfectly the degree to which America is so divided culturally; left and right; while those, like myself, who are in the middle, and stuck to watch the ensuing train wreck!!

You're assuming. We aren't simply right or left. I'm neither right nor left. Depending on the particular issue, I can be either way. All it indicates is that we don't understand your position. You say they have the right to speak, but shouldn't exercise it... Admit it, that's pretty confusing...

And I'd like you to address the point you made that Ann Coulter is invited on these shows and I pointed out that so is every actor that appears there.

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Ok FFS let's see if I can make myself a little clearer.

I'm sad to say you didn't because first you say:

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
I don't believe anybody is saying you don't believe in Freedom of Speech;

Then you say:

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
...what I believe is being commented on is your percieved belief that they don't have the right

(Bold added for emphasis)

And then you attempt to back pedal:

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
...or at least they shouldn't speak their minds publically.

Niether of which I've ever said.

Then, of course, you add:

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
They do indeed have the right to call press conferences at state their beliefs ...

As if I said they don't have the right to state their beliefs (which I never did).

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
:

As if I said they don't have the right to state their beliefs (which I never did).

Yes you did!!!

Actually this is what you said Freedom for sum.......



I suggest if they want to make their opinions public that they put their name on a ticket somewhere and run for public office. Otherwise; they should keep their little opinions in their own little circles and keep their mouths shut in the public forum; stay on the silver screen; and utter not one sound other than what they read from a script.


keep their mouths shut in the public forum..

This sounds like censorship to me unless you are in a public office.

Lest we forget Schwartzenegger's meeting with the infamous Ken Lay before the "recall" attempt.

It was a recall that was supported by just about the entire state ofCalifornia. There was no 'attempt' about it. And it was Davis' own fault.

As far as 'ken lay' goes - JOHN KERRY and his wifepoo used to have Ken Lay over for dinner in their mansions. They were buds.

The Govenator may, or may not, have had an official meeting with Ken Lay - But John Kerry broke bread with the man ... in his own home .... many times.

wonder what the conversation was about? Considering that Terry Kerry owns all that Wal-Mart stock, it could have been some interesting business advice!



[edit on 3/28/2007 by FlyersFan]