Why is it that actors, whose job is to act for WAY too much money, suddenly think "OOh, I'm a celebrity, what I think is important!" As if many of them think [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/

Wow!

I think they (the movie stars) are free to have an opinion but its not anymore important than anyone elses. And they act like it is, and act like they have to be listened too and should be listened too.

Thanks for the site realbinky.

Iron, that is my point, thanks for saying it better than I. I certainly believe that they are entitled to have all the opinions that they wany- it's part of the beauty of living here. But to think they are MORE important than my opinions- hah! Oh, and look at what some of them say about the rich, hmmmm.

Celebrities are no more experts than you or I. I agree to that completely. But I don't think that site is what a reasonable man might call 'unbiased journalism'. Everyone has a right to their opinion. And Name Calling (which that site does) has never ever settled an issue.

I think celebrity opinions on politics are about as relevant as Dan Quayle's opinion on Murphy Brown. ;)

hmm, the site doesn't seem to me as celebreties who want to be heard, just people who ask celebrities their opinion to use it against them (not to mention some of the opinions are pretty stupid indeed :D )

The website is just a taste of their own medicine. Its just the flip side of Hollywoods protesting and leftistism (Is dont think thats a word but oh well.).

LOL - you only have to look at the sub-title to see it scream out as the "Right wing ridicule" column. I agree that some of the quotes I saw were nonsensical, but several of them made eminent sense, and several of them were obviously cut from statements of larger context to convey different impression.

I totally agree with the earlier statements that the opinion of Hollywood idols should have no more weight than anyone elses. This site however takes pains to brand all dissenting views as "Un-American" and highlights the dissenters. OK, I am not American, but I know if someone was branding me as Un-Australian simply because I didn't believe the same things on this war - well the concept is a nonsense in itself.

Darvos, I am not sure how much of this type of thing gets covered in Austrialia, but here in the States almost everyday some Hollywood actor continues spewing anti-bush, anti-war sutff. It gets annoying. And like I said, they think there opinion should be held higher than anyone elses. And they have very little respect for other points of view, most of them. For a perfect example you need look no further then Geeneane Graffolo (not spelled right) when she was on a show called Fox and Friends (comes on 6-8 Am CTS on Fox News Channel). One of the journalist asked her a that questioned her views on the War and she jumped down his throat. It was just a question, you would have thought someone tried to murder her.

Is the website right wing biased? Yes, sure, of course, big time. Is hollywood left wing biased? Yes, big time. Does it make either of them justified? No.

I like Jeanne Garofalo even if I don't share her views. When I've seen her she seemed intelligent and had a well balanced argument. I'm not doubting that she could get upset, but if she can keep her cool while being interviewed on the Fox news network, she's doing a pretty good job. ;) :D

The stars who feel inspired to use their star power to spread the word on both sides of the issues are fine with me as long as they actually share their reasoning and don't feel obliged to shove it down my throat. I don't say they're un-American, but I can only appreciate their view if they can present it without insinuating I'm some kind of mindless, Bush following zombie.

It's the ones who say, "War Sucks!" as some kind of definitive statement on their views that really bug me. Heck, I think war sucks.

If they're going to use their star power they should at least be able to talk about the issue intelligently. I saw some musical artist on MTV or somewhere who's entire view was that he opposed the war, but he didn't really seem to know why. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

LSDHIPSCAOMCS
(Laughing So Damn Hard I Projectile Spit Coke All Over My Computer Screen)

Where you watching the same show as I was? If she kept her cool you can spank my butt and paint it purple ;)

<font color="plum"><font color=orange>Darvos</font> - Not trying to pick on you, my friend...just adding a bit to what <font color="silver">Iron Ranger</font> and the esteemed Southern Gentlemen <font color="white">Mr. Harris</font> had to say.

Hollywood actors and actresses have literally been "lashing out" at President Bush since the day of the election. During the wait for the Florida Recount, Alec Baldwin boldly proclaimed he would move out of the country if George Bush were declared the winner (he declined to accept his own offer).

After 9/11, the number of "stars" coming out to show support for the victims was tremendous. Two huge, national benefits were held and the celebrities even "manned the phone lines" themselves to accept contributions. One of these events was organized primarily by George Clooney, and he "humbly" accepted the praise and attention for bringing so many celebrities together in an effort to "heal the nation". Then...a few months later....it was discovered that the bulk of the money raised by his benefit NEVER made it to the families of the victims. Instead, most of it went to the employees (and administrators) of the group set up to distribute the funds.

Bill O'Reilly (a right wing host of a political TV show) discovered this and publicly questioned Clooney's obligation to ensure the money he helped raised actually went to the people it was intended for. George Clooney hates Bill O'Reilly with a deep passion to this day for daring to "question his character". All Bill said was "Hey, YOU were perfectly happy to take responsibility for setting this whole thing up (and rightly so). But don't you think you also have an obligation to follow-through and make sure the money is distributed to those it was intended for.?" Clooney, for his part, made several "retaliatory statements" before finally going quiet on the whole subject.

It's just like the others said...celebrities have a right to voice their opinion. However, their opinion is no better nor worse than anybody elses... but THEY don't like to be reminded of that...and they take extreme offense when anybody has the audacity to QUESTION or DISAGREE with their values.

Sheryl Crow and many other celebs made public statements against CBS(?) because the network asked them to keep the "anti-war sentiment" to a minimum. They are acting like it's an infringement on their First Amendment Rights. But CBS realized something the celebs didn't....that the MAJORITY of American voter (and TV VIEWERS) DISAGREE with them.

Hollywood has not been "in touch with reality" for many, many years now..yet they feel THEY are the ones who are right and the rest of the country is wrong. They have a right to their opinion...but the American public also has a right to tell them they are wrong.</font>

Who's Darvos ? :D

<font color='white'>Wonderful post Cerek..Expect this part :D

I am telling you people, he is NOT right wing. He has right wing views, and is pretty passtionate about them, but he also has left wing views, and he also pastionate about those also.

I know you didnt do this, but, I really hate when O'Reilly gets grouped with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

I think he maybe leans to the right, but certaintly wouldnt be a right winger. But like I said, nice post. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I agree, IR. Bill O'Reilly is NOT a respected name among my friends. But, if I had the choice to save him or Alec Baldwin, I would not hesitate. (*has to shut up about George Clooney, since an extremely important member of his household likes the left wing son of a b...*) <font color=pink>Post closed by Authority.</font>

If a celebrity having their point of veiw, then fine, what is wrong with that? When you are a public person you have the opportunity to share your views no matter how left or right they may be. The celebrities are individuals after all, though some people like to lump people together in neat little stereotypes.

All this web-site does is attack, mock, and critisize anyone with a different point of view much like any person or celebrity would do when confronted with an opposing view. In my opinion, it lacks taste almost as much as it does objectivity.

[ 02-28-2003, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color='white'>Wonderful post Cerek..Expect this part :D

I am telling you people, he is NOT right wing. He has right wing views, and is pretty passtionate about them, but he also has left wing views, and he also pastionate about those also.

I know you didnt do this, but, I really hate when O'Reilly gets grouped with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

I think he maybe leans to the right, but certaintly wouldnt be a right winger. But like I said, nice post. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font></font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Thanks for correcting that, <font color="silver">Iron Ranger</font>. I really hadn't heard much about O'Reilly until the whole affair with George Clooney. I don't watch his show...in fact I don't watch TV very much at ALL anymore. My kids usually dictate the channel, and there aren't many current events discussed on Teamo Supremo. :D

My comments were based on what little I had seen of O'Reilly (and I agreed with what I heard him say). At first, I thought he was some kind of jerk who went out of his way to pick on celebrities...that's because the TODAY show had tried to "book him" to tell his side of the story (George Clooney had already been on a day or two before to give his), but they had been some glitch in the negotiations. O'Reilly felt like TODAY wasn't really going to give him a fair chance to say his piece, so he declined...which REALLY hacked the TODAY show people off. Finally, O'Reilly had his publicist go on, and Matt Lauer was uncharacteristically spiteful towards him. He made it a point to mention that O'Reilly only agreed to allow his publicist to attend AFTER the TODAY show reluctantly agreed to mention his new book. Matt basically kept insidiously insinuating that they had to "bribe" O'Reilly to come on the show. The publicist calmly pointed out that this was a standard agreement for ANY celebrity coming on the TODAY show - an obligatory "plug" for the celeb's new movie or book was expected in order for them to appear.

Anyway, they did their best to paint O'Reilly as extreme as Rush and Co. because he had dared to turn THEM down to.

<font color="gray">johnny</font> - :eek: I can't BELIEVE I misspelled <font color="orange">Davros!</font> [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I always make it a point to spell a member's ID correctly. Out of all the possible ID's to misspell, to make a mistake on one of the simplest. [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img] {hangs head in shame}</font>

<font color='white'> Its no biggie Cerek. I dont really see it too much, just in left orentied papers and stuff, if anyone is sitting here with nothing to do on weekday nights around 7 PM CST tune in to Fox News, its a good show :D ;) .

Woah! I have always spelled Davros Darvos! Never noticed before! Sorry bout that Davros..I am Lysdexius :D

------------------------------------------------------------------
<font color=yellow> Basically agree with this paragraph, but the comment not in touch is better represented by "tenuously in touch" [img]smile.gif[/img] . Totally agree with your summing up sentence Cerek, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The American public has a right to disagree, and a right to believe they (Hollywood) are wrong. But right or wrong is a matter of perspective, and my question remains "Why does having the opposite opinion make one Un-American?". It seems to me that this is an epiphet that is too readily bandied about, and often for little or no reason.

Thanks for listening [img]smile.gif[/img]

</font>

My mistake, I saw her on MSNBC's Nachman. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sounds like I missed a good one...lol. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

Davros, when you watch a football game, do you want to watch the players play football or listen to their political beliefs?

I think the key point about CBS's request was that the artists not talk about the situation no matter which side of the issue they were on. It was a musical award show, and they asked everyone to stay on topic. If anyone felt this request violated their First Ammendment rights, they were free to boycott the show. These celebrities are not having any trouble voicing their opinions in public in the appropriate venues, but CBS is not obliged to provide airtime for anyone's political views during the Grammys.

I don't think that's anymore of a First Amendment infringement than asking that acceptance speaches be kept to a certain length. Over the years, the networks have gone to commercial when people talked too long. The First Ammendment doesn't guarantee the right to speak your views to people that aren't interested in listening.

CBS didn't stop Ms. Crow from wearing her NO WAR guitar strap in plain view, nor did they rush the stage and tackle Mr. Durst when he made his comment.

I want to watch football Ronn, but the players have a right to their political beliefs too, and if I don't wan't to listen then I can be mature about it and stick my fingers in my ears :D . Having a different belief though doesn't make them Un-American though - ugh, unless it was Australian Rules football of course.

Three cheers for the Adelaide Crows for beating the West Coast Weagles tonight ;) .

I want to watch football Ronn, but the players have a right to their political beliefs too, and if I don't wan't to listen then I can be mature about it and stick my fingers in my ears :D . Having a different belief though doesn't make them Un-American though - ugh, unless it was Australian Rules football of course.

Three cheers for the Adelaide Crows for beating the West Coast Weagles tonight ;) .</font>[/QUOTE]Go Crows! Go Crows! Go Crows! [img]smile.gif[/img]

The point with my examples about football players is that it's fine for them to express their views as well, but I think people would be quite upset if they stopped the game to do so. Before or after the game or anytime they're asked is fine, but stopping the game is inappropriate because football should be about football. That's the way I feel about the Grammy Ceremony, it should be about the music. If an anti-war song won, then by all means it would be germane.

You are absolutely right that having a different view doesn't make them un-American. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Darvos - here is a quote from an article in today's Times. It's written by their Chief Sports Writer, Simon Barnes. If I tell you that he is barred from entering Zimbabwe you'll understand why I have a degree of respect for him. He is talking about the right-wing in the US:

"...........the right wing defines freedom as the right to believe anything you like, so long as it's the same as me. And if you happen to be different you have to be stopped"

[ 02-28-2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

LOL - I only just realised, for once I used the word subtitle in a post with no subtitle. What was I thinking [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="plum">Good counterpoints to my post, <font color="orange">Davros</font>. I don't mind the Hollywood stars expressing their opinions in an appropriate venue. The fact is they DO have a much greater potential to affect public opinion than the average American...and this can be used for any cause they support or oppose.

However, they also have the potential to "force their views" on others with the excessive amount of media coverage and attention they get. ANYTHING done by a "star" is considered news and will recieve the appropriate coverage. So they have an unfair advantage in presenting their side of the case. That isn't so bad by itself...but then they take the arrogant attitude that it should be obvious they are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. They also don't like having their views challenged. Bill O'Reilly never criticized the money that George Clooney helped raised...he just asked Clooney if he shouldn't have taken more responsibility to make sure the money went to the intended victims. But Clooney acted as if O'Reilly had branded him a traitor.

I think a lot of the American sentiment towards the political views of Hollywood goes back to the Vietnam War and Jane Fonda. Her public tour of the enemy forces is still considered "an act of treason" by the vast majority of American soldiers that served in the war. I have two uncles that served in Vietnam and Jane Fonda is one name you do NOT want to mention around them.

That was a "slap in thier face" that will never be forgiven.

Yet Hollywood actors and actresses seem to feel even more emboldened to publicly speak out against the U.S. policies. You ask why it's considered "un-American" for them to have an opposing view. On the surface, it isn't. They have just as much right to thier opinion (and to have their opinion heard) as I do mine. But thier "opinions" often are NOT based on factual knowledge, NOR does it offer any suitable alternatives. Basically, they just keep saying they disagree with the policies of the President. Many of them don't endorse the U.N. Inspector's efforts either. They just arbitrarily criticize or condemn the policies and decisions of the current American Gov't. That is what makes people feel their opinions are "un-American" - because all they do is speak out against policy without offering a different solution.</font>

Interesting arguments you make Cerek. And I would agree with you that quite a few celebrities have limited credibility, but massively biased news sheets like the one that was linked to this thread demonstrate a high degree of intolerance with dissenting opinion, and that does little in the way of ackieving credibility for any premises it wishes to espouse.

Sounds like we have managed to achieve consensual opinion (between ourselves and Ronn at least) that it is not Un-American to have dissenting views. Now - where was that Blueberry Pie [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just wondering... What do you think of Hollywood celebrities forcing opinions on people that don't necessarily oppose your own? Is there an "awg, they're okay" feeling or would you be consistent in your opinions and apply the above to them as well, that they shouldn't mistake their fame for a right to say whatever they wish to say with an arrogant attitude towards those who disagree? Just to name a person who fits that description just the same in my opinion, Charlton Heston.
All meant in the most respectful manner, of course; if my question comes across as rude or presumptuous I apologize for that. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-28-2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Oh, my opinion is a very simple one here - people have the right to use the means at their disposal to state their opinion, and you and I have the right to use our braincells and decide whether or not to listen to it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good point, Moiraine, I fully agree.

My mistake, I saw her on MSNBC's Nachman. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Sounds like I missed a good one...lol. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Brian Kildrey (sp?) Fox and friends sports guy decided he'd challenge her assertions, and ask her the tough questions like back up what you say with facts. It threw her off her game, which isn't suprising since most of the others that have interviewed her have given her softball questions.

As for the celebs having the right to speak out of course they do, but since they are in the public light as they claim is one of the reasons they are able to speak out (be fawned all over by the press). Then They are fair game for ANY AND ALL critisms, jokes, or any legal remarks made for or against them. "Hale" they're grown-ups...Er let me correct that they are of legal age. ;) Personally if I had to chose between paying attention to somebody that HAS NOT attended a US goverment security briefing EVER. And sombody that attends US goverment security briefings everyday, I'll take the word of the President and his advisors. You can take the word of whom ever you wish it doesn't matter to me.

Now for CBS and the Grammy's, CBS bought the rights to televise the Grammy's THEY OWN it, CBS has the right to cut off the microphone for whatever reason they want. Let's put it in terms that everbody can understand: 2003 Grammy's are CBS's house and if they don't want you to put your feet on their coffee table, then they have the right. If you put your feet on their coffee table then they have the right to make you leave their house! Your chose is don't put your feet onthe coffee table or get thrown out.

Bring back HUAC!

Just wondering... What do you think of Hollywood celebrities forcing opinions on people that don't necessarily oppose your own? Is there an "awg, they're okay" feeling or would you be consistent in your opinions and apply the above to them as well, that they shouldn't mistake their fame for a right to say whatever they wish to say with an arrogant attitude towards those who disagree? Just to name a person who fits that description just the same in my opinion, Charlton Heston.
All meant in the most respectful manner, of course; if my question comes across as rude or presumptuous I apologize for that. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>No offense taken at all, <font color="orange">Grojlach</font>. You ask a fair question, and you are right that I would not be as "opposed" to hearing celebs spouting views I agree with.

In reading over my posts here, I realize that I keep slipping into a "semi-rant" mode and end up criticizing the celebs simply for stating an opinion I disagree with. That's embarassing, because I honostly don't have a problem with them presenting their opinions. What I DO have a problem with is the very thing <font color=white>John D. Harris</font> mentioned - and that's the fact that many of these celebs are just "spouting rhetoric" without actually researching the situation. Examples were given on the Hollywood Halfwit site about the celebs LACK of arguments to back up thier rhetoric. <font color="dodgerblue">Nachtrafe</font> listed the an example of how Jeanna Garafoula reacted when a reporter suddenly asked her some hard questions about what she based her views on rather than just fawning over her compliantly. She became frustrated and hostile because SHE couldn't back up her OWN arguments and she vented that frustration on the reporter.

In the sake of fairness, NBC is about to play host to a head-on confrontation between Martin Sheen and Fred Thomas (actor and former Senator from Tennessee). Sheen has used his own money to shoot and air an "anti-war" commercial in which he implores America not to go to war. "Inspections work; war doesn't" is the tag line of his ad.

Fred Thomas has created hiw own rebuttal-ad in which he praises President Bush for having the courage to stand up to Saddam Hussein despite pressure to do otherwise.

Now then...I think Martin Sheen's message is rather naive'. The last 12 years have proven conclusively that weapons inspections DO NOT work...however, Martin DID spend his own money to buy the air time, rather than using the "free air time" provided by an awards or benefit show. So I admire him for backing up his convictions with personal action. I also admire Fred Thomas for having the courage to "buck the system" and to publicly disagree with his Hollywood peers.

My biggest complaint about Hollywood is that many of the actors and actresses aren't able to back up their positions with good, solid arguments...yet we are supposed to "accept" what they say anyway - based solely on who they are. That just strikes me as extrememly presumptuous and arrogant.</font>