# Credibility of the Hollywood Left **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2002, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983 "2002-12-11T11:49:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![seal\_cleaner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@seal\_cleaner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seal_cleaner)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/81 "2002-12-11T21:06:05Z")
The setup is - the media wants us to pay attention to these people. The sell faces. I may agree with Sheen - or Nugent - but not cause they said it. Bill Gates uses his money to advance what he beleives. Stars use their faces. The word on James Woods - abusive towards women. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/82 "2002-12-11T21:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not saying that old Benito didn’t get some socialist concepts, but he’s not what one would call a leftist. I’m not sure if he’d be a rightest either. The problem with Fascism AND Command Communism (ie, USSR) is that they don’t fit on the left-right dicotomy very well. They need another axis. It’s hard to pigeon hole them on right OR left. > [@](#): > > The ACLU does not believe in, and has no understanding of, the 2nd, 9th, or 10th ammendments. What have they done against the 2nd Amendment? I don’t see them trying to ban it. They mainly focus on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The N.R.A. does a decent job on the 2nd. > [@](#): > > A country singer would have a very hard time selling records in good ole boy country if he was a liberal. George Jones never sold any records? He’s the one that says he’d like to kick Bush in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/83 "2002-12-11T21:28:59Z")
Please favor us with your views on the 9th Amendment, **Susanann**. I mean, since you “know what the founding fathers thought,” I should think your views on the subject would be especially enlightening. Please tell us whether the Founding Fathers would believe a right to privacy exists. And would all “_true_ conservatives” share your views on this matter? What do you mean when you say the ACLU “doesn’t understand” the 9th Amendment? I’m sure the ACLU members on this board would appreciate you clearing up their confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/84 "2002-12-11T21:32:40Z")
**ISiddiqui** replied to **Susanann:** \*“A country singer would have a very hard time selling records in good ole boy country if he was a liberal.” George Jones never sold any records? He’s the one that says he’d like to kick Bush in the ass.\* And don’t forget country singer [Steve Earle](http://www.steveearle.net/). Yes, it’s fair to say that well-known country musicians are more likely to be conservative than liberal, but all-or-nothing generalizations don’t work here either: there are many country singers in what might be called “progressive” or “people’s music” styles, along with the more typical flag-waver types. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/85 "2002-12-11T21:34:16Z")
Susanann wrote: > [@](#): > > Are you saying those who agree with the ideas of George Washington, and his buddies, are not conservatives? He and his buddies were hypocritical tyrants. May I remind you of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Lousianna Purchase? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/86 "2002-12-11T21:40:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*His ideas and proposals were all socialist, from gun control, to social security, to day care centers, highway projects, medical care, housing, etc. \*\* The economy of Nazi Germany was really a mishmash, and I believe that none of the proposals above are unique to Hitler or the Nazis. They all existed in previous German governments. Hitler was indifferent to economics, and so were most of the Nazis, with the exception of a few like Todt and Speer. I think that if you have to link Fascism to an economic model, it would be corporatism. That was the dominant economic system in Fascist Italy, Spain, and Portugal. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/87 "2002-12-11T21:46:08Z")
**Susanann** – 1. I read extensively from the works of the founding fathers while I was obtaining my degree in Government, and I have maintained my interest in this subject and kept up my reading on it ever since. 2. Among those works, you mention the “debates” and “arguments”. If the founding fathers themselves disagreed about Constitutional provisions (including the crucial disagreement about whether a Bill of Rights should be included at all – remember, those are amendments which were not part of the original Constitution), how can you say that you know for certain which arguments are “meant” by the Constitution. 3. Speaking of what the Constitution “meant”, how about talking about what it “means” instead? Your position that the words of the founders are immutable, or that it was their intention that they be immutable and not subject to interpretation is in itself only one interpretation. 4. You still have not answered the question which I have now asked twice about whether a person who holds conservative views _except in the area of gun rights_ is therefore a liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/88 "2002-12-11T22:04:04Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* \*\ ***ISiddiqui** replied to **Susanann:** \*“A country singer would have a very hard time selling records in good ole boy country if he was a liberal.” George Jones never sold any records? He’s the one that says he’d like to kick Bush in the ass.\* QUOTE] Then just to really get things confused, Garth Brooks (who has sold more than 500 trillion records) is pro gun ownership, which POs kneejerk liberals, and pro gay marriage, which POs the Religious Reich. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/89 "2002-12-11T22:30:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SpoilerVirgin \* > \*\ ***Susanann** – > > 1. I read extensively from the works of the founding fathers while I was obtaining my degree in Government, and I have maintained my interest in this subject and kept up my reading on it ever since. > > 2. Among those works, you mention the “debates” and “arguments”. If the founding fathers themselves disagreed about Constitutional provisions (including the crucial disagreement about whether a Bill of Rights should be included at all – remember, those are amendments which were not part of the original Constitution), how can you say that you know for certain which arguments are “meant” by the Constitution. > > 3. Speaking of what the Constitution “meant”, how about talking about what it “means” instead? Your position that the words of the founders are immutable, or that it was their intention that they be immutable and not subject to interpretation is in itself only one interpretation. > > 4. You still have not answered the question which I have now asked twice about whether a person who holds conservative views _except in the area of gun rights_ is therefore a liberal. \*\* Are you SURE you read them extensively? “Most” of the debates were not on what they “wanted” accomplished, but rather “how” best to accomplish it. All of the debates were resolved, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were, in fact, written. The Constitution still “means” today, what it “meant” then. The problem with most of todays lawyers and courts, is that instead of digging into the writings of the founding fathers with what should be Constitutional, or not, is that they instead, look at what later day judges have ruled. Not the same thing. What judge Ginsburg says in some ruling in the 1980’s, is not the same thing as what George Washington said in 1785. Anyways, I did answer your question. "a person who holds conservative views \*except in the area of gun rights " does NOT believe in life, and liberty, and is therefore: NOT a conservative, does not believe in the Constitution, nor the founding fathers, nor the government of the United States. because he does not believe in the the right of each individual to his own life, he does not believe in the right of self-defense, because he withholds the “means” of self-defense. Anyone who denies the means of self defense, is in effect, saying that others do not have the right to their own lives. Anyone who does not believe that the individual citizens should be “at least as well armed as their government”, does not agree with any of the founding fathers of the United States and is no conservative. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyrany in government”(Tom Jefferson) The second amenment is the quickest surest test of any conservative, but yes, there are other tests. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/90 "2002-12-11T22:38:26Z")
**Susanann** - Thank you for that very clear and well-thought-out answer to my question. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/91 "2002-12-11T22:55:57Z")
Susanann wrote: > [@](#): > > Anyone who does not believe that the individual citizens should be “at least as well armed as their government”, does not agree with any of the founding fathers of the United States and is no conservative. It’s interesting that you bring that up. I’ve mentioned several times before that “conservative” and “liberal” switched meanings sometime around the Wilson administration. People are surprised to learn that Thomas Jefferson was a conservative, and Aaron Burr was a liberal! 😃 Sometimes, those earlier conservative are called “classical liberals”. And sometimes, people equate them with libertarians. But although they preached liberty, they practised tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/92 "2002-12-11T23:30:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*The Constitution still “means” today, what it “meant” then. > > The problem with most of todays lawyers and courts, is that instead of digging into the writings of the founding fathers with what should be Constitutional, or not, is that they instead, look at what later day judges have ruled. Not the same thing. What judge Ginsburg says in some ruling in the 1980’s, is not the same thing as what George Washington said in 1785.\*\* What year is it again? What sense would it make to interpret law in 2002 using the _precise_ mindset of the 18th century. The founders were wise enough to realize they weren’t perfect, they made a government that was resistant to change, but still flexible enough to adapt over time. The constitution isn’t the Ten Commandments, its open to review, especially by the later day SCOTUS. Nothing is constant except change. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/93 "2002-12-11T23:47:48Z")
So what’s the “true meaning” of the 9th Amendment, **Susanann**? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/94 "2002-12-11T23:51:00Z")
The Founding Fathers allowed slavery and didn’t think women should get to vote. Thank you drive through, please. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/95 "2002-12-12T01:14:56Z")
Repreesntatives of these hundred entertainers group had a Q and A with the press, where they got some skeptical questioning, according to [this report](http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5030). An amusing bit, relevent to earlier discussion on this thread: > [@](#): > > The best bit of levity came at the close of the hour-long event. It had been suggested by some of the dozen celebrities in attendance that Artists United to Win Without War was nonpartisan. > > Asked to name a Republican among the group, Farrell claimed there were some, but quipped, “I don’t want to out them.” ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/96 "2002-12-12T01:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SpoilerVirgin \* > \*\*☹ **Hentor** , am I correct, did you just imply that _my favorite actor_, James Woods, has no talent? Whatever his political views are, them’s fightin’ words! I suggest you immediately rent _The Promise_, _True Believer_, and _Ghosts of Mississippi_ to see him conveying a range of emotions sufficient to earn him two Emmy Awards and two Oscar nominations. And I don’t want to hear anything bad about Rick Schroder, either! > > This is why I should stick to Cafe Society and keep my nose out of Great Debates. \*\* I did not say “no talent!” How about, ‘talented, but of limited range.’ I can’t say I recall _The Promise_, but I enjoyed the other two. I suggest that Woods played the same character in both. I mean, what is the real difference between a rabid liberal idealogue and a rabid conservative idealogue? And really, how hard would it be to play de la Beckwith? Now, if you could do a _sympathetic_ Byron de la Beckwith, then you’ve done something! ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/97 "2002-12-12T02:09:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*The Founding Fathers allowed slavery and didn’t think women should get to vote. > > Thank you drive through, please. > > :rolleyes: \*\* When the last battle of the Revolutionary war was fought, this was not heaven, and we did not instantly have a perfect world. The U.S. government did not institute slavery, did not invent it, did not start it. The U.S. government found it in place when the country got started. It was not considered a problem by the British, but the founding fathers DID consider it a problem, and that it had to be fixed. The Constitution, and the United States government, is what allowed blacks and women to vote, something the British government did not make any effort to do anything about in america when they were in charge. The British, and Spanish set it up here. It was what was in place when the country was started. The founding fathers were deeply concerned about it, and knew it had to be solved. The constitution was set up to stop the importation of slavery that the British had in place. The Constitution also allowed each state to end slavery as soon as they were willing and able to do it. Many states outlawed and ended slavery long before the civil war. Blacks were not the only ones who were slaves, there were white people who were sold into bondage. Not all blacks were slaves. Some blacks were also slave owners. True, women could not vote, and the subject was not really brought up until Seneca Falls in the 1840’s, and shortly after the first women asked for the right to vote, state after state, starting in the 1850’s, gave women the right to vote, even before many men got the right to vote. The right to vote was not a federal issue, but a state issue as to who was qualified. The constitution did not prevent, nor stop, blacks nor women from being able to vote. In the long history of mankind, there was only an extremely short period of time when most men were allowed to vote(1850 or so), and when women started getting the right to vote(the 1850’s). NOBODY at all could vote until 1789, not even men! You talk as though men were voting for centuries and women were suppressed all that time, not true. It took less than one lifetime before women got the vote after the men got it. Same thing with the blacks. No white man could not vote either, until 1789. By 1860, less than a lifetime, black men got the right to vote too. Blacks in America got the right to vote before nearly every other country in the world let them vote. In the early years, most men could still not vote, unless they were not on welfare, they had to own a certain amoutn of property, usually they had to be white, and many states had poll taxes. Only a minority of men could vote in the first elections. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/98 "2002-12-12T02:15:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cainxinth \* > \*\*The founders were wise enough to realize they weren’t perfect, they made a government that was resistant to change, but still flexible enough to adapt over time. The constitution isn’t the Ten Commandments, its open to review, especially by the later day SCOTUS. Nothing is constant except change. Get over it. \*\* The Constitution was made flexible by AMMENDMENT, and not by ignoring what it says. If you want to change what the Constitution means, then the founding fathers allowed for the people to , thru ammending it, change what it says, and not by just misinterpreting it. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/99 "2002-12-12T02:19:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*So what’s the “true meaning” of the 9th Amendment, **Susanann**? \*\* Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is not hard, nor is it rocket science. Just what part of this ammendment are you having trouble understanding? ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/100 "2002-12-12T02:23:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Susanann wrote: > > It’s interesting that you bring that up. I’ve mentioned several times before that “conservative” and “liberal” switched meanings sometime around the Wilson administration. People are surprised to learn that Thomas Jefferson was a conservative, and Aaron Burr was a liberal! 😃 > > Sometimes, those earlier conservative are called “classical liberals”. And sometimes, people equate them with libertarians. But although they preached liberty, they practised tyranny. \*\* It is usually difficult, and futile, to argue with a Libertarian. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983.md?page=6)