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

This is from the Media Matters website. They checked the allegations of John Kerry. Both sides need to be presented:

FOX's Brian Wilson distorted Kerry connection to Lay and Enron

Wilson's remarks echoed Republican Party talking points, which surfaced the same day Kerry denounced the delay in indicting Lay while on the campaign trail. As The New York Times reported on July 10, "Steven Schmidt, a Bush spokesman, said: 'The Kerry campaign's political attack is baseless and hypocritical. Ten months after Enron went bankrupt, Ken Lay was dining at Kerry's Georgetown home.'"

While it is true that Lay and Heinz Kerry both served on The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economic and the Environment Board of Trustees -- which includes, according to The New York Times, "representatives of government, scientists, environmentalists and businesspeople" -- all board members were invited to attend the dinner (to which Wilson referred) at the Kerrys' Georgetown residence on September 23, 2002.

Wilson's second piece of evidence suggesting ties between Kerry and Lay was that the Kerrys owned "more than $250,000 in Enron stock before the company's collapse." However, Wilson neglected to mention how long before the company's collapse the Kerrys sold their stock in Enron. As the Boston Herald reported, the stock was sold in 1997 -- four years before the company's collapse.

As for the Gubenator:

The Frame Around Arnold

This frame hides the national Republican effort over several years to make Davis look bad by hurting the California economy. It hides the fact that energy deregulation was brought in by Republican governor Pete Wilson. It ignores the fact that there was no real "energy crisis." It resulted from thievery by Enron and other heavy Bush contributors, thievery that was protected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission run by Bush appointees. The Bush administration looked the other way while California was being bilked and went to great lengths not to help California financially in any of the many ways the federal government can help. Arnold had had a meeting with Ken Lay and other energy executives in spring 2001 when Lay was promoting deregulation, but denies any complicity in the theft. Arnold is now promoting energy deregulation again.

It also ignores the fact that California's Republican legislature also went out of its way to make Davis look bad, refusing to support reasonable measures for dealing with the budget problems. It ignores the fact that the recall petition was paid for by a wealthy conservative legislator and that signature gatherers were paid handsomely and that some signatures were from out of state, which is illegal. And it ignores the enormous amount of money and organization put into the Schwartzenegger campaign by Republicans. This was no simple popular revolution. Most of all, the "Voter Revolt" frame does not explain why Schwartzenegger should have been the candidate chosen.

And more about the Gubenator's "appointment":

ENRON: Washington's Number One Behind-the-Scenes GATS Negotiator

The recent deregulation of energy services in the U.S. became a major demonstration case of Enron's political clout, as well as perhaps a major clue as to how the new GATS rule making could play out on the international scene. Known as the 'Enron Bill' in D.C. circles, Sen. Tom Delay's legislative package called for a national deregulation of energy, particularly electricity. To strengthen their position, a series of moves were made in regards to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. First, CEO Ken Lay and other Enron officials interviewed prospective candidates to fill vacancies on the Commission and President Bush chose two people recommended by Enron. Then, the New York Times revealed on May 26, 2001 that Lay himself wrote to the Commission Chair, Curtis Hebert, saying that if Mr. Hebert changed his views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him in his new job. Hebert was reportedly offended by Enron's move, refused the offer and feared for his job. Again, on May 26th, Ken Lay met with actor Arnold Schwartzenegger, LA Mayor Richard Riordan, and former junk bond dealer and fraud convict, Michael Milken, to drum up support for Enron's deregulation solution to what then appeared to be America's looming energy crisis.

Meanwhile, Enron was able to reap huge profits from the California energy crisis. When sudden energy shortages translated into massive cost increases, major suppliers of commercial and industrial energy like Enron were able to cash-in big time. In the last quarter of 2000, Enron raked in $377 million in profits, largely due to the California energy crisis. The market should be even more deregulated, argue Enron officials, to allow 'demand' and 'supply' forces to resolve the ongoing energy crisis. A cartel of corporations, including Enron, are now being investigated by California state officials for holding back the supply of power through plant shutdowns in order to spike prices and profits. In addition, the Los Angeles Times has reported that the CEOs of energy corporations took advantage of the California crisis to pocket unusually high options transactions themselves. Enron's Ken Lay, for example, is reported to have netted $123 million in 2000, which is three times higher than his 1999 take and ten times higher than what his 1998 figures.

Interesting to say the least. And thanks for the agreement, forestlady.




[edit on 28-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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]

Flyers Fan, I have lived in California my whole life (until recently) and I was there when the whole Ahnold thing went down. Everything that is in Ceci's last post is exactly true. I remember backin 1989 or 90 when energy deregulation was first proposed in California. (under Pete Wilson) I said "this will be the end of California". And it was. During the Enron bilking, I paid $300 a month just for heating - that didn't include anything else, just heating. Previously, it had been $100 or less and then it suddenly shot up. Gray Davis tried mightly, albeit in vain, to get the Feds to help. Then he initiated a lawsuit against Enron, to no avail. It was done to make him look bad. Next thing, ya know, there's a recall. Everyone I knew in CA said "What the f---?" Davis was not unpopular in CA. Even the hard core Republicans, like my family, don't like Arnold - they think he's an utter joke and an embarrasment to California. NOBODY takes him seriuoslly as a gov. He was foisted upon CA without our permission or say so, he WASN'T fairly elected, the election was rigged. There were also many people who worked as "voter registrars" and asked for signatures on petitions for various measures. However, the person would give you utterly wrong information to make it look like a good proposal but it wasn't. And there you have it, stolen election.

There has never been a Democratic actor who so much as sought an office, but there have been Republican actors who ran for office. Hmm, wonder why that is.

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

On political topics; Correct!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You say they have the right to speak, but shouldn't exercise it... Admit it, that's pretty confusing...

I'm saying that, because of their fame and notoriety, they should exercise restraint and humility when it comes to expressing their polital stance in an uninvited, unsolicited, public forum (that is to say IF they love America).

Here, I believe, is the crux of the problem: While we, in the US, have access to some foriegn, but still very limited, media outlets; the rest of the world has (with some exceptions) full access. At least foriegn governments have full access and often only release filtered news content to its public as it suits their political agenda (specifically Middle East countries and other socialist countries such as Venezuela).

When extremist actors make public comments that relate to Bush being a war criminal; or that the US is an expansionist (imperialist) country; or that America is fighting for oil (all of which are untrue) these countries I mentioned latch on to those statements and present them to their respective public.

The general public of these countries watch many movies made in America. When they see famous actors, from movies for which they hold high regard, spout anti-American rhetoric; it hurts our image and our military and diplomatic efforts overseas. In fact; many foriegn countries count the opinions of famous anti-Americans to present to their public.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Often they are. They get invited to give their opinion and I'll likely know ahead of time so as to prepare myself to either hear what foolish rhetoric they're going to say or (most likely) change the channel.

But who do you think invited them to show up at the DC anti-war rally to "share" their opinions? I can tell you: No one!! They just showed up. And how do you think they knew of the Rally? I can tell you that too!! The organizers of that rally is the "Workers' World Party"; a Socialist; anti- Capitalist (read: anti-American) organization who's words often are as vitriolic as those of Hugo Chavez (of Venezuela) and Ahmadinejad (of Iran).

Until I started writing this specific post (in response to BH) I had never heard of the "Workers' World Party". But now that I took the little time necessary to learn of the organizers of that rally I now understand who they are and pretty much what they're about. I only was interested in finding out who the organizers were because Sean Penn and Tim Robbins spoke there.

Yep; they're free to speak all they want. In my view, though; because of their fame and notoriety; and because they are viewed by many in the US and the world, as spokemen for America; I consider what they do as treasonous.

I think it's completely ironic that, despite deriving their success based on American principles (Capitalism), they choose to attend an event sponsored by such an anti-American group

When they foist their opinions the way they do they are hiding behind the veil of free speech for the sole purpose of commiting treason.

Again; I want to iterate: If they feel their position is that important, actors should run for public office. Otherwise; they should keep their poitical opinions to themselves or their own private circles.

BTW: MOST actors do stay out of the political limelight. it's only the vociferous and vitriolic few that don't.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
But who do you think invited them to show up at the DC anti-war rally to "share" their opinions? I can tell you: No one!! They just showed up.

And how do you think they knew of the Rally? I can tell you that too!! The organizers of that rally is the "Workers' World Party"; a Socialist; anti- Capitalist (read: anti-American) organization who's words often are as vitriolic as those of Hugo Chavez (of Venezuela) and Ahmadinejad (of Iran).[edit on 28-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

Once again, Freedom, you are dead wrong. I have organized protests and been in many and I can tell you that speakers never just "show up". They are invited, always. If they offer their services as a speaker, the organizers are always glad to accept their offer, as they are valuable spokespeople for their cause.
Your next paragraph makes no sense. So the organizers were WWP? How does that let the actors know of the protest? You're grasping at straws. (BTW, Bush is a war criminal; the U.S. is imperalistic and we are fighting for oil.) But maybe because you refuse to listen to what actors are saying, you don't know this?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'm saying that, because of their fame and notoriety, they should exercise restraint and humility when it comes to expressing their polital stance in an uninvited, unsolicited, public forum (that is to say IF they love America).

And who made up this rule? You? Yes. They make no such agreement when they become famous. They are under no such obligation. There is no unwritten rule except in your mind.

And if it's a public forum, no explicit invitation is required. It's understood that ANYONE (even if they're famous) is invited to speak.

Here, I believe, is the crux of the problem: While we, in the US, have access to some foriegn, but still very limited, media outlets; the rest of the world has (with some exceptions) full access. At least foriegn governments have full access and often only release filtered news content to its public as it suits their political agenda (specifically Middle East countries and other socialist countries such as Venezuela).

I'm sorry, I can only laugh at this... There's so much wrong in that paragraph, I can't even address it.

When extremist actors make public comments that relate to Bush being a war criminal; or that the US is an expansionist (imperialist) country; or that America is fighting for oil (all of which are untrue) these countries I mentioned latch on to those statements and present them to their respective public.

It's is only your opinion that those comments aren't true. Many people think they are true and have pretty good evidence to back up their opinions.

The general public of these countries watch many movies made in America. When they see famous actors, from movies for which they hold high regard, spout anti-American rhetoric; it hurts our image and our military and diplomatic efforts overseas. In fact; many foriegn countries count the opinions of famous anti-Americans to present to their public.

And, as has been touched on, you'd be just as upset if it were what you consider to be "pro-American propaganda" going out over the airwaves for all foreign people to see. Uh-huh... Yeah... riiiight...

Often they are. They get invited to give their opinion and I'll likely know ahead of time so as to prepare myself to either hear what foolish rhetoric they're going to say or (most likely) change the channel.

Now, is it YOU that don't want to hear it or the poor ignorant people in the foreign countries you're worried about? If it's you, as I said, welcome to the world of TV viewership. We all see stupid things on TV and have to change the channel. (Oh, the inhumanity!) What makes you think the TV should cater to you? About half the people in the US agree with this "foolish rhetoric" you're talking about. Otherwise, these "extremists" as you call them wouldn't be on TV!

But who do you think invited them to show up at the DC anti-war rally to "share" their opinions? I can tell you: No one!!

You're wrong! Everyone was invited.

Yep; they're free to speak all they want. In my view, though; because of their fame and notoriety; and because they are viewed by many in the US and the world, as spokemen for America; I consider what they do as treasonous.

Well, you're free to think of it as treasonous. Maybe you should call someone and report them. See, if it really was treasonous and not just a regular everyday exercise of Free Speech, they'd be in jail! But think they're treasonous. That's your right.

I think it's completely ironic that, despite deriving their success based on American principles (Capitalism), they choose to attend an event sponsored by such an anti-American group

It's a very American thing to do to question and criticise the government.

Again; I want to iterate: If they feel their position is that important, actors should run for public office. Otherwise; they should keep their poitical opinions to themselves or their own private circles.

Maybe you should run for office so you can shut them up.

I'm sorry, your argument is just silly. You're obviously angry that liberals are out there spouting off their "liberal agenda" for the whole world to hear and as much as you try to make it about humility and responsibility, your argument is totally transparent. You want to shut these people up because you disagree with what they're saying. If it were a country singer with a "Let's all get together and fight the towel-heads" song, you'd be singing it from the top of your roof and praising all the famous people who spoke about it.

Sorry...

Originally posted by forestlady
(BTW, Bush is a war criminal; the U.S. is imperalistic and we are fighting for oil.) But maybe because you refuse to listen to what actors are saying, you don't know this?

Really? Then why hasn't the newly elected DEMOCRATIC congress impeached him and place him on a war crimes tribunal? They can't!! Because he's not war criminal!!! And please explain how flush your gas tank or home heating system has become with Iraqi oil?? You enjoying those great low prices due to sudden inventory increases?? We will not get one drop of foriegn oil that doesn't come from the open oil market (which we pay for!!)

All you're doing is spouting off meaningless "feelgood" rhetroic. It's so outdone and outmoded.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

All you're doing is spouting off meaningless "feelgood" rhetoric. It's so outdone and outmoded.

And all you're doing is spouting off "feel good" rhetoric from the Limbaugh letter that is such transparent propaganda it's humorous.

I prefer to question authority, not worship it. All the answers from the authority figures so far is unsatisfactory if not blatant lies.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by whaaa]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by forestlady
(BTW, Bush is a war criminal; the U.S. is imperalistic and we are fighting for oil.) But maybe because you refuse to listen to what actors are saying, you don't know this?

Really? Then why hasn't the newly elected DEMOCRATIC congress impeached him and place him on a war crimes tribunal? They can't!! Because he's not war criminal!!! And please explain how flush your gas tank or home heating system has become with Iraqi oil?? You enjoying those great low prices due to sudden inventory increases?? We will not get one drop of foriegn oil that doesn't come from the open oil market (which we pay for!!)

All you're doing is spouting off meaningless "feelgood" rhetroic. It's so outdone and outmoded.

Please explain to me how my above statement is a "feelgood" statement? I sure don't feel good about it. You've run out of arguments so now you're resorting to tactics and insults taht have nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, what your'e saying is meaningless, and it has nothing to do with intelligent debate.

And I am not a Democrat, so I can't answer why they didn't impeach him. There sure were alot of Dems, however, trying to get an impeachment petition going, though.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, I can only laugh at this... There's so much wrong in that paragraph, I can't even address it.

I'm sorry, your argument is just silly.

Another indication someone is running out of ideas: they resort to condescension

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And if it's a public forum, no explicit invitation is required. It's understood that ANYONE (even if they're famous) is invited to speak.

Uh huh. And I wonder what the response would be if I had stepped up to the podium and presented MY ideas? Hatred would flow!!!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, as has been touched on, you'd be just as upset if it were what you consider to be "pro-American propaganda" going out over the airwaves for all foreign people to see. Uh-huh... Yeah... riiiight...

I wouldn't be as offended; obviously. But regardless; I still believe ALL famous actors should stay out of the political arena. My sentiments haven't changed

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now, is it YOU that don't want to hear it

Youre Right!! I've been straight up about that since the beginning of this thread. I have no interest in listening to ignorant actors make unsolicited political public statements.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
or the poor ignorant people in the foreign countries you're worried about?

I'm sorry to hear you think forigners are ignorant!! I think the crap Sean and Tim et al spew does more harm than good. They're just too wrapped around their ideology (religion) to see it. It's sorta like a cult actually!!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're wrong! Everyone was invited.

I never got an invitation. Oh wait; I don't frequent liberal anti-American websites/sources of information.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's a very American thing to do to question and criticise the government.

Obfuscation!! This isn't the issue!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe you should run for office so you can shut them up.

Maybe they should run for office!! I believe they don't out of fear they'd lose and their rhetoric would therefore become less effective.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it were a country singer with a "Let's all get together and fight the towel-heads" song, you'd be singing it from the top of your roof and praising all the famous people who spoke about it.

I don't like country. But the fight against the "towelheads" (to coin your phrase) will be with us for a long time because of their (Islamic Extremists) extreme hatred for anything not islamic. Saying crap like these actors only weakens our position in that struggle.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Uh huh. And I wonder what the response would be if I had stepped up to the podium and presented MY ideas? Hatred would flow!!!

Yes, hatred would probably flow. Just as it would if Sean Penn stepped up to the podium at a Pro-Bush rally. It's a simple concept, really.

I have no interest in listening to ignorant actors make unsolicited political public statements.

Well, that's the thing about living in America, land of the FREE... You can't make other people shut up. And wanting to is... well... Un-American and one might say Anti-American.

I never got an invitation. Oh wait; I don't frequent liberal anti-American websites/sources of information.

Well, there ya go!

I think the bottom line is this: There is always going to be someone on TV or at a rally saying something you don't agree with, so deal with it. Everyone else does. I cant believe I spent 15 minutes reading this back and forth stuff - Although I do enjoy BH's logical 1-2 combos

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You can't make other people shut up.

And wanting to is... well... Un-American and one might say Anti-American.

Again! I never said I wanted to "make" others shut up (you keep refering to that despite the fact I never said it.

Let's try to change the angle of perspective a little: Let's say a famous actor (or person not in politics for that matter) whom you highly respect was invited to an interview and asked what his opinon was of the Bush administration and the Iraq war etc. His answer: "You know (insert interviewer's name); I have very strong feelings on this subject. However, out of respect for everyone interested; I'd prefer not to not address the issue".

What would your impression be of this hypothetical famous person?

Honestly, I might think it was a tad strange that he didn't want to give his opinion on something in an interview, but I wouldn't really think one way or the other about him. It's his right not to talk about his opinion if he doesn't want to. I might be curious, but I would neither respect him nor disrespect him for wanting to keep his political opinion to himself.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I never said I wanted to "make" others shut up (you keep refering to that despite the fact I never said it.

Sorry, I guess that's just the impression I got when you said this:

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Otherwise; they should keep their little opinions in their own little circles and keep their mouths shut in the public forum; ... and utter not one sound other than what they read from a script.

And this...

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd rather not hear from them except for when they're doing their job.

And...

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I still believe ALL famous actors should stay out of the political arena.
...
I have no interest in listening to ignorant actors make unsolicited political public statements.

It sounds to me that you want them to shut up. Maybe you don't want to make them shut up, you just want them to choose to shut up... Why should they? Why should anyone who has something to say shut up? It just doesn't make sense.

The real question is how does acting some how make them so much smarter that the rest of us?? Ever noticed how when someone becomes famous we should suddenly take every word they say politically as the word of god or something??

Maybe some are pretty smart, but still. When Paltrow said she would move out of the US if Bush won, i really wanted to vote for him. She lives in England now, but I bet she was already planning on it anyway.

I think you're purposely being obtuse and difficult; or you have serious communication issues. First you claim it is my desire to "make" people shut up (something I don't have the power to do) and you support your impression with three separate quotes:

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Otherwise; they should keep their little opinions in their own little circles and keep their mouths shut in the public forum; ... and utter not one sound other than what they read from a script.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'd rather not hear from them except for when they're doing their job.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I still believe ALL famous actors should stay out of the political arena.
...
I have no interest in listening to ignorant actors make unsolicited political public statements.

...none of which indicate my desire to make them do anything. Then you write the following:

originally posted by BenevolentHeretic:
It sounds to me that you want them to shut up. Maybe you don't want to make them shut up, you just want them to choose to shut up...

Which indicates you DO understand my position.

If you understand my position, what's the point in writing/quoting those statements before your last comment; other than to be difficult?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic:
Why should they? Why should anyone who has something to say shut up? It just doesn't make sense.

I've explained ad-nauseum, in this thread, why I think they should. You disagree; that's fine! But you also CHOOSE to not understand why. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread because I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

BTW: What do you think about the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario that has been widely accpeted as "illegal" or "unprotected" speech? Why do you think that?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

I think it is you who is refusing to understand why... Here it is once again.

BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
BTW: What do you think about the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario that has been widely accpeted as "illegal" or "unprotected" speech? Why do you think that?

Does anyone really need to answer that one? I mean seriously man... Give it up already.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by LostSailor]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
BTW: What do you think about the proverbial yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario that has been widely accpeted as "illegal" or "unprotected" speech? Why do you think that?

Free speech can only be banned if it's going to cause someone to riot or otherwise break the law.

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'Free Speech' it has been recognised that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. The best-known is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow shouting fire in a crowded theatre, a paraphrase of a statement in the case Schenck v. United States in 1919. Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action".

Freedom is defined as 'without limits'. Therefore, Free Speech is without limits. A nation's first Freedom of Speech law is usually without limitations. Limits are often added in new legislation as time passes. According to the ancient Greeks, democracy can only exist in a nation if Freedom of Speech and Freedom of assembly exist there.

And that means even if you don't like what the other guy says.

Source

So I wonder what the possibility is for their speech to incite violence. I don't know. In any case I'm not advocating that their speech be banned. I'm advocating that they exercise humility rather than use hyperbolie when they speak publically. Beyond this: We can agree to disagree.

Why is it mostly liberal actors who are out there with their vitriolic hate-speak? Where are the more moderate actors (liberal or conservative)? Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

I can't help you. I don't listen to actors. I'm not interested in their personal opinions.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
So I wonder what the possibility is for their speech to incite violence.

Not much. Unless the speaker was calling specifically for violence, for example, using racial slurs and calling for one group of people to attack another group of people and inciteing them - and a riot between the two groups insued. They could probably be charged with inciting a riot. But it's really not easy to do. We see stuff like that happen in other countriies, but Americans are really pretty calm when it comes to that.

Inciting implies intent. In other words, the speaker has to urge the people to fight to be charged with inciting a riot or whatever.

If the speaker was just speaking along, giving his opinions on something and twp people in the crowd got into a fight over the speaker's words, he wouldn't be charged.

Originally posted by Royal76
The real question is how does acting some how make them so much smarter that the rest of us??

Where do you get the idea that it does?

Ever noticed how when someone becomes famous we should suddenly take every word they say politically as the word of god or something??

No...