How come Hollywood types usually are Democrats but athletes are usually Republicans? They both make so much money you’d think Hollywood would join up with the athletes on the “whatever lets me pay less taxes” idea.
I find liberals have a very cynical concept of others and so most of the time assume conservatives are rich, greedy people motivated by selfishness while liberals are motivated by kindness and concern for others.
I do not share this view. I think most people, left and right, have ideas which are mostly motivated by their honest view of the world and so it is very possible to be poor and conservative or to be rich and liberal.
One thing I tend to like about conservatives is they do not generally say if you disagree with them you are greedy and evil which is something liberals say a lot. They may say you are mistaken.
My point is that the amount of money you have does not have a direct bearing on your view of the world although there may be a correlation.
Rich people tend to be better educated. People in upper management tend to see a side of business that an hourly employee does not see.
People who are in the business world tend to be more conservative. People of equal level of education in the arts or in academia tend to be more liberal. It is just their view of how our problems may be best solved, not a matter of money directly.
Some people’s public political posturing is influenced by who they hang around with.
Successful jocks might be likely to hang around with other successful jocks. Heck, they shower together. Why not carouse together?
Successful Hollywood actors/actresses might be likely to hang around with the other 99% of actors/actresses who will be lucky to see minimum wage. Mix into that group some starving writers and the latest new religion and the Democratic party may actually seem conservative!
I would say that public opinion is more important for Hollywood types. Going out and saving albino hairless tree rat gives Hollywood types free publicity and people feel good about their moral conscience, more people go see their movies. Sports is mostly just about talent. Nobody cares whether or not Romo is for or against more spending on education, they just want him to kill the guy with the ball.
Dang. You don’t sound cynical at all. Spoken like a true hipocrite.
Well, hording wealth is usually viewed as being greedy and evil. Liberals often advocate to redistribute wealth to the less fortunate through social programs. Which in all honesty is sometimes not the best thing to do. So saying the conservatives are better because they don’t use nasty words is just a really superficial argument.
Its not some kinna mystery that people who are rich want to stay that way, and people who aren’t want the rich people to share with them. When I was in college below the poverty level I was liberal as all hell. It wasn’t my money. Now that I own a business, tax time every quarter make me absolutely ill.
Poor conservative here.
Just to state what other posts have only hinted at: most Hollywood types are generally “artsy” types. “Artsy” types, for one reason or another, tend to lean toward the left.
Also, there are (or at least were) some conservatives in Hollywood. Arnold Schwarzenegger was very active in the Reagan Administratioin. Tom Selleck is active in the NRA (and an admitted Republican). Bruce Willis used to be a somewhat vocal Republican, but I think he all but renounced his conservatism during the '96 campaign.
Well, there’s hoarding, and there’s hoarding. What some liberals would call “hoarding” is what a conservative might call “saving money so I never have to rely on government assistance.” It’s the magnitude that makes the difference. I’ve heard attitudes from liberal college-age persons on this board that think having $1000 is “hoarding”, and should be taken away and redistributed to a “worthier cause”. Which of course is one of their worthy causes.
I used to be poor - abjectly poor. Now I am very well-to-do, thanks to a good job and extreme savings. Never received any direct government assistance other than student loan guarantees (paid back fully). Also never received a dime from any inheritance - I can look at my 6-figure savings and credit just myself for it. Since I worked so hard to get where I am, and used intelligence and wisdom to manage my finances, I do in fact have a strong objection to giving up more money. Being poor showed me that I must take steps never to have that happen again.
When I had a huge windfall on a real estate investment, I was bombarded by liberal-leaning co-workers who said I should donate it to a worthy cause - hypocrites in their $240,000 houses with a $239,000 mortgage, who blew what they had on a “trophy house” were telling me I needed to donate this money. I’m not Ivanna-freaking-Trump, and in my mind the money would be better put as an emergency fund, a college fund for future children, a medical savings fund, etc. And yet, I am looked down upon for doing that.
Jeez. 
Having grown up poor as hell but now being somewhat better off, I can see both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, this just makes me confused. Which side to choose? There seems to be no room for people who are anti-gun control, pro-environment, ambivalent on abortion, pro-education, and support public health care.
> Also, there are (or at least were) some conservatives in Hollywood
There are more than a few, but many of them stay in the closet so they can continue working in the industry or so they don’t get harassed by the others. Bill Maher said on his show that he has trouble getting conservative entertainers to do the show, because they want to stay low-key, so the conservatives he has on tend to be commentators, writers, people from think-tanks, etc.
Right. Conservatives say that if you disagree with them, you are an unrepentant sinner and condemned to hellfire and brimstone for all eternity.
Ah, another bleeding-heart libertarian. Welcome, brother.
Falcon2, I cannot think of any response that would better make my point. Thank you.
Another thing to consider is that relatively short length of an athlete’s career. I remember reading somewhere that the average length of an NFL career has between 1 and 2 seasons because for every Daryl Green there is approximately one buttload of Stan Thomases. A good player makes 4-5 mil a year for about 10 years and that’s it. He sure as shit doesn’t want to give more than half of that away in taxes, because when he’s done he’s done. There are only so many broadcasting and coaching jobs. Add to this the fact that athletes never know when an injury is going cause their next paycheck to be their last.
It’s really quite simple to me: Actors and actresses tend to live in the fast lane. It’s no secret that sex w/o commitment, drug use, self-indulgence, immoral behavior, etc. runs rampant through the Hollywood crowd. Conservatives tend to frown on these behaviors, while liberals embrace them. Thus, claiming to be a liberal relieves some of their guilt.
But not all celebrities are flaming liberals:
Charlton Heston (pro-gun, conservative)
Ted Nugent (pro-gun, libertarian)
Bo Derek (Republican)
Rick Schroder (Conservaitve, NRA member)
Chuck Norris (Republican)
Loretta Lynn (Republican)
Kirt Russell (libertarian)
Bruce Willis (part-time Republican)
Bo Derek (Republican)
Mel Gibson (pro-gun)
Clint Eastwood (libertarian)
Lech Walesa
Norman Schwarzkopf
Ward Connerly (businessman and activist)
Dinesh D’Souza (author and scholar)
Dixi Carter (Republican)
Pat Boone (Republican)
Sarah Michelle Gellar (pro-gun)
Tom Selleck (pro-gun, somewhat conservative)
Karl Malone (pro-gun NBA star)
Arnold Swatzenager (Republican, fiscal conservative, but liberal on some other issues)
Nolan Ryan (pro-gun Hall of Fame pitcher)
Steve Largent (pro-gun Hall of Fame receiver and U.S. Representative)
J.C. Watts, Jr. (pro-gun all-American quarterback and U.S. Representative)
Tom Clancy (pro-gun)
Brad Johnson (pro-gun)
Punoqllads’ I take offense at your statement that “Conservatives say that if you disagree with them, you are an unrepentant sinner and condemned to hellfire and brimstone for all eternity.”
I am an independent conservative who has no use for the Republicrats or Jerry Falwell’s gang. I call myself conservative because I am sick of people dreaming up problems to which the solution is always MORE GOVERNMENT. I believe people are responsible for the results of their own actions, and government exists to punish criminals and pave the roads.
Why do you insist on demonizing people who do not agree with your opinions?
I apologize for not properly conveying the sarcasm inherent in the overgeneralization I made. I will endeavor in the future to use emoticons more frequently when attempting to portray the irony in a previous poster’s statements.
:rolleyes: 
Hmmm. Great Debates? IMHO?
OK, we’ll flip a coin. Heads is GD, tails is IMHO.
Heads it is.
Funny. That’s not what I get from a lot of the conservatives on this board.
Well, if you believe that rich people are motivated solely by money, I would point out that athletes have shorter careers than Hollywood-types. Thus, if athletes are forced to pay higher taxes now, they won’t have as much saved to fall back on when they’re too old. If an actor pays more now, he can turn to directing later in life, if he can’t get any decent roles. Or he could become a conservative and get elected President, but there’s not much precedent for that.
I’ll bet I could find at least a dozen posts where a conservative poster attributes a liberal’s criticism of wealth to envy. How is that any different? Maybe you only notice the insults you don’t agree with.
Note to self: Read entire thread before posting.
You don’t have to actually even know your own name to see that sailor is biased.
However about those atheletes… they are republican because they think that 2 million a year vses 4 million is not enough for them? Either they are idiots or someone is wrong.