Topic awaiting preservation: The American president must resign!! (Page 1 of 1)

Not President Bush but President Bartlet:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,907070,00.html

So much for free speech!!

In some ways as the opposition has effectivly been pacified its partly up to famous people to draw attention to various things that the Democrats should be doing.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Oh dear god.

life just gets more absurd every day.

Well obviously he's bearing the expectations of a real president.

My question is does he get the benefits?

Airforce 1?
Interns?
Cigars?

:::krets.net:::

quote:

---

"American citizens [who] stand against wealthy Hollywood celebrities abusing their status to speak for us".

---

One, I don't see how their being wealthy has anything to do with it. (That's just a feeble attempt to try to alienate them from the public.) Two, how can they be "abusing" their status? What is the "purpose" of their status? I guess they should only use it for good, like, I don't know, speaking out against the things they have an inalienable right to speak out against? Finally, speak for us? Seems to me, they're just speaking for themselves and the millions who agree with them -- I don't believe anyone has claimed to speak for all of America.

quote:

---

are using their celebrity to interfere with the defence of our country

---

Wow, I didn't know celebrities had that much control over the defense of the country.

Although I sometimes wish certain celebs would just shut up, I still get sick of people who believe that someone who has done well in his career no longer has a right to speak his beliefs in a free country. Sure, celebrities often have a larger platform from which to speak, but why the hell shouldn't they use it? Anybody else would.

Too many righteous schmucks think that successful actors should give up their rights to express their opinions. But if any one of them suddenly hit it big on Survivor, I doubt he would suddenly keep his mouth shut.

Sarcastic voice: Well that's something to be proud off.

quote:

---

That's just a feeble attempt to try to alienate them from the public.

---

And anyway, the right is pretty stupid if they insult someone else for being insanely wealthy. Look at everyone -- everyone -- in the highest levels of politics. The Democratic half of Congress is a millionaire's club; the Republican half is a billionaire's club. The only difference is whether your yacht has one helicopter pad or three.

Personally, the very concept of people having that much money while others starve to death makes me want to become a terrorist myself. I would delight in blowing some fat cat's private jet to smithereens -- if only those smithereens would somehow feed orphans of the Hutu/Tutsi conflicts. Sadly for me, happily for our shadowy Illuminati masters, they would not.

this reminds me of an article i read a few days ago written by pat sajak about the disconnect between hollywood and america. fascinating stuff if you have time to give it a read. and yes, it is located on a christian site, but it really mentions little about christianity while focusing more on hollywood's views of the american family, etc. here's a blurb:

quote:

---

Former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg has written a best-selling book called Bias, in which he maintains that the real problem with the media is not a bias based on liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat. It is a bias based on the sameness of worldview caused by social, intellectual, educational and professional inbreeding. These are folks who travel in the same circles, go to the same parties, talk to the same people, compare their ideas, and develop a standard view on issues that makes any deviation from them seen somehow marginal, or even weird.

They think they have diversity in their midst because they take pains to hire a representative mix of gender and race. But there is no diversity of thought. On the great social issues of our time, there is an alarmingly monolithic view held by what has become known as the "media elite." You can bet that the New York Times is careful about how many women it hires, but you can also bet that it is not very careful that these women hold diverse views on issues they'll be writing about, such as the environment, gun control or abortion. My guess it that a pro-life view within the wall of the Times is a pretty rare one. And the same holds true on the entertainment side.

It is just assumed that "right thinking people" hold certain views. If you don?t... well there?s the problem. How can you portray people fairly in film or on TV if you think their attitudes are so foreign?

---

http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/discernment/hollywood-america.html

As a general rule, I think boycotting stations and trying to get people fired is unproductive for everyone involved and I don't support such actions. A while ago, the gay community tried to get Dr. Laura's TV show cancelled and I find this attempt to strike back at Sheen just a distasteful.

On the broader issue of how left wing Hollywood has become, I don't like it but as long as there is a relative balance of voices in the country, I'm not alarmed. If one side gets the upper hand and starts to monopolize public debate, then I'm going to get very worried.

I find it interesting that everyone is up in arms about the celebs losing or being accosted for their freedom of speech and don't think they have a right to privacy, that they have somehow given that up by being successful. I think that celebrities are successful people who have a certain level of notoriety and they need to be responsible about how they use that notoriety, not to mention that they shouldn't lose ANY unalienable rights granted to them as citizens of the United States, be that freedom of speech OR freedom of privacy. Let them say what they like. If you don't like it, don't listen. That's your freedom of choice at work for you.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

And come to think of it, what does Sheen's expressing his views in his personal life have to do with his playing the President on a TV show? It's not like he's going to use his job as a fictional President, in which his responsibilities do not include writing the script, to change the real world. Ridiculous.

What was the reason we passed the incumbant protection act, aka Campaign Finance Reform?

It was because the wealthy business people had undue influence in Wasthington due to their wealth and that they were drowning out the voice of the commoner.

Now the Hollywood elite, with their untold and uncounted wealth, will use their wealth to gain access to a platform that the common man does not have access too!

Whats wrong with this picture?

So the lesson here is that if you are incredibly successful in your career and living the American dream, you should give up your right of free speech and keep your mouth shut.

If you're an out-of-work actor, subsisting on Ramen noodle, shout and protest all you want. But as soon as you hit it big and have the option of speaking your views publicly on television, sit down and shut up.

Ugh. I get sick of people villifying actors because they're rich and famous. Sure, many of them are dumb as a brick ? I'd be happy never to hear Cameron Diaz speak again ? but they are still citizens of a free country.

Rich actors have the same rights as poor janitors. Yes, they have access to a wider audience, but it's not as if they have direct control over government policy. Let them speak their minds; if you disagree, then show it in your vote.

Or become and famous actor and speak out against the actors who speak out.


=)

Come on, Wes, we all know you're just saying that so you'll have a leg to stand on when you make it big.

I have little doubt we'll be watching Wes on TV one day soon. I'll point him out and say, "Hey! I know that guy!" Then people will ask how I know him and I'll tell them that we've never met but I know him from the internet and they'll all roll their eyes and think I'm nuts, like they normally do.

I have a very low opinion of most entertainers when it comes to their politics and their ethics. They make me want to puke my guts out from now until next week. I swear I will explode if I'm exposed to more than 10 seconds of Barbra Streisand gushing about William Jefferson C*****n. But these people can say whatever they want because that is how it is supposed to work in a free society and I'm glad they speak their minds.

darkwind-

quote:

---

What was the reason we passed the incumbant protection act, aka Campaign Finance Reform?

It was because the wealthy business people had undue influence in Wasthington due to their wealth and that they were drowning out the voice of the commoner.

Now the Hollywood elite, with their untold and uncounted wealth, will use their wealth to gain access to a platform that the common man does not have access too!

Whats wrong with this picture?

---

you do see there is a difference between giving a buhzillion dollars to politicians before/during/after campaigns vs buying time on tv or space in a newspaper to voice an opinion?

[edit - fix spelling

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-10-2003).]

i'm just waiting for bruce willis to suddenly pop into the spotlight with the conservative POV

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Damn right, Suho.

And thanks for the vote of confidence, Bug. If you ever see me on the street while with your friends, I'll be sure to pretend we go way back.