NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?

I think people should get involved in politics. Celebrities are in a good position to use their influence for something good.

Political celebrities annoy me. Entertain us. They live radically pampered lives where their every desire is seen to by a list of house servants. We need less money in politics not more.

Why shouldn't they be political? If they put their actions where their rhetoric is, I'll respect them. Otherwise, not so much. I judge politicians in the same way...but at least the celebrities are good for something else... :D

They live radically pampered lives where their every desire is seen to by a list of house servants.
Just like politicians!

i think it depends who they are. Some people should never be allowed into politics... ever. It does, however, annoy me when disgustingly rich celebs speak about poverty.

I cant stand the vast majority of them. Sing or act for my entertainment. Dont tell me what you think about things though-I dont care.

I know Bono does some very good things for releif efforts-I believe his intentions are good-he donates his own $$ and time to efforts to feed people with no food and I respect this. I dont have a problem with celebrities that donate their time and money to help people, I just dont like their politics.

These are usually people that dont live in the real world anymore.

It's nice that they are using the platform they've been given for something else than advertising, IMO.

It's nice that they are using the platform they've been given for something else than advertising, IMO.
It's still advertising:).

Who says politicians can't be entertaining? Ever listen to Howard Dean? I always get a kick out of his rhetoric. I thought Republicans were the angry old white guys.

It's still advertising:).

Nitpick much? It was obvious that "commercial" was sous-entendu.

Just like politicians!

Another group that should keep their noses out of decisions that affect peoples lives then. :D

Why shouldn't they be political? If they put their actions where their rhetoric is, I'll respect them. Otherwise, not so much.I agree. That's why I don't like Bono; he always spouts off the right words, but I have never heard of him actually doing anything. OK, so he's to appear at Live 8 and suchlike, but he's far from the only one. (Forgive me if I am incorrect and he has done stuff, but I have honestly never heard of him doing anything personally that acts upon his rhetoric).

Geldof I do have a lot of time for; he not only makes good political and social points, but is keen to actually act upon them. If the politicised celebrity is willing to do that, they have my support and respect (and that includes Bono if my above understanding is in fact false :))

It's only a matter of time and money before mega-rich celebrities decide to get involved politically. It sounds as though some people here expect Bono and co. to spend every waking minute of every single day entangled in eiderdown with hot and cold running servants on hand to blow his nose for him.

If I were in his boots, I think I wouldn't be able to help myself - I'd be politically active. Constant comfort would drive me crazy mad-ape bonkers.

I agree. That's why I don't like Bono; he always spouts off the right words, but I have never heard of him actually doing anything. OK, so he's to appear at Live 8 and suchlike, but he's far from the only one. (Forgive me if I am incorrect and he has done stuff, but I have honestly never heard of him doing anything personally that acts upon his rhetoric).
I forgive you.

Bono meets with world leaders, mainly Bush and Blair. He also lobbies major governments, makes trips to Africa with politicians and the like. He is often accompanied by Geldof.

I cant stand the vast majority of them. Sing or act for my entertainment. Dont tell me what you think about things though-I dont care.
You don't have to listen. It's called free speech. It's perfectly feasible to bothe sing/act and to talk politics.

These are usually people that dont live in the real world anymore.
Just like all those rich politicians that we support. I guess they also have no business talking about the real world either?

Nitpick much? It was obvious that "commercial" was sous-entendu.
I don't see much of a difference between doing infomercials for Nike and doing them for PETA....

And as for nitpicking!!?? Hey pot! I'm kettle.

It's perfectly feasible to bothe sing/act and to talk politics.


It is, it seems, a sine qua non!

I don't see much of a difference between doing infomercials for Nike and doing them for PETA....

Then you should get your eyes checked.

And as for nitpicking!!?? Hey pot! I'm kettle.

No, no, I'm not a pot, I'm a terrine. I'm better than you commoners.

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?
If they want to have "Causes" and get involved - fine. What I disapprove of is trying to use their position to manipulate policy and overstate their connection/understanding of an issue.

Pretending to be a Farm Wife does not make you a good spokeswoman for Farmers. :mad:

Then you should get your eyes checked.
RAR!!!!! *completely loses it*

*decides to start drinking at work for the next four days*

If they want to have "Causes" and get involved - fine. What I disapprove of is trying to use their position to manipulate policy and overstate their connection/understanding of an issue.

Pretending to be a Farm Wife does not make you a good spokeswoman for Farmers.
Isn't manipulating policy the whole reason to be involved with politics?

Yeah I don't like the idea of pretending to be someone you're not.

I wouldn't call what Bono or Bob Geldorf are doing politics, it seems to be more of a charity-thing to me. That's why I don't object it.
In my opinion, it's more than ok if celebrities get involved in human rights, charities, ecological issues, social issues, peace etc.
What I don't agree with is celebrities really getting involved in politics (running a country). I have the nagging feeling that this will influence democracy in a negative way, as people would support them over whoever their oponent may be, simply because thay are more popular. I don't honestly think that political desicions should be based on populatrity in that degree.

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?

I don't hate or sneer at all of them.

Some of them appear to be at least moderately intelligent, and their intentions may be honest.

I rather like Bono's efforts so far.

On the other hand, Barbara Streisand is a complete and utter moron.

Can't group them all into a "idiot politicized celebrity" group. I end up with at least two groups (idiot and non-idiot).

I really wish the idiots would stick to their day jobs.

And as for charity not being political...

Rethink that.

RAR!!!!! *completely loses it*

Here I was, thinking you'd already done that.

*decides to start drinking at work for the next four days*

Yes, "work".

I agree. Celebrities should not get involved in real politics, it is jsut silly. Politicians usually get degrees in international affairs, politics, law, or something similar that will help them. I do not think playing a president on tv for 10 years really teaches you how to be a politician.

As for celebrities helping out charities, it is a great thing. Companies have done tons of studies showing that when you have a celebrity saying something or pushing somethign it sells better. I would rather see celebrities trying to get people to sponsor impovrished children than trying to get kids to buy sports drinks.

Bono does a lot of great work. He has done a lot for AIDS in Africa. And lets not forget all that Princess Diana did. I wish more people could be like them. All the money that stars make. It is jsut rediculous. It would be nice if there was some kind of rule that when a movie makes a vertain amount of proit, they have to donate a certain amount to charity, and so do the actors who are in it. That would be kind of cool. But it would never flyy.

Yes, "work".
Well, we don't really have a word in English for a job that involves little more than internet time and gummy bear treats, so yeah, "work". *gives Fass the death glare, and decides to ignore him for the rest of the day*

*mumble grumble*

Ah... so many people so caught up with intentions...

Now firstly, I will admit that this is up for debate, but this really is not the thread for that. I've actually spent days dibating this point, and neither side has gotten anywhere.

Anyhow, intentions are irrelevent. (For a debate on this, please start a new, more relevent thread) The celebrities are still helping those in need. So if you don't support them, why support the workers for Doctors Without Borders? They both commit time and money to help. And if you claim that it is because celebraties also want to get publicity, then I would like to point out that their intentions don't matter. Ramses didn't mean to destroy Syria, but it stil burned. The same goes for helping. Even if your intention was for personal gain, the fact of the matter is as long as the less fortunate are being helped in a similar was as by Doctors Without Borders, then their actions should be supported by the same people who support D.W.B..

Now on the point of they don't live in the "real world"... I would like to point out that this is coming from someone who can afford to own a computer and internet acess. In my mind, the only way for anyone to be an acurate judge of living conditions is to experiance it all. Id est, Bill Gates joins the peace corps and goes to a third world country with nothing but knowlage and perhaps a sack of food, then lives in a place like Etheopia for a few years, and eventually lears to distinguish from comercial flights where you can cary out life as normal from the Russian built MIGs where you lie perfectly still as they shoot anything that moves. Once you've gone from decadence to almost battlefield or less conditions, or vice-versa, I don't beleive anyone has the right to comment on living conditions and act like they understand.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and is entirely based upon my values which I do not expect others to share. In the end, it will all come down to personal values and priorities on wheather or not you feel that celebriteis trying to help out is a good thing.

The likes of Geldof and Bonno are fine in my book as they are actively and consistantly trying to achieve things. Its the celebrities like the Sugababes/Robbie Williams/Gerri Haliwell who become patronising twats once a year in time for comic relief who use charity a means to boost their profile - these people really annoy me.

Well, we don't really have a word in English for a job that involves little more than internet time and gummy bear treats, so yeah, "work".

If you get paid for it, then you have a pretty sweet deal right there. Gummy bears rule.

*gives Fass the death glare, and decides to ignore him for the rest of the day.

Oh, no, not the death glare!

*dies*

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?

I think that the people most likely to whine about politicized celebrities do so only about those that espouse an opinion that they disagree with while simultaneously they ususally wind up cheerleading other celebrities who happen to agree with them. You know, the ones who will decry 'liberal Holywood' and then cheer Ron Silver's speech at the RNC, and then they go put on some nice, patriotic Toby Kieth music to humm along to.


Hell, politics in general is about cult of personality these days, i.e. just another form of celebrity.


And anyone who comes like a place like this and then complains about celebrity using their soapbox is reaching for new heights in hypocricy. They come here to espouse their beliefs to a wider audience, and in this case what they are espousing is a complaint about other people espousing their beliefs to a wider audience.

Two simple facts:
1) Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
2) Everyone in a free society has the right to publicly state that opinion.

Denying celebrities out of what I assume to be some jealousy of the disproportianate avaialability to media that they get is simply a childish attempt to limit the same freedoms for them that most would never accept to be put on themselves.


Besides, it can be fun to watch some of these celebrities prove themselves to be morons to a wider audience.

You don't have to listen. It's called free speech. It's perfectly feasible to bothe sing/act and to talk politics.


Just like all those rich politicians that we support. I guess they also have no business talking about the real world either?


I agree-dont misunderstand-I have no argument with the free speech aspect. I just usually dont agree with them and dont like them spouting- So often, its only to promote their own business and create interets in themselves.
I have no great love for politicians either.

I never said they have no business in the real world, I stated that they dont LIVE in the real world.

Dont put words in my mouth. You'll find our opinions here arent terribly far apart.

And anyone who comes like a place like this and then complains about celebrity using their soapbox is reaching for new heights in hypocricy. They come here to espouse their beliefs to a wider audience, and in this case what they are espousing is a complaint about other people espousing their beliefs to a wider audience.


No. I don't expect people to fall down and worship me and send me money and vote the way I tell them.

Come to think of it, in my lifetime, I've never told ANYONE how to vote.

I don't have a problem with ones I view to be sincere - Bono, for instance. Or Geldof.

But Barbara Streisand's political motivation stems from her deep phobias - it's well documented. She needs to be in a mental institution, not peddling her ravings in public.

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?

The problem with Celebrity, is that just because a person is famous, tehy are treated as if they actually have a clue.
Most do not, but want to [airhead voice]"be taken seeeriouslee."[/airhead voice]

Sometimes, this backfires (Dixie Chicks, Jane Fonda) and narrows their appeal enormously (Ted Nugent).

It all really depends on how breathlessly hyped they are by the Entertainment Media, and how closely their causes conform to the American Leftist Agenda. (John Lennon was treated like a sage-all-knowing, whereas Charlie Daniels is viewed as a pre-Cro-Magnon), and the 'values' espoused by the European mainstream-left.

In other words, to be taken "Seereuslee", one must campaign for Green, Anti-Military(especially American Military), or Left-wing causes.

Hence, Bono is, indeed, probably a wanker.

No. I don't expect people to fall down and worship me and send me money and vote the way I tell them.

Come to think of it, in my lifetime, I've never told ANYONE how to vote.

I don't have a problem with ones I view to be sincere - Bono, for instance. Or Geldof.

But Barbara Streisand's political motivation stems from her deep phobias - it's well documented. She needs to be in a mental institution, not peddling her ravings in public.


You seem to be proving my point. You applaud those you feel are sincere, but would prefer to deny that same right to a woman you feel should not have the same opportunity becuase of your opinion of her politics (or how she came to come by those opinions).


As you point out, she's a nutbar. That just puts her in the category of people I enjoy watching make themselves look foolish.


Hey, if you are worried that Barbara Striesand - in the face of many more cogent and coherent opposing voices - can win the hearts and minds of voters in numbers sufficient to sway policy, then I think you should be more concerned with the intellect of your voting population than just her ravings. Because even I don't have THAT low an opinion of the general American public....


... or are you saying that I should?


Damn! Now THAT would be fucking scary!

Would Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Arnold Swartzenneger count as politicised celebrities?

It would be nice if there was some kind of rule that when a movie makes a vertain amount of proit, they have to donate a certain amount to charity, and so do the actors who are in it. That would be kind of cool. But it would never fly.
There kind of is already. It's called taxes.

Would Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Arnold Swartzenneger count as politicised celebrities?

Of course not. Only the non-rightist celebrities are mocked for their politics.

Would Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, Jesse "The Body" Ventura and Arnold Swartzenneger count as politicised celebrities?

I don't thing Arnold is still making movies, and Clint's an old man. Jesse Ventura was brought in as a protest-vote and turned out to, unlike most Celebrities, actually have a clue. Reagan likewise gave up his acting career upon entering Politics, and proved effective as a Union manager (President, Screen Actor's Guild) before running int he ever-screwed-up California governor's races. He was then a Governor for quite a while... so he probably started out as one, but became just another famous politician.

This is all a bit different from people whose only real skill or knowledge is the field of entertainment (or worse, looking good in designer clothing), trying to influence the public to endorse a course of action well-outside their field of expertise. Somehow, I don't think Green Day knows the first thing about the Military (I could be wrong, they don't know much about music, after all...), and System of a Down's "BYOB" asks a question with an obvious answer:
"Why do they always send the Pooor!!!!(a'capella atonal shrieking whine)"

The answer being:
"...because spoilt rich-kids like the Artists, can't fight their way out of a wet-paper bag, even with help, -go back to the studio and quit whining you moron. Be happy they're buying your albums and not wondering why they have a boot-scooter for USO instead of a rock band."

Of course not. Only the non-rightist celebrities are mocked for their politics.

Is somebody too young to remember eight years of Bonzo jokes?

Is somebody too young to remember eight years of Bonzo jokes?

Not too young, just not American and thus pays very little attention to US-centric namecalling.

Not too young, just not American and thus pays very little attention to US-centric namecalling.

the political cartoons and commentators were much, much funnier in the Reagan years. Trust me, the tone was a lot less panic-stricken and the mocking had more style. (the Comedians were also funnier as they skewered him...)

the political cartoons and commentators were much, much funnier in the Reagan years. Trust me, the tone was a lot less panic-stricken and the mocking had more style. (the Comedians were also funnier as they skewered him...)

Bonzo was Reagan? Because of the monkey?

I think anyone involved in politics should die a horrible horrible death. Or just die, I don't mind.

And people who believe in any religion, including science. They can die too.

Also kill people who don't like dogs. Because all dogs are cool, even chihuahuas.

Then only cool people would be alive, and there'd only be about 40 of us, maximum. HEAVEN ON EARTH.

I don't thing Arnold is still making movies, and Clint's an old man. Jesse Ventura was brought in as a protest-vote and turned out to, unlike most Celebrities, actually have a clue. Reagan likewise gave up his acting career upon entering Politics, and proved effective as a Union manager (President, Screen Actor's Guild) before running int he ever-screwed-up California governor's races. He was then a Governor for quite a while... so he probably started out as one, but became just another famous politician.

This is all a bit different from people whose only real skill or knowledge is the field of entertainment (or worse, looking good in designer clothing), trying to influence the public to endorse a course of action well-outside their field of expertise.
This is a terrible and partisan answer. You are speaking as if these celebrities (you're only referring to liberal celebrities, it seems*) are trying for a dual role as politicians and entertainers. When in fact all they are doing is talking, which is no more than what you and I are doing.

Reagan didn't hold back from political commentary when he was an actor, before he became an actual politician. *Why does Clint get off from your generalisations about "idiot celebrities"? Because he is right wing? (I don't accept "because he's old" as a valid reason.)

Then only cool people would be alive, and there'd only be about 40 of us, maximum. HEAVEN ON EARTH.
You remind me of a Christian fundamentalist we once had here called VoteEarly. He thought that he was one of God's elect of 144,000 humans who were to go to heaven. Everyone else was destined to hell.

I think that it's a great thing that celebrities like Bono and Bob Geldof get involved in the political process in order to secure debt relief to poor countries. They are right to use their high-profile status for charitable purposes. They also serve as role models in an increasingly politically apathetic society. They encourage us to get involved in the political process ourselves to create a better world.

Yet many people, for various nonsensical reasons, hate celebrities who do anything political (Bono is often sneered at as a "wanker" :rolleyes: ).

What do you think?

I think its a good idea. Tho it seems only acceptable that 'intelligent' celebs do so! If Paris Hilton suddenly came out in support of Hillary Clinton or against the war in Iraq, she may not be as well recieved say as Bono. Bono kicks ass!

Well of course celebrities have a right to speak out about whatever they want. Generally they are no more intelligent than anyone else so people who place real value on what they say simply because they are celebrities, well, they have a screw loose.
After listening to celebrities speak out for years I have found they are a truly naive group, they are often very hypocritical and they are quite pampered and spoiled. You get some movie star ardently speaking out about protecting the environment while at the same time owning three houses and umpteen cars, sucking up tons of water for their two swimming pools and three fountains etc. etc. etc.
Politicians are generally the same so should be paid no more attention to.

This is a terrible and partisan answer. You are speaking as if these celebrities (you're only referring to liberal celebrities, it seems*) are trying for a dual role as politicians and entertainers. When in fact all they are doing is talking, which is no more than what you and I are doing.

Reagan didn't hold back from political commentary when he was an actor, before he became an actual politician. *Why does Clint get off from your generalisations about "idiot celebrities"? Because he is right wing? (I don't accept "because he's old" as a valid reason.)

No, because he's been a Mayor, and put his career on hold while being a mayor. It's not Just left-wing, (though by quantity alone there are more bad examples on the left than on the right...) It's just that generally, when a Celeb who isn't on the left speaks about an issue, they're automatically marginalized (Charlton Heston, Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels), whereas if Babs Streisand speaks, it's on the 6 O'Clock news. (same for Sean Penn...)

Even when what they're saying is utter and complete Bullshit.

I tend to treat Mr. Limbaugh as being roughly as credible as any other Holloyweird Airhead, with one important difference: Limbaugh may be an airhead and a blowhard, but being a political blowhard is the core business of his entertainment empire, Nobody in their right mind is going to take what he says at face value as being objective or correct...Unlike rock stars who peddle the DNC's programme in interviews and are taken seriously because they're rock stars.

Similarly, I tend to view what a celeb does outside entertainment before deciding whether or not said Celeb is even mildly credible. Clint Eastwood has a second-job (he's been a politician, mayor of a California city), Charleton Heston also served as a board member of SAG, and did a tour as the President of the NRA until health issues forced him out. Ronald Reagan may have been "outspoken", but until he'd served in capacities other-than-entertainment, nobody took him seriously.

Ted Nugent means well, but... he's a rock star with some fun hobbies.

Charlie Daniels is a musician. He can be an opinionated asshole if he wants, but he's just a musician (Not Credible).

Sonny Bono (*prior to assuming room-temperature) ceased being a television, film, and recording artist some years before running for Congress. He served in Congress, ergo, he would be more credible when commenting on political issues than, say, someone whose whole experience in the workings of government is talking to their accountant in March, during a break in touring, or letting their Agent handle it.

This is all very different from, say, Sinead O'Connor, or Bono, or the lead-singer for (Fill in the band), who hasn't even spent time in the Service (unlike Elvis, Jimmy Hendrix, Captain Kangaroo, etc.) yet feels qualified to tell me what a soldier thinks and feels, and believes him or herself qualified to condemn the military.

See, it's easy to be a Lefty and a Celebrity and keep your career going. Jane Fonda hasn't lost any money or contracts for shilling for the VC. On the other hand, it appears that most non-left Celebs pretty much undergo career-death upon speaking up.

Jane Fonda hasn't lost any money or contracts for shilling for the VC.

You still aren't over that?

You still aren't over that?

You should see some of the other people who talk about her here. Tend to be very bitter, incoherent and, as seen, have a hard time letting go.

No, because he's been a Mayor, and put his career on hold while being a mayor. It's not Just left-wing, (though by quantity alone there are more bad examples on the left than on the right...) It's just that generally, when a Celeb who isn't on the left speaks about an issue, they're automatically marginalized (Charlton Heston, Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels), whereas if Babs Streisand speaks, it's on the 6 O'Clock news. (same for Sean Penn...)

Even when what they're saying is utter and complete Bullshit.

I tend to treat Mr. Limbaugh as being roughly as credible as any other Holloyweird Airhead, with one important difference: Limbaugh may be an airhead and a blowhard, but being a political blowhard is the core business of his entertainment empire, Nobody in their right mind is going to take what he says at face value as being objective or correct...Unlike rock stars who peddle the DNC's programme in interviews and are taken seriously because they're rock stars.

Similarly, I tend to view what a celeb does outside entertainment before deciding whether or not said Celeb is even mildly credible. Clint Eastwood has a second-job (he's been a politician, mayor of a California city), Charleton Heston also served as a board member of SAG, and did a tour as the President of the NRA until health issues forced him out. Ronald Reagan may have been "outspoken", but until he'd served in capacities other-than-entertainment, nobody took him seriously.

Ted Nugent means well, but... he's a rock star with some fun hobbies.

Charlie Daniels is a musician. He can be an opinionated asshole if he wants, but he's just a musician (Not Credible).

Sonny Bono (*prior to assuming room-temperature) ceased being a television, film, and recording artist some years before running for Congress. He served in Congress, ergo, he would be more credible when commenting on political issues than, say, someone whose whole experience in the workings of government is talking to their accountant in March, during a break in touring, or letting their Agent handle it.

This is all very different from, say, Sinead O'Connor, or Bono, or the lead-singer for (Fill in the band), who hasn't even spent time in the Service (unlike Elvis, Jimmy Hendrix, Captain Kangaroo, etc.) yet feels qualified to tell me what a soldier thinks and feels, and believes him or herself qualified to condemn the military.

See, it's easy to be a Lefty and a Celebrity and keep your career going. Jane Fonda hasn't lost any money or contracts for shilling for the VC. On the other hand, it appears that most non-left Celebs pretty much undergo career-death upon speaking up.

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you are on, don't you think that both major parties in the U.S. use celebrities to influence voters? The Democrats as spokespersons, the Repblicans as candidates.

I don't think of them.

Well, unless I remember one of the central premises of Team America: World Police.

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you are on, don't you think that both major parties in the U.S. use celebrities to influence voters? The Democrats as spokespersons, the Repblicans as candidates.

Umm... Yes. that's a fair assessment, though there are a few Democrat Celebrities that made it into public orifice. (IIRC, Fred Grandy is a Democrat.)
I've also noticed that both major parties encourage their 'faithful' to react reflexively-though the Dems do do a better job of it on-average.

You still aren't over that?

She's still alive, and still unindicted, yes?
No, I'm not "Over it". You can hate Bush, I can hate Fonda, okay? As far as has been revealed, Bush hasn't given aid-and-comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

She's still alive, and still unindicted, yes?
No, I'm not "Over it". You can hate Bush, I can hate Fonda, okay? As far as has been revealed, Bush hasn't given aid-and-comfort to the enemy in a time of war.

Oh, I don't hate Bush, I find him very amusing.
I just have a problem with those that follow him without questioning.
And you think the Vietcong or the NVA took great comfort from knowing a little white girl they'd never heard of before doesn't like the war?

Oh, I don't hate Bush, I find him very amusing.
I just have a problem with those that follow him without questioning.
And you think the Vietcong or the NVA took great comfort from knowing a little white girl they'd never heard of before doesn't like the war?

No, I think they took great comfort in knowing that a member of an influential political family in the U.S. was providing free propoganda to further their cause by attacking the morale of their enemies.
This was probably not all that noticeable for the average VC or NVA trooper, but it was of enough significance to the leadership to devote time, resources, and equipment to provide her with a good time, and it was valuable enough for them to use her comments as propoganda on the international scene.

-snip-
But isn't expressing her views a democratic right?
Even if she decides to be on the other side, isn't that still a decision that should be respected by her fellow democratic Americans?

And I can understand her. I didn't live back then, but apart from that they were dubbed communists, I don't know how the VC or the NVA was any worse than the Southern Dictator (whatever his name was - some people just don't make it in history).
They were fighting foreign invaders, isn't that a valiant thing to do?
Something an American would gladly do should France come and bomb the living daylights out of the US (if it could)?

Unfortunately, some morons vote a particular way because their fav celebrity is voting that way. Who gives a shit what party some celebrity endorses? They're just one person and no more important in the voting process than anyone else.

I think the democratic party put off a lot of people by aligning themselves with all these celebrities last election. I truly thing it was detrimental.

If we dont listen to these political celebs. Maybe they will go away.