TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hollywood HATES conservatives
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hollywood HATES conservatives

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111160098/1001


http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronsi...ate_how_ab.php


Just one more good reason to be a conservative.
post #2 of 27
That shows how much damage the current Administration has done to the Republican Party, not to mention the country. It's interesting that the Republican candidates being supported by some celebrities, i.e., Giuliani and McCain, are "centrists" on many issues.
post #3 of 27
I guess what the Republican Party really needs is another actor to run for President.

Unfortunately, Fred Thompson came to the same conclusion, but doesn't seem to fit the bill.
post #4 of 27
i really cant see anyone i want to vote for.
post #5 of 27
I hate Hollywood and don't give a darn what anyone from there thinks
post #6 of 27
Artists, the academia and like are traditionally left in their political ideologies. Hollywood itself is a cesspool of the worst of the human condition, but many who are involved in Hollywood because of their work are highly intelligent, educated and compassionate people (just as are found in all walks of life) who just happen to have the means to be noticed more when they talk about their political / religious / humanitarian views.

I think that the good that is done by a great deal of people who have made incredibly good livings out of Hollywood does in some way balance out the cheapness of the industry as it has become. You'd be hard-pressed to find any successful actors, musicians, directors, producers etc who do not do a great deal of philanthropic work and who do not give a great deal of their income to charity. Just because they don't bang on about it all the time (i.e. Oprah) doesn't mean it's not happening, and doesn't mean that these people should be treated with contempt because they have made their living entertaining people.
post #7 of 27
err.You'd be hard-pressed to find any successful actors, musicians, directors, producers etc who make a enough of a living to give money way.
post #8 of 27
That's why I said `successful' - I didn't mean the ones who are waiters who act when they can get the work.

And Max is an actor, he doesn't work all the time - but we give money to charity. Philanthropy is not just confined to entertainers, obviously, but the ones who make it big are very generous and charitable.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
That's why I said `successful' - I didn't mean the ones who are waiters who act when they can get the work.

And Max is an actor, he doesn't work all the time - but we give money to charity. Philanthropy is not just confined to entertainers, obviously, but the ones who make it big are very generous and charitable.
I give time and money to charities without being an actor!

Most of them are generous to charities because their accountant tells them to be because it saves them money at tax time
post #10 of 27
How do you know that? Do you know all of them and their accountants? I think that's very unkind. Most of them (I would think) give money to charity because they're nice people who earn a ridiculous amount of money and want to give some back to the world. People aren't born being mega movie stars - they work hard to get where they are. Like the old saying `it takes ten years to become an overnight success'. People remember where they came from and for the most part have families who are still just everyday people. It's not a stretch to think that they would do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they can get something more out of it.

And I did qualify in my earlier post that it's not just actors who give money to charity.
post #11 of 27
I wouldn't say "hate"...Hate is such a strong word. More "Hollywood doesn't seem to be contributing to GOP."

Who cares who is contributing to either party in Hollywood anyways? Does anyone in Hollywood read about you or me contributing? No....
post #12 of 27
I'm sure that "Hollywood"...all the actors, directors, producers, crews, etc. would be pleased that they've been lumped into one big ol' pile of "conservative haters". That's quite a sweeping generalization about a very large group of people. Putting that aside, to assume that because one does not support Republican candidates, does not mean that they "hate conservatives". Those are your words, and your assumption...and it is an assumption.

On the other subject that has come up in this thread...just because someone is successful, why is their philanthropy assumed to be disingenuous? Why does their contribution mean less than the contribution of someone who earns less? Does that mean that the contributions of those who earn less than you have more value than your contributions? It's a flawed philosophy IMO.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
On the other subject that has come up in this thread...just because someone is successful, why is their philanthropy assumed to be disingenuous? Why does their contribution mean less than the contribution of someone who earns less? Does that mean that the contributions of those who earn less than you have more value than your contributions? It's a flawed philosophy IMO.
Exactly. My reason for bringing it up was because so many seem to look down their noses on those who are successful as artists and entertainers, and think that all they do is party and bathe in dollar bills and use champagne instead of water. It's rubbish. They live a privileged lifestyle and the point is that they don't just take it for granted but use their privilege to do a lot of good in the world, too. A contribution is a contribution, no matter who makes it. But I'm just tired of people bashing celebrities when a lot of them are very, very generous folk who try hard to give back to the people who helped get them where they are.

And a lot of them also try to use their privilege and influence to bring attention to the problems in the world. I read an interview with Brad Pitt once, where he said `Well, the cameras are going to follow me anyway, no matter what I do. So I just decided to go to places where the cameras would have no choice but to film the kinds of conditions that most of the world's people live in'. A novel way of looking at it, but effective. And if that makes people label him and others like him a `conservative hater', then really, that is their problem, not his.

I didn't read anything in those articles - the second one especially - that said anything about the entirety of Hollywood `hating' conservatives - or even anything about them hating anyone. They just talked about actors who don't get vocal about which campaigns they support. If you want to extrapolate that into `Hollywood HATES conservatives', then I guess you can. But it doesn't actually make any sense, based on what those articles say.
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Exactly. My reason for bringing it up was because so many seem to look down their noses on those who are successful as artists and entertainers, .
the older timers used to have it right, when they had signs no actors allowed.
post #15 of 27
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Why's that?
post #16 of 27
cant type now cat in lap, tell you later
post #17 of 27
There are a lot of entertainers who are Conservative. They're out there. However, I do agree that the majority of entertainers probably are more Liberal. Most artistic people are more sensative, and Conservatism is not for the Sensative. Conservatives believe in walking a tight rope, and running things as either black or white, with little or no gray included. Liberal's tend to go more for the gray, and that's why I think the majority of the entertainment world is Liberal. Conservatives call people who care for those less fortunate, or those who believe that the arts should be a part of every shool childs life, and those in need as "Bleeding Hearts". God Forbid you try to save a 200 year old tree..when it could be used to make paper, and there fore lots of money for big business. That's the Conservative point of view. Liberals would be out there trying to save that tree.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
There are a lot of entertainers who are Conservative. They're out there. However, I do agree that the majority of entertainers probably are more Liberal. Most artistic people are more sensative, and Conservatism is not for the Sensative. Conservatives believe in walking a tight rope, and running things as either black or white, with little or no gray included. Liberal's tend to go more for the gray, and that's why I think the majority of the entertainment world is Liberal. Conservatives call people who care for those less fortunate, or those who believe that the arts should be a part of every shool childs life, and those in need as "Bleeding Hearts". God Forbid you try to save a 200 year old tree..when it could be used to make paper, and there fore lots of money for big business. That's the Conservative point of view. Liberals would be out there trying to save that tree.
Excellent post! Also Liberals support more laws supporting animal welfare while conservatives support laws that are preceived as harmful to animals.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
... Conservatives call people who care for those less fortunate, or those who believe that the arts should be a part of every shool childs life, and those in need as "Bleeding Hearts". God Forbid you try to save a 200 year old tree..when it could be used to make paper, and there fore lots of money for big business. That's the Conservative point of view.
When I started reading this post I thought "hmmmmm.....a very astute observation" -- at least until I came to the part above. You lost me there. That's a stereotypical and rather extreme view. Shake that stick at the Neocons if you like, but Conservatives care for the less fortunate and appreciate art and nature. I'm fairly conservative in most things (though I'd call myself a social moderate) and I don't see myself fitting into that description at all. Just as most liberals wouldn't fit the "bleeding heart" description either.

Sorry, but I think that post started out great and then fell off a cliff.

BTW, 200 years old is not a very old tree.
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
When I started reading this post I thought "hmmmmm.....a very astute observation" -- at least until I came to the part above. You lost me there. That's a stereotypical and rather extreme view. Shake that stick at the Neocons if you like, but Conservatives care for the less fortunate and appreciate art and nature. I'm fairly conservative in most things (though I'd call myself a social moderate) and I don't see myself fitting into that description at all. Just as most liberals wouldn't fit the "bleeding heart" description either.

Sorry, but I think that post started out great and then fell off a cliff.

BTW, 200 years old is not a very old tree.
You may care for the arts, and for the less fortunate, however most of what Conservatism is based on that they are willing to let people have the arts and the less fortunate have aid, as long as it doesn't come out of their pocket. Conservatives believe in helping the rich guy richer, in the belief that his prosperity will trickle down into helping the working class get jobs, working for them, and making them more money. Personally, I've never understood why more celeb's aren't conservative, because they're usually all quite rich. However, I think it goes back to the sensitive issue. Sensitive people find it hard to live whilst others are suffering.

Conservatives would end all Arts programs if it saved them money. They would eliminate all welfare programs if the could, and to some degree I do believe we need to do some serious work in the welfare system.

When I said what I said in my previous post, I did not MEAN ALL Conservative people lived their life by that code a 100 percent, but what Conservatives do stand for is, LESS TAXES, and instead of cutting the spending on a lot of things that no one needs, like a war in Iraq, or making the wealthy pay their fair of the taxes, they'd rather take the benefits away from the poor people. Fact!

Entertainers do NOT want arts programs eliminated, because after all if it weren't for those programs, we might not see any more budding entertainers, writers, or artists. So it stands to reason that they are going to fight tooth and nail against Conservatives.


Oh, maybe I should have said the tree was 400 or 500 years old. I'm not sure what age a tree is, before it's considered really old.
post #21 of 27
Well, I just think that sounds like a narrow stereotype instead of an understanding, both of conservatism and of economics. But, hey, that's way off topic.

PS - I'm against the war in Iraq.
post #22 of 27
Conservatism is not just about taking benefits away from the poor, at its roots, it is about maintaining the status quo. We have a conservative government federally who have brought in new benefits for working, lower income parents. Our sales tax, which is applied equally to all people, has decreased. They instead made a lot of cuts to government, the main one being cutting the budget of the government's HR department saving $80million.

I think it works more the other way around than the conservatives would cut arts programs so artists don't like them. Conservative people tend to be more conservative (small C) in values and even if they would like to go into some kind of art related field, will do it where they have a guaranteed wage type jobs. People are often liberal when younger even if they find themselves thinking more conservative later in life, and Hollywood tend to be younger, which in itself would find a greater proportion of liberal people in the area.
post #23 of 27
Thread Starter 
I would dearly love the stats on the level of education of Hollywood celebrities, I think you would find the most outspoken don't have much more than a high school diploma if that.

Sorry but I don't consider most of the Hollywood actors as the sensitive type.

From what I can see is most conservatives keep in on down low so they will be able to work in the industry.
post #24 of 27
You obviously don't know much about many of the actors then. You don't need stats - just look them up on Wikipedia. A great deal of them have higher education. And, er, sorry - you don't really become a good or successful actor (I'm not talking about ALL actors) unless you have a great deal of sensitivity to the human condition. There's a LOT more to it than just hopping in front of a camera and saying lines. I'm sorry but that attitude just irks me - and sounds like it comes from someone with little to absolutely no knowledge of the performing arts industry. These people weren't born rich and successful.

Jodie Foster, for example, went to a French school where she graduated valedictorian and went on to Yale to achieve magna cum laude in her BA in English Literature.

Most actors actually do further studies after high school in theatre schools and dramatic arts academies. It would make sense to do post-high school study in the field in which you want to have your career, would it not?

Irrespective of this, many actors also attended university. Brad Pitt attended a College of Journalism. William Hurt attended Tufts university. Matt Damon went to Harvard.

Your post makes it sound like you think all actors are brainless layabouts who haven't worked a day in their life. I think you should get to know some actors, before you make such unkind and completely untrue comments. I have spent my life in the performing arts and actors, dancers and musicians are some of the most incredible, artistic, creative, sensitive, genuine and hardworking people I've ever met.
post #25 of 27
Actors are just regular people who like to act. Some got very lucky and ended up in Hollywood. Most don't. But, like regular people, there's some good, some bad, some dumb, some smart, and everything in between.
post #26 of 27
Absolutely right. The only thing I'd disagree with you is on the `luck' part. Actors work incredibly hard to get successful and most of the time it's a slow road. There's been a few who have been lucky or got a `break' but not many.

But yes, I definitely do agree that they're regular folk like anyone else - I guess that's the point I've been trying to make but in my usual, typical verbose way! I'm so tired of the general snubbing of actors just because they are successful in the entertainment business.
post #27 of 27
Well, OK, I worded that poorly. I meant of the GOOD actors, the ones who fit your description -- even of them, getting lucky still has a lot to do with getting that first break. Then, after, it's what they do with it. Ya, know, that sounds like a lot of jobs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hollywood HATES conservatives