H'WOOD MORONS

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But seriously, bashing America would be, well, bashing America. Always saying stuff about how horrible our country is and what oppressors we are. Although I'm sure you feel the same way they do, so I don't expect you to agree.

Thank you for that list. And now let me introduce to you the LIBERAL celebs. (ignore the "see why". but if you REALLY wanna see why, here's the link.

.....

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

Many of these are not even American, like Aki Kaurismaki, who lives in Helsinki, last thing I heard. These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

I do not think anyone should restrain themselves from speaking out on politics, as long as it is more than just ranting and raving about the stupdity of the other side a method detecatble in the op-ed piece (not even the NY-post would call that an article) which manages to link two completely disparate issues. What claim is the author exactly making? And how exactly does he support his claim that there is a link other than by assuming that his readers are indoctrinated enough to believe the tenuous connection?

Political dialogue is important to any democratic society because otherwise it is not a democracy.

HA, thanks for proving my point.

Who cares if they aren't all American? My goodness, you're so narrow-minded, you bigot!

Reducing people's views down to one of two polar extremes is the very definition of "narrow minded". What you seem to think is so "simple" is in reality several thousand years of complex political thought.

Lets drop the Hollywood angle here for a moment, although this same question applies. What makes you think that someone who speaks out on areas of government policy doesn't love their country? Being British is very much a part of my identity, that doesn't mean I should have to agree with the idea that flooding china with opium back in the 1800's (as a prelude to invasion) was a good idea. Of course, in the days of the British Empire, an Englishman might honestly have thought that invading India, China and parts of Africa was a good idea - "Civilising the Savages", but having the benefit of historical hind-sight I don't think you will find anybody who seriously believes that.

Politically America is now, where Britain, France and Spain were 200 years ago - certainly explains why contrary to 30+ years of criticism that people still think America was doing a 'good thing' in Vietnam. If you can't accept that after 30 years, there's little hope that anyone can see the down-side of say, Iraq.

Do you think, for instance that George Bush loves democracy merely because he says he does? Do you think he even understands the broad philosophy behind democracy? Democracy is an ideal that America and many other countries aspire to but never really attain. What we have is not democracy in the pure sense, it is an oligarchical plutocracy. In other words we are ruled by an economic elite that pays lip service to the basic theory of democracy while dispensing with those inconvenient parts that conflict with their control.

Ask yourself why it is that many people in high level politics are second, third, fourth generations politicians or are nuts deep in corporate America. Quite simply, because you can't run for president without those things. While that may be an inevitability, I see no reason why we should have to accept the pandering and conflicts of interest that go along with it.

[incanada1234 0]

No idea, how I proved your point

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

Thanks for proving my point. If you don't have arguments to make your case you insult people. Try again!

Try again...to insult you? Well fine, if you insist...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

You didn't have much of a point to begin with, IMO.

Edited August 14, 2006 by erekose

[incanada1234 0]

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

You didn't have much of a point to begin with, IMO.

But then, do I ever?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

No idea, how I proved your point

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

Thanks for proving my point. If you don't have arguments to make your case you insult people. Try again!

Try again...to insult you? Well fine, if you insist...

Your point was that Hollywood is annoying because all these people work there? No, I can't see that point because while I believe that it is important for celebs and other people in the public sphere to express their viewpoints, I could care less about the politics of an artist or actor when listening to their music or watching their movies.

Try again referred to disproving my point about resulting to insults when you can't come up with anything constructive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

You didn't have much of a point to begin with, IMO.

But then, do I ever?

Guess not.

[Alex+R 0]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thank you for that list. And now let me introduce to you the LIBERAL celebs. (ignore the "see why". but if you REALLY wanna see why, here's the link.

.....

Can you see now why hollyweird is annoying? Of course you can't.

Many of these are not even American, like Aki Kaurismaki, who lives in Helsinki, last thing I heard. These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

I do not think anyone should restrain themselves from speaking out on politics, as long as it is more than just ranting and raving about the stupdity of the other side a method detecatble in the op-ed piece (not even the NY-post would call that an article) which manages to link two completely disparate issues. What claim is the author exactly making? And how exactly does he support his claim that there is a link other than by assuming that his readers are indoctrinated enough to believe the tenuous connection?

Political dialogue is important to any democratic society because otherwise it is not a democracy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Very. Some people really seem to think that all this country's many problems are the direct result of alleged "Liberals" who love to hate America. Liberal is a word which has really lost its meaning as part of the current political discourse. Its become carticaturised, overwhelming negative and does not actually reflect the views that are traditionally associated with "liberalism".

I've lost count of how many books I've seen entitled "the hidden threat", "the enemy within" and the like, which are little more than slavish extensions of party political talking points. The reality is that the authors of such books, and the sorts of people who hold them as gospel are more of an ideological threat to this country than any of the people they are criticising.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Maybe, it was a tad too dramatic, but I wanted to point to the possible outcomes of assembling lists of people based on their assumed politics.

And of course the thread is silly, but it also shows the route we're currently on. People read or watch political programs offering so-called arguments, which are actually thinly disguised propaganda/slander, and passing these on as the truth which cannot be repudiated and should never be questioned.

What suffers is not only political dialogue (how do you react if someone calls you names because you're expressing your dissatisfaction with certain policies) but also the fragile nature of democracy as such. I know that perfect democracy is an illusion but a society of stooges blindly following a leader whether elected or not does not seem something to strive for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Maybe, it was a tad too dramatic, but I wanted to point to the possible outcomes of assembling lists of people based on their assumed politics.

And of course the thread is silly, but it also shows the route we're currently on. People read or watch political programs offering so-called arguments, which are actually thinly disguised propaganda/slander, and passing these on as the truth which cannot be repudiated and should never be questioned.

What suffers is not only political dialogue (how do you react if someone calls you names because you're expressing your dissatisfaction with certain policies) but also the fragile nature of democracy as such. I know that perfect democracy is an illusion but a society of stooges blindly following a leader whether elected or not does not seem something to strive for.

Absolutely. As biased as it is in its way I miss the BBC - the news media we have here in the US is so sensationalised there's no room for individual interpretations of the issues. Why does every headline have to be prefixed with an emotionally loaded adjective? Where is the equivalent of BBC Question Time? Why are politicians not asked tough questions - and merely allowed to get away with sloganising and sound-biting.

[Alex+R 0]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Maybe, it was a tad too dramatic, but I wanted to point to the possible outcomes of assembling lists of people based on their assumed politics.

And of course the thread is silly, but it also shows the route we're currently on. People read or watch political programs offering so-called arguments, which are actually thinly disguised propaganda/slander, and passing these on as the truth which cannot be repudiated and should never be questioned.

What suffers is not only political dialogue (how do you react if someone calls you names because you're expressing your dissatisfaction with certain policies) but also the fragile nature of democracy as such. I know that perfect democracy is an illusion but a society of stooges blindly following a leader whether elected or not does not seem something to strive for.

You are being logical and saying things that both make sense and require that people think for themselves. AMERICA HATER!!!!!!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Maybe, it was a tad too dramatic, but I wanted to point to the possible outcomes of assembling lists of people based on their assumed politics.

And of course the thread is silly, but it also shows the route we're currently on. People read or watch political programs offering so-called arguments, which are actually thinly disguised propaganda/slander, and passing these on as the truth which cannot be repudiated and should never be questioned.

What suffers is not only political dialogue (how do you react if someone calls you names because you're expressing your dissatisfaction with certain policies) but also the fragile nature of democracy as such. I know that perfect democracy is an illusion but a society of stooges blindly following a leader whether elected or not does not seem something to strive for.

You are being logical and saying things that both make sense and require that people think for themselves. AMERICA HATER!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. The people who confuse legitimate criticism with bring "unpatriotic" or "treason" are the real enemies of this country, the ones who say the words but don't know the meaning behind them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These lists (left or right) are just plain silly and uncannily reminiscent of the black lists of the HUAC-era, during which the great icon of modern conservativism Ronald Reagan converted from red-sympathizer to stool-pidgeon naming more names than anyone else and jump-starting his amazing rise as a politician.

A bit dramatic for some lists about celebrities (both) pulled from conservative websites, eh?

Of COURSE they're silly. So is this thread.

Maybe, it was a tad too dramatic, but I wanted to point to the possible outcomes of assembling lists of people based on their assumed politics.

And of course the thread is silly, but it also shows the route we're currently on. People read or watch political programs offering so-called arguments, which are actually thinly disguised propaganda/slander, and passing these on as the truth which cannot be repudiated and should never be questioned.

What suffers is not only political dialogue (how do you react if someone calls you names because you're expressing your dissatisfaction with certain policies) but also the fragile nature of democracy as such. I know that perfect democracy is an illusion but a society of stooges blindly following a leader whether elected or not does not seem something to strive for.

Unfortunately, such labels as Hollyweird stick. There's such a strong network of conservative talk shows that keep spewing out this kind of trash and their listeners gobble it up as the gospel truth. And as Charles noted earlier, he as many of them believe their stereotypical view of Hollywood has an agenda with the whole world as their stage. Karl Rove is a genius at getting people to feel their values are under attack. They're convinced there's a war going on in this country over values and they're the ones under attack (War on Christmas, War on marriage, war against patriotism, etc).

Edited August 14, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Fischkoepfin 1]

You are being logical and saying things that both make sense and require that people think for themselves. AMERICA HATER!!!!!!!!!

You blew my cover. Dang!

Edited August 14, 2006 by Fischkoepfin