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

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]

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.

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]