14 Principled Anti-War Celebrities We Fear May Have Been Kidnapped

Don, they are just actors.

mirandashell said:

Hmm... highly amusing in a 'aren't we clever' smug kind of way.

Click to expand...

There's a reason why Buzzfeed bugs me.

I can't speak for anyone else. What I can say is there's a reason why Obama hasn't been pleasing me.

He's not overly pleased me either. There are certain things I expected him to do that he hasn't. But then I also know he's been blocked as much as he could be so....


I see Obama as the First One. The one that makes it easier for the others.

It's possible to be against one war, but not against another. Each one has its own unique circumstances.

mirandashell said:

Plot, he's an actor. He's not a political genius, he's just an actor.

Click to expand...

mirandashell said:

Don, they are just actors.

Click to expand...

Asner and the rest are citizens of the USA who did not hesitate to exercise their First Amendment rights to Free Speech in the past.

Beyond that exact similarity with Don and me, Asner and the rest are additionally capable of commanding the attentions of millions of fellow Americans and then sway at least a modest percentage of them into voting differently than had said celebrities not spoken up at all. And a couple of these celebrities (George Clooney in particular) have the personal finances to produce multi-million dollar films laced to the gills with their political ideologies. Case in point: the 2005 film called Syriana which wasn't actually about Syria per se, but here in 2013 it's kind of ironic that the title makes one initially suspect it is indeed about Syria.

And Ronald Reagan was likewise "just an actor."

As is Ashley Judd, who recently attempted to run for a US Senate seat in Kentucky.

As is Richard Dreyfus, who dropped off the radar for a number of years to study law, and whom some believe is angling to run for Congress soon.

Ashley Judd was invited/recruited, looked into it, and decided not to run.

But Plot, everyone in America is allowed their rights under the First Amendment, aren't they?

Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. And it doesn't mean they can't change their minds. And it doesn't mean they can't lose interest and move on to something else more fashionable.

They're Hollywood actors. Who gives a shit what they think?

Us. .

At least 33 times over.

You might do. I certainly don't.

clintl said:

It's possible to be against one war, but not against another. Each one has its own unique circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yep. I am kind of a pacifist, but I'm much more against going into a war half-cocked, waving cowboy hats and American flags, without an exit strategy, leaving your citizens at home vulnerable because the national guard is spread across two countries, than I am against war, full stop. I really wish we had done something about Rwanda when we had the chance, though I don't think there was much we could do apart from offering humanitarian aid. What are we gonna do, install a puppet dictator for crowd control? Yeah, I'm not sure if that shit ever works. Other than World War II, I can't think of a place we've gone and left it better than we found it... Time will tell on Iraq.

Regardless, I think the whys and hows of the war are more important than the whos and wheres.

Don said:

BuzzFeed has noticed that the anti-war left went to sleep when Junior George Bush left office. Why is that?

They illustrate this by quoting from 14 celebrities who once upon a time claimed killing for empire was wrong.

In memory of those gone missing: Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, Jackson Browne, Janeane Garofalo, Neil Young, Jessica Lange, Barbra Streisand, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon.

A pox on all their houses for putting partisan politics ahead of conscience.

Click to expand...

This is one of those "hey let's poke fun at the libs because they must hypocrites because they aren't hopping up and down losing their shit because Obama hasn't bombed Syria yet" threads that is the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

It's easy, anybody can play and it really don't mean dick. What is implied that these celebrities are inconsistent because they loudly protested Bush's Wars and clammed up over Obama's Wars.

To make this comparison work one has to ignore (as Don has) that Syria is not Iraq and Obama does not have the raging hard-on Bush had to get Saddam Hussein.

But even if the Lefties are ducking and covering from the Syria debate, where are the Righties?

In this time of turmoil where is Stephen Baldwin, Jimmy "Dynomite" Walker, Tony Danza, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Kirk Cameron, Bo Derek, Adam Sandler, Patricia Heaton, Jon Voight, Janine Turner, Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer or even Clint "The Chair Whisper" Eastwood when America needs them?

Or are "principled anti-war conservative celebrities' an oxymoron?

Oh, and BuzzFeed is a piece of shit.

Likewise Al Franken is/was also just an actor, or was he a comedian? I haven't heard him give a hint at cracking a joke for many years now.

And Sony Bono was just a singer/songwriter.

Asner is showing his age with that comment. His generation is much more likely to see race first.

In memory of those gone missing: Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, Jackson Browne, Janeane Garofalo, Neil Young, Jessica Lange, Barbra Streisand, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon.

Click to expand...

The Buzzfeed people are idiots. What else has happened since we got involved in Iraq? Social media has become much more widespread. Print media is struggling to hang on. All media outlets are competing for consumers, particularly very young ones.

In other words, not a lot of people are jostling to cover Martin Sheen.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger was just a... Well never mind.

But the point is that they were all up in arms when it was Bush in office, but now that it's Obama talking about missile strikes or launching drones, their MIA. And do you really believe that they won't shoot their mouths off again if we get another republican president in office?

I think the ppl on this board don't care because we're all smart enough to make up our own minds and pay attention. (Well you guys are, I just make smart ass comments) but remember there are a lot of people out there who don't pay attention and will decide an issue based on what some celebrity says.

Don said:

Sheryl Crow, Bruce Springsteen, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, George Clooney, Jackson Browne, Janeane Garofalo, Neil Young, Jessica Lange, Barbra Streisand, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon.

Click to expand...

This is a pretty stellar list of celebrities, but I would bet a million bucks that none of 'em would be able to locate Syria on a world map.

Betcha, two million bucks.

Vito said:

This is a pretty stellar list of celebrities, but I would bet a million bucks that none of 'em would be able to locate Syria on a world map.

Betcha, two million bucks.

Click to expand...

Lol. Mitt Romney couldn't either.

That bit of silliness aside, I'd wager an equal amount that you're wrong about some of them. Not that Clooney needs me defending him, but the guy has put quite a bit on the line for the causes he believes in. Ditto with someone like Affleck.

It's also worth noting that the anti-war left, Hollywood or not, was protesting against the 'Bush Doctrine', of pre-emptive total war. The comparisons with Syria in that respect fall apart.

raburrell said:

Lol. Mitt Romney couldn't either.

That bit of silliness aside, I'd wager an equal amount that you're wrong about some of them. Not that Clooney needs me defending him, but the guy has put quite a bit on the line for the causes he believes in. Ditto with someone like Affleck.

Click to expand...

Lay out a totally blank map of the world, and ask 'em to point out Syria. I'm sure they'll all plant their finger somewhere between Greece and India, but...

raburrell said:

It's also worth noting that the anti-war left, Hollywood or not, was protesting against the 'Bush Doctrine', of pre-emptive total war. The comparisons with Syria in that respect fall apart.

Click to expand...

That isn't what the Bush Doctrine says, either. This was tried on Sarah Palin, and the interviewer wound up just as incorrect as Sarah Palin.

The doctrine most certainly leaves total war as an option. But does not call for it. Never has.

robjvargas said:

That isn't what the Bush Doctrine says, either. This was tried on Sarah Palin, and the interviewer wound up just as incorrect as Sarah Palin.

The doctrine most certainly leaves total war as an option. But does not call for it. Never has.

Click to expand...

Mkay. So, then if we except your practical distinction without a difference, the celebrities in question were objecting to... (deep breath)

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.

Click to expand...

... which is still different from what's going on in Syria.

Plot Device said:

It's bogus for Asner to lay claim to the notion that "We protested a war in Iraq and our protests fell on deaf ears, so now there's just no point protesting a war in Syria," because the left-right paradigm won't allow such a notion to hold up.

It was mostly the LEFT which was protesting Iraq, all the while that we had a RIGHT-leaning president. So it can be easily understood that the Righty POTUS from back then would ignore the Left.

But now it's a Lefty president. Why should he ignore his own base?

Click to expand...

Because he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected now?

I don't go to demonstrations anymore because I don't see the point. A few years ago, I was part of the largest march on Washington in history, and no one even remembers it or what it was about.

Some of the people on this list are clearly activists, but a lot of them aren't. They're actors and musicians. We don't really know what they think about any war unless the media chooses to ask them what they think and report on it.

What you want to bet we hear from them once this story spreads a bit?

raburrell said:

Mkay. So, then if we except your practical distinction without a difference, the celebrities in question were objecting to... (deep breath)

... which is still different from what's going on in Syria.

Click to expand...

You're right. There's no difference between this...

and this.

We did a lot of damage in Iraq. But total war? Not even close.

ETA: We agree that this is not like Syria, in any event.

If this is a controversy, how does it make you feel that conservatives let Bush's people ram the patriot act down our throats for years and then as soon as a democrat is in the whitehouse, NSA spying and wiretapping is suddenly a big problem? All of a sudden our freedoms are more important than our security in 2013, but the reverse was true in 2002, 2004, 2006.

Both parties do this all the time, it happens because of built-in hardwired bias. Ideas sound better coming from the mouth of someone you trust, and we're a tribal species. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.

robjvargas said:

You're right. There's no difference between this...

and this.

We did a lot of damage in Iraq. But total war? Not even close.

Click to expand...

LMAO - If you really want to claim that a war which killed or wounded over 30,000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi was not our best possible effort at waging war, have at it.

grape said:

If this is a controversy, how does it make you feel that conservatives let Bush's people ram the patriot act down our throats for years and then as soon as a democrat is in the whitehouse, NSA spying and wiretapping is suddenly a big problem? All of a sudden our freedoms are more important than our security in 2013, but the reverse was true in 2002, 2004, 2006.

Both parties do this all the time, it happens because of built-in hardwired bias. Ideas sound better coming from the mouth of someone you trust, and we're a tribal species. It's unfortunate, but that's how it is.

Click to expand...

This.