Celebrity status
 

Obvious reader submissions. I question some of those listed as righties, but loooks accurate for the most part.

http://www.celiberal.com/

What a stupid fucking website.

What Proto said >:

Meh. Big deal. They throw money around for the guys who they want to win. ooooooooo

How many political view points has Lou Reed been expressing lately...? :confused

I think somebody hearing Lou Reed talk in the year 2003 has more problems that Liberalism. :lol

". . .(found at the far left; pun intended) of celebrities that make liberal comments that are anti-American, anti-Bush, or just plain ridiculous. . ."

Is this guy equating Anti-Bush as the same thing as Anti-American?
Thats a scary thought. . .

When Kevin said Lou Reed, I was thinking Lou Dobbs (who I kind of like and respect). I regret going now.

Duh, people! Don't you know that not supporting this war automatically makes you an anti-American, anti-Bush, communist, hellbound terrorist lover? Come on! You rotten "liberals" with your "reason" and "logic"! How dare you question our benevolent leaders' desperate and heartfelt attempt to liberate the oil that has ben so cruelly oppressed by Saddam Hussein! Get with the program, people!
________
Children Wellbutrin

Can we say "McCarthyism", kids?*

*So it may not be that severe, but still.

I'm registered for their forum now.

Good for you

Can we say "McCarthyism", kids?*

*So it may not be that severe, but still.

Not that severe Mod? Not even that similar.

I suppose.

*So it may not be that severe, but still.[/quote]

Actually, I don't think that statement is too far off. Let's wait for the blacklisting to begin ... see if Sean Penn gets another job any time soon. :/

I don't remember him being that good an actor to begin with.

I liked "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" and "Colors" ... that's about it. Not exactly high dramtic art, though. :/

Personally, I have NO problem with people using celebrity status to get their message across to a large body of people.

Perhaps not so much with actors, but with musicians and writers and similar creative arts, I personally feel that they almost have a RESPONSIBILITY to communicate some kind of message. Don't you prefer music that makes some kind of statement to empty bubblegum lyrics?

Artists are in a powerful position, they can lead the people by example, and if their message is worth being heard, it will be, and it SHOULD be.

Yes, until they start shoving Scientology and yoga in our asses. Oh yes, and who can forget not eating?

Yes, and those messages fall neatly into the "not worth hearing" category.

Hey, if Fiona Apple wants to talk about how we should all be pasty frail vegans, more power to her. I disagree with her. But I still enjoy her music.

Problem is, most of them don't know jack shit about what they are doing. Susan Sarandon and Ed Asner are prime examples of this. They are using these causes of the week to further their own stagnant careers.

Honestly, what purpose did Penn's trip to Iraq serve? What was he qualified to do? Did he bring home any new revelations?

Chris made better movies anyway.

Well, obviously if the artist doesn't know fuck all about the topic in question, they're not going to be taken seriously.

I still think there are a lot of political bands out there, to name one example, that have messages that are VERY much worth being heard, and they take the time to research the shit and know what they're talking about.

Barbara Streisand has a team working around the clock researching her political opinions, yet sadly, she still manages to fuck it up anyway. . .

Now I am waiting for her to write a song called "F l_l C l< i l\l G C/-\ l\/l P I l\l G newbie!!!1111"


better yet:

People who need plasma rifles are the campingest people on the server

Captions are for the other forum ;)

In the end, it'd be a lot easier to swallow a celebrity's point of view in this case:

THE SCENARIO: A celebrity takes up the cause for feeding the world's starving children.

THE REALITY: They claim that they care about the plight of these children SO BADLY that they MUST get on TV and downright GUILT you into sending a LOW LOW payment per month to feed these starving children.

THE WAY IT SHOULD BE (A.K.A. THE WAY I'D ACTUALLY SWALLOW THE STEAMING PILE THEY ARE TRYING TO THROW MY WAY):
The celebrity does NOT bring such a thing up UNLESS PROMPTED, and when he/she does, instead of pandering on TV to the masses using guilt trips (which they must be immune to, otherwise you think they would...read the rest of my comment) THEY WOULD GIVE THE MONEY UP THEMSELVES! I think Arnold Schwarzenegger alone makes enough money per movie that if he donated even 20% of his salary, he could feed HALF OF AFRICA! What can a kid do on 20% of MY paycheck, buy a few TV dinners?!? (I make more than that but I don't feel like doing the math at midnight)

If celebrities would actually BE self righteous instead of posing under the pretenses, I think celebrity status would actually mean something. Until then, I understand why less and less people buy into it.

::whew!:: Sorry if I strayed a little offtopic, but it does relate.

Problem is, most of them don't know jack shit about what they are doing.

You'd be singing a different tune if the celebs were gung-ho about war!!