Tsunami Relief Special: Where are all the conservative performers?

[Infohawk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: so much of our society's art comes from liberals. The stuff that comes from conservatives tends to mainly be sucessful in hardcore red areas only, while the liberal product is watched around the world.

Sure there's a couple conservative performers: Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis (any surprise they're action stars?)

Anyway, looks like a lot of Hollywood liberals took time to help Tsunami victims. Shame on O'Reilly and his fans for denigrating them.

 

[yllus]

This certainly is one of the most pointless and ignorant theads in this forum.

Who cares who or what 'conservative performers' do. What does this prove or change? Give from your own wallet if you think the cause is just, and grow up.

 

[CanOWorms]

Didn't know that there was a Tsunami relief special. Is there a list of the performers as well as a list of their political leanings?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: yllus
This certainly is one of the most pointless and ignorant theads in this forum.

Who cares who or what 'conservative performers' do. What does this prove or change? Give from your own wallet if you think the cause is just, and grow up.

I have several points:

-liberal artists are more giving and this reflects better on liberals
-liberalism creates more art and since most people like art this reflects positively on liberals
-the people that criticize hollywood liberals are prigs.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Didn't know that there was a Tsunami relief special. Is there a list of the performers as well as a list of their political leanings?

Yep. It's on NBC. O'Reilly badmouthed it as part of a cheap shot on "celebrities", getting thoroughly owned by Clooney in the process. And if anyone sees O'Reilly on teh show it's only because he got owned by Clooney.

 

[Beowulf]

I would watch it.....well nah football is on and I love a good competition when I see one.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
This certainly is one of the most pointless and ignorant theads in this forum.

Who cares who or what 'conservative performers' do. What does this prove or change? Give from your own wallet if you think the cause is just, and grow up.

I have several points:

-liberal artists are more giving and this reflects better on liberals
-liberalism creates more art and since most people like art this reflects positively on liberals
-the people that criticize hollywood liberals are prigs.

Why would you care what reflects better/positively on liberals, other than to seek out some notion of moral superiority over non-liberals? Also, why do you feel the need to to stratify performers into conservative and liberal camps? It's a friggin' disaster relief effort.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
This certainly is one of the most pointless and ignorant theads in this forum.

Who cares who or what 'conservative performers' do. What does this prove or change? Give from your own wallet if you think the cause is just, and grow up.

I have several points:

-liberal artists are more giving and this reflects better on liberals
-liberalism creates more art and since most people like art this reflects positively on liberals
-the people that criticize hollywood liberals are prigs.

Why would you care what reflects better/positively on liberals, other than to seek out some notion of moral superiority over non-liberals? Also, why do you feel the need to to stratify performers into conservative and liberal camps? It's a friggin' disaster relief effort.

It's so sad that the bipartisanship in this country has gotten so bad that even disaster relief becomes a divisive issue, instead of a uniting issue as it should.

Just how much did you personally give, Infohawk?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: yllus
Why would you care what reflects better/positively on liberals, other than to seek out some notion of moral superiority over non-liberals? Also, why do you feel the need to to stratify performers into conservative and liberal camps? It's a friggin' disaster relief effort.

Ummm... because this is P&N? And because if one branch of political thought has merit over another it is important...

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Didn't know that there was a Tsunami relief special. Is there a list of the performers as well as a list of their political leanings?

Yep. It's on NBC. O'Reilly badmouthed it as part of a cheap shot on "celebrities", getting thoroughly owned by Clooney in the process. And if anyone sees O'Reilly on teh show it's only because he got owned by Clooney.

Owned? More like challenged. O'Reilly agreed to do the show as a result of an invitation/challenge from Clooney. At least get the story right. O'Reilly was critical of Clooney for the way Clooney dropped the ball on the money they raised in the 9/11 benefit he organized. Remember that one? It was the one where Clooney and all his friends got together and raised a crapload of money to aid the victims of the 9/11 attack. They then turned that money over to the United Way I believe and didn't follow up at all on what the United Way actually did with it. United Way in fact apparently attempted to divert a large amount of that money to other purposes for which it wasn't intended. To this day The United Way has never provided a satifactory accounting on what happened to all of it. When it all came out Clooney tried to claim he wasn't responsible for what happened to it. Well I agree with O'Reilly on this. If you go on TV and ask people to Donate all that money you have a resposibility to make sure the money goes to where it belongs. Clooney screwed up when he didn't go attack dog on the United Way as soon as he found out about what they did. Clooney looks like he learned his lesson. This time everything they raise is going to The American Red Cross(something like 90% of donations directly benefit those in need) rather than the United Way at 50-60%.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: NesuD
At least get the story right.

There's a whole thread on it if you're really interested.

And you seem to be another fanboi who doesn't comprehend that Clooney is an actor not an accountant. He's a fundraiser, not a manager.

Anyway, Clooney owned him when he said O'Reilly could come on in and oversee it if he was so interested.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: NesuD
At least get the story right.

There's a whole thread on it if you're really interested.

And you seem to be another fanboi who doesn't comprehend that Clooney is an actor not an accountant. He's a fundraiser, not a manager.

Anyway, Clooney owned him when he said O'Reilly could come on in and oversee it if he was so interested.

I don't need to read any whole thread on it. I saw the invitation/challenge from Clooney. I know exactly what was going on there and it all goes back to O'Reilly and Clooney locking horns over Clooney's screwup on with the 9/11 fundraiser.

He doesn't have to be an accountant to question something. in the 9-11 case he tried to deny that he had an obligation to question what happened to the money.

Fanboi? your joking right! because i have a differing view that is based on the facts I am a fanboi? You are an imbecile. The majority of your posts are nothing but half truths, innuendo, and mischaracterization. You are so blinded by his hatred of people with differing views you can only seem to mouth nonsensical ranting with often little basis in fact.

 

[Steeplerot]

Doing dip?
Edit: for possible chaw

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: NesuD
Clooney screwed up when he didn't go attack dog on the United Way as soon as he found out about what they did.

Why should celebrity fund-raisers be held to the standards of managers and accountants? It's absurd and the only thing Clooney was interested in was taking a pot-shot at celebrities who are trying to help people.

If you made every participant in a project wholy responsible for the entire project nothing could get done. There's no reason Clooney should be responsible for all of what goes on with the fundraiser except to allow people like you to be petty and criticize "hollywood liberals."

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: NesuD
Clooney screwed up when he didn't go attack dog on the United Way as soon as he found out about what they did.

Why should celebrity fund-raisers be held to the standards of managers and accountants? It's absurd and the only thing Clooney was interested in was taking a pot-shot at celebrities who are trying to help people.

If you made every participant in a project wholy responsible for the entire project nothing could get done. There's no reason Clooney should be responsible for all of what goes on with the fundraiser except to allow people like you to be petty and criticize "hollywood liberals."

You still don't get it do you? No one including O'Reilly blamed Clooney because someone tried something. The criticism of Clooney and i agree with it is because Clooney when apprised of what happened rather than condemning what happened and demanding it be righted tried to duck it as oh well nothing i can do about it. If you can't understand that try taking your liberal glasses off and read it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: NesuD
Clooney screwed up when he didn't go attack dog on the United Way as soon as he found out about what they did.

Why should celebrity fund-raisers be held to the standards of managers and accountants? It's absurd and the only thing Clooney was interested in was taking a pot-shot at celebrities who are trying to help people.

If you made every participant in a project wholy responsible for the entire project nothing could get done. There's no reason Clooney should be responsible for all of what goes on with the fundraiser except to allow people like you to be petty and criticize "hollywood liberals."

You still don't get it do you? No one including O'Reilly blamed Clooney because someone tried something. The criticism of Clooney and i agree with it is because Clooney when apprised of what happened rather than condemning what happened and demanding it be righted tried to duck it as oh well nothing i can do about it. If you can't understand that try taking your liberal glasses off and read it.

Ummm... because he was right? Do you think he's some super-cop? He's just a face, equivalent to someone contracted to the project. Again, you are just holding him to a higher standard because he was a "hollywood liberal."

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
Why would you care what reflects better/positively on liberals, other than to seek out some notion of moral superiority over non-liberals? Also, why do you feel the need to to stratify performers into conservative and liberal camps? It's a friggin' disaster relief effort.

Ummm... because this is P&N? And because if one branch of political thought has merit over another it is important...

How would this topic possibly prove what branch of thought has more merit over another? Yeah, whether Schwartzenegger raises more money than Streisand is really indicative of...anything. :roll:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: yllus
This certainly is one of the most pointless and ignorant theads in this forum.

Who cares who or what 'conservative performers' do. What does this prove or change? Give from your own wallet if you think the cause is just, and grow up.

I have several points:

-liberal artists are more giving and this reflects better on liberals
-liberalism creates more art and since most people like art this reflects positively on liberals
-the people that criticize hollywood liberals are prigs.

Liberal artists outnumber conservative 100 to 1. Conservatives tend to be businessmen, etc... How much do you want to bet that "evil corporations" have given 10 times the money as hollywood? . I can criticize hollywood communists as much as I want and not be a prig. I hope you realize you are the one that acts like a prig.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Conservatives tend to be businessmen, etc...[/b]

That's BS. Many businessmen and wealthy people are also Democrats. Think about some of the economic powerhouses in this country: LA, NY, CHI. All blue states filled with tons of Democratic professionals and businesspeople. NY is liberal and is the financial capital of the world. If you really think all wealthy people are Republicans I can only assume you've never come into contact with the hi-stakes capitalist worlds of NY and LA.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
Conservatives tend to be businessmen, etc...[/b]

That's BS. Many businessmen and wealthy people are also Democrats. Think about some of the economic powerhouses in this country: LA, NY, CHI. All blue states filled with tons of Democratic professionals and businesspeople. NY is liberal and is the financial capital of the world. If you really think all wealthy people are Republicans I can only assume you've never come into contact with the hi-stakes capitalist worlds of NY and LA.

Where did i say all? I just said conservatives tend to be. Just b/c a state voted for Kerry by 10% doesn't mean that most, or even a half, of the rich people in the state are Kerry supporters. As you well know, the more money you have the more you vote Republican.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz
As you well know, the more money you have the more you vote Republican.

Again, that's garbage. I can only assume you haven't met many powerful people in NY or California. But then again, I don't know why I'm wasting time with you as I think gaard pointed out that you don't understand the fact that lack of proof of something is not proof of that thing. This will be my last post to you on this topic. Cheers.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
As you well know, the more money you have the more you vote Republican.

Again, that's garbage. I can only assume you haven't met many powerful people in NY or California. But then again, I don't know why I'm wasting time with you as I think gaard pointed out that you don't understand the fact that lack of proof of something is not proof of that thing. This will be my last post to you on this topic. Cheers.

Here's irrefutable proof.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY INCOME BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

Under $15,000 (8%) 36% n/a 63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% n/a 57% 0%

$30-50,000 (22%) 49% n/a 50% 0%

$50-75,000 (23%) 56% n/a 43% 0%

$75-100,000 (14%) 55% n/a 45% 0%

$100-150,000 (11%) 57% n/a 42% 1%

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% n/a 42% *

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% n/a 35% 1%

Owned.

 

[maluckey]

And the exit polls also showed that Kerry should have won the election.......

Owned? I think not!

The Democrats are the richest members of congress, and the Democratss raised more large donations than the Republicans ever dreamed of. Large donations by private individuals and corporations lead the list for the Democrats, so there goes the logic of only rich people voting Democratic.

What about all those Ultra-Liberal Democratic Performers? They don''t seem to vote, but tend to give HUGE donations and fundraisers? Explain them?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: maluckey
And the exit polls also showed that Kerry should have won the election.......

Owned? I think not!

The Democrats are the richest members of congress, and the Democratss raised more large donations than the Republicans ever dreamed of. Large donations by private individuals and corporations lead the list for the Democrats, so there goes the logic of only rich people voting Democratic.

What about all those Ultra-Liberal Democratic Performers? They don''t seem to vote, but tend to give HUGE donations and fundraisers? Explain them?

These exit polls are correct. Check them out...over 14,000 respondents. Those stats are irrefutable, you can't argue them, and you are sitting here trying to do just that. Get over it, there is a corrolation between how much money you have and who you vote for, and the more you have the more you vote Republican, the less you have the more you vote Democrat. Very Simple.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
As you well know, the more money you have the more you vote Republican.

Again, that's garbage. I can only assume you haven't met many powerful people in NY or California. But then again, I don't know why I'm wasting time with you as I think gaard pointed out that you don't understand the fact that lack of proof of something is not proof of that thing. This will be my last post to you on this topic. Cheers.

Here's irrefutable proof.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20.../US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY INCOME BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 2000 2004 2004

Under $15,000 (8%) 36% n/a 63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%) 42% n/a 57% 0%

$30-50,000 (22%) 49% n/a 50% 0%

$50-75,000 (23%) 56% n/a 43% 0%

$75-100,000 (14%) 55% n/a 45% 0%

$100-150,000 (11%) 57% n/a 42% 1%

$150-200,000 (4%) 58% n/a 42% *

$200,000 or More (3%) 63% n/a 35% 1%

Owned.

apparently infohawk has no more lies to argue w/ fact.