Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Carlos del Vaca]

On the whole celebrities-in-politics thing:  as with anyone, it depends on how much they care and how much they bother to learn.  As opposed to everyone else, they have the time, the money, and the media coverage to make it known what they believe.  So I don't begrudge anyone their platform.  Some of them are extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable--Janeane Garafalo usually comes off looking smarter than blowhards like O'Reilly (who we should somehow care what he thinks?).

If you don't care what they think, don't pay attention.  Too often, it's again "Don't express opinions that I don't agree with"--did the people who cursed the Dixie Chicks also tell Charlie Daniels to stop expressing his opinions?

[AlohaDawg]

Yeah, alienating your fan base and then crying censorship is pretty senseless.

Running a successful business of any kind means keeping your customers happy, comfortable, and wanting more. Charlie Daniels' fans listen possibly because they appreciate his comments. He's aware enough to understand his opinions are acceptable so he can say them without fear of backlash. Natalie Maines can have any belief she wants and say whatever she wants, but she didn't seem to be prepared to take personal responsibility for her statements - and externalizing the blame for what happened next only made things worse.

I like their music, though.

That's the problem with so many performers becoming self-appointed opinion leaders - it puts so many people in conflict because you like what they do on stage or screen, but now you have to reconcile that with your views and values. Some people can't do it. In some cases, even if you probably don't agree with someone politically, you can applaud their actions and purpose - it's hard to be mad at John Melon Cougarcamp or Willie Nelson for working on Farm Aid, or Bob Geldof for some of the big benefits he has organized. Because, usually, the politics stay more or less out of it. That's commendable to me.

[AlohaDawg]

Dude, we own his music, we've seen his concerts. Just funnin' with the boy from Seymour who has displayed more social consciousness with his actions than most performers I know of.

[AugustWest]

Like they held a gun to his head.  He'll always be Johnny Cougar to me.

[pmcd9]

Like Jough, i'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others.  I've no love for the democrats, but I can't stand the republicans.  The way I see it, probably the biggest political problem we have in this country is coprorate special interest that have both sides of the aisle in their pocket.  It's hard for the Dems to get upset about the Repubican's bending over for Halliburton when their on their knees sucking Pfizer's dick.

As for Susan Sarandon, she has really nice tits so I'll vote for whoever she tells me to.

~Paul

[Doc]

Susan Sarandon? Really?
I think I'd need at least, I don't know let's say someone like Christina Ricci, someone who has hotness but could convince me she's actually vaguely knowledgable. Actually I've just kind of got Christina Ricci on the brain today so maybe that's not a great example.
Susan Sarandon though is kind of in the same space in my head as Goldy Hawn.

[Mite]

I'll go back and read your ideologies in a minute, 'cause I am genuinely interested, but I really don't think the Dems will allow Hillary to run. There really is no way she could win, even against the most unpopular republican they could dig up. She'd mobilize the conservatives, and alienate the liberals. She leans so far center she'll send even more nutcases over to Nader/whoever the leftie will be this time. I don't even know if I could vote for her. Because of this, I really hope there are some dudes up there in NY with enough of a sack to tell her to stay out of it.

Now an Edwards/Obama ticket? With Russ Feingold thrown in there someplace for flavor? Maybe not this time, but in a few years? I'd quit my job and follow them around in a van, selling my karma and pb & j sandwiches for weed in the parking lots of their speeches.

And August - my parents both voted for Nixon in 1972! Die-hard democrats ever since - I guess they learned their lesson.

[AlohaDawg]

Reading these posts and Ash's last in particular, it seems to me like the manner in which we practice Democracy in the US could be part of the problem since it invests so much in one party or the other. Although I think our system is more effective (in terms of making decisions and getting things done (not factoring in what gets done, just how it does)) because of this, a parliamentary government would adjust for that concentration of power by usually requiring a coalition of parties to have the majority of power invested in them. It's a bit slower, requires a lot more compromise, and often results in elections earlier than planned, it's an interesting comparison.

[Ben-San]

Oh, man, a multiparty system would be grelicious. I would be all over that. Having more than two functional parties on a national scale would be frikking awesome.

[pmcd9]

I watched Nashville last night.  That's some good stuff.

~Paul

[littlefallsmets]

I tend to vote for whoever has a reasonable chance of winning who most fits the following criteria:

Probably is gonna let people do what they want if they aren't hurting others
Probably is gonna take money from people richer than me and give it to me or people poorer than me
Probably isn't gonna kill nobody except in direct self-defense

Generally, that means the Democrat but, really, it comes down to my wanting to vote for Batman.

[jough]

We all want Batman to be president.  He is our hero.

But the election isn't for another two years in the U.S.  Candidates aren't even throwing their hats into the ring yet.

TOO SOON

[miles]

Probably is gonna let people do what they want if they aren't hurting others
Probably is gonna take money from people richer than me and give it to me or people poorer than me
Probably isn't gonna kill nobody except in direct self-defense

The criteria sound more like a mixture between a libertarian and a democrat.  Democrats used to be the ones that wanted to go to war even if there was no direct threat, and most democrats, it seems, support strong anti-drug legislation.  In high school I wrote a letter to Senator Patty Murray, D-Washington, and she totally wouldn't even support the legalization of medicinal marijuana.  She was all, "blah blah more scientific investigation, blah blah, protect our children, blah."  Democrats are just less likely to want to restrict what we can do in our bedrooms, as long as it doesn't involve getting high.

Incidentally, those criteria are basically mine, too.  I just don't see too many candidates that fit them, and usually end up voting for democrats because of key issues.

[Noah]

littlefallsmets don't those first two criteria kind of contradict each other

[scrimp]

hey

come on

lacklustre shenanigans