My Opinion of Dwight Schultz Just Went Through The Roof!

[QuasarVM]

Oh, he has the right to do so, sure, just as Tom Cruise has the right to try and sells us on Scientology.

I honestly think that this whole "Hollywood = left wing actors" is only perpetrated by a handful. I've no idea how business is run there, but as far as actors go, it feels like one Alec Baldwin is worth ten other liberal actors, people who swing left but, like many of their conservative creative counterparts, don't try to make politics their defining work issue. It's always the vocal minority that creates the illusion of a powerful majority.

I'm willing to bet that most of the time we see a traditionally labelled leftist actor campaign for something in a magazine (say, US Weekly or Entertainment Weekly), the campaigns themselves tend to be apolitical in the first place. I'd posit that you're much more likely to see coverage of celebrities at events for Breast Cancer or AIDS Awareness as opposed to, say, gun control or opposition to Iraq.

To be quite brually honest...I wish they'd all shut up and just act.

I don't really need to know about their politics as I don't go to actors (or musicians either) for their political acumen or guidance.

Yet you applaud any "right wing" actor who speaks up?

And why exactly should they "shut up". Would you tell a plumber or doctor to shut up? If not, why are entertainers a special class with limited rights?

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

And yes, I do wish Sean Penn and his ilk would shut up. Plumbers and Doctors do not have a camera or microphone in their face during things like...oh...the Academy Awards or the Emmys or the Golden Globes...or Saturday Night Live...it goes on and on. However, the other ilk does and they never miss a beat or an opportunity to spout off. Nor do they miss an opportunity to go to a foreign country and hobnob with some dictator and trash America.

I don't know many plumbers or doctors who do that...and if they do, they certainly aren't in the spotlight for it.

As pointed out, Ron Silver wasn't out there blabbing his politics all the time. To this day, I don't know for sure where William Shatner stands politically -- and that's fine with me.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

But, what I'm saying is, I could live without hearing any of it from either side.

So there. So now.

 

[Nerys Myk]

To be quite brually honest...I wish they'd all shut up and just act.

I don't really need to know about their politics as I don't go to actors (or musicians either) for their political acumen or guidance.

Yet you applaud any "right wing" actor who speaks up?

And why exactly should they "shut up". Would you tell a plumber or doctor to shut up? If not, why are entertainers a special class with limited rights?

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

And yes, I do wish Sean Penn and his ilk would shut up. Plumbers and Doctors do not have a camera or microphone in their face during things like...oh...the Academy Awards or the Emmys or the Golden Globes...or Saturday Night Live...it goes on and on. However, the other ilk does and they never miss a beat or an opportunity to spout off. Nor do they miss an opportunity to go to a foreign country and hobnob with some dictator and trash America.

I don't know many plumbers or doctors who do that...and if they do, they certainly aren't in the spotlight for it.

As pointed out, Ron Silver wasn't out there blabbing his politics all the time. To this day, I don't know for sure where William Shatner stands politically -- and that's fine with me.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

But, what I'm saying is, I could live without hearing any of it from either side.

So there. So now.

So "freedom of speech means "Speech I aggree with" and the on/off switch and volumn controls on your TV, Radio and computer are broken.

 

[QuasarVM]

Yet you applaud any "right wing" actor who speaks up?

And why exactly should they "shut up". Would you tell a plumber or doctor to shut up? If not, why are entertainers a special class with limited rights?

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

And yes, I do wish Sean Penn and his ilk would shut up. Plumbers and Doctors do not have a camera or microphone in their face during things like...oh...the Academy Awards or the Emmys or the Golden Globes...or Saturday Night Live...it goes on and on. However, the other ilk does and they never miss a beat or an opportunity to spout off. Nor do they miss an opportunity to go to a foreign country and hobnob with some dictator and trash America.

I don't know many plumbers or doctors who do that...and if they do, they certainly aren't in the spotlight for it.

As pointed out, Ron Silver wasn't out there blabbing his politics all the time. To this day, I don't know for sure where William Shatner stands politically -- and that's fine with me.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

But, what I'm saying is, I could live without hearing any of it from either side.

So there. So now.

So "freedom of speech means "Speech I aggree with" and the on/off switch and volumn controls on your TV, Radio and computer are broken.

There's free speech and there's treason. Some of those actors should be kicked out of the country...let alone speak their garbage.

And please...don't pretend your side doesn't believe the right shouldn't be silenced. Fairness doctrine baby...fairness doc-trine. Try another approach, cos that one holds no water.

So what do you say about that?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

From your own posts, it was not so difficult to deduce. You whine against political discrimination (which it's obviously unfair and unprofessional, from every persuasion), and yet at the same time you resort to name calling, Hollyweird, leftist whack jobs, salivating neo-Marxists, all the usual stale routine. It's the height of hypocrisy: I'm sure you know it, and I'm also sure you don't care.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

Again, go listen to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[QuasarVM]

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

From your own posts, it was not so difficult to deduce. You whine against political discrimination (which it's obviously unfair and unprofessional, from every persuasion), and yet at the same time you resort to name calling, Hollyweird, leftist whack jobs, salivating neo-Marxists, all the usual stale routine. It's the height of hypocrisy: I'm sure you know it, and I'm also sure you don't care.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

Again, go listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Yeah...and remind me who came up with the term "Wingnut" (and that's just one I can think of right off the bat)? Yeah, I'd call that hypocrisy. Stale routine, huh? Well, you libs are keeping it fresh every day. Neo-Marxist is not a "name" it's an accurate description of what some liberals -- not all -- are. I always care about hypocrisy -- where it exists. But you'll get none of that from me.

Rush Limbaugh is great. His views reflect the mainstream -- not vice versa. That's what libs can't understand -- which goes to show how out of touch they are. I listen to all the so-called "wingnuts" as they tend to reflect my views. And from his ratings -- quite a few others. Can't say the same for the lib shows that have failed repeatedly.

And this is also one reason why the newspapers are tanking around the nation.

Guess there's no audience there.

But, again...I don't need politics from my entertainment or the actors who star in it.

 

[Holdfast]

Keep the political jabs at each other to TNZ.

Discussing TNG actors' recent comments about their politics is fine of course, but this thread is rapidly becoming a) a more general argument about the role of actors in politics, and b) an argument about other posters politics. Neither of which is about TNG. Take those aspects to another forum.

 

[MiroslavSFCenter]

Dwight is legend, my man.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

There's free speech and there's treason. Some of those actors should be kicked out of the country...let alone speak their garbage.

By your statement, these actors are engaging in an attempt to raise arms aganist the United States government and giving comfort and aide to the enemies of the state, foreign and domestic, by simply expressing a political belief that you don't happen to agree with.

Treason as defined by the U.S. Constitution:

(Article III, Section 3)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The word you are really looking for is sedition; speech or congress to insight insurrection. So expressing dissatisfaction with the current administration, regardless of political alliances, is sedition by your statement.

So any person, say an extreme conservative with a radio talk show, who disapproves publicly of an elected official is engaging in sedition or treason by your rational.

I may disagree with you and the extreme right. I also disagree with the extreme left, and I am a liberal.

But by God, do I defend anyone's right, regardless of political belief, to express their dissatisfaction about those who are elected to serve us, the people. The presidency, Congress, right down to the city council members are not automatically absolved of critique. They serve us. We do not serve them. Expressing of any such criticisms does not make it treason or sedition or an act of insurrection; calling it such is nothing more than hyperbole.

Moreover, Dwight Schultz has every right to print what he wrote on the subject. As does Alec Baldwin. As does anyone. And everyone is entitled to their informed opinion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ok, you busted me. I just don't like leftist nut jobs.

And yes, I do wish Sean Penn and his ilk would shut up. Plumbers and Doctors do not have a camera or microphone in their face during things like...oh...the Academy Awards or the Emmys or the Golden Globes...or Saturday Night Live...it goes on and on. However, the other ilk does and they never miss a beat or an opportunity to spout off. Nor do they miss an opportunity to go to a foreign country and hobnob with some dictator and trash America.

I don't know many plumbers or doctors who do that...and if they do, they certainly aren't in the spotlight for it.

As pointed out, Ron Silver wasn't out there blabbing his politics all the time. To this day, I don't know for sure where William Shatner stands politically -- and that's fine with me.

And yes, I do applaud the right-wingers. I guess it's a matter of "If I'm gonna have to listen to political opinion, it might as well be someone I actually agree with".

But, what I'm saying is, I could live without hearing any of it from either side.

So there. So now.

So "freedom of speech means "Speech I aggree with" and the on/off switch and volumn controls on your TV, Radio and computer are broken.

There's free speech and there's treason. Some of those actors should be kicked out of the country...let alone speak their garbage.

And please...don't pretend your side doesn't believe the right shouldn't be silenced. Fairness doctrine baby...fairness doc-trine. Try another approach, cos that one holds no water.

So what do you say about that?

Treason is a specific charge with specific definitions. Saying I dont like policy X or law Y isn't treason. Neither is critizing our elected officals

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I don't like it when "my side" does it any more than the other side. "But they do it too!!" is not a valid excuse. Nor do I care about the "Fairness Doctrine". But as an American I will defend with my last breath the freedom of others to express views that oppose my own. That's the doctrine I care about.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Neo-Marxist is not a "name" it's an accurate description of what some liberals -- not all -- are. I always care about hypocrisy -- where it exists. But you'll get none of that from me.

I have no problem with partisanship, included that of Dwight Schultz and the other conservative actors. But starting a thread about political discrimination and then commanding people to silence if they don't agree with you... I don't know how to call it other tha hypocrisy.

And if you want to talk about accurate description of neo-Marxism, you'd better know what it means. Show biz leftist are not even really socialists, let alone Marxists. It would be the same as calling Schultz a fascist for his mild conservative view, which would be obviously foolish.

Rush Limbaugh is great. His views reflect the mainstream -- not vice versa. That's what libs can't understand -- which goes to show how out of touch they are. I listen to all the so-called "wingnuts" as they tend to reflect my views.

I have no doubt that right wing pundits reflect your view, and maybe that of your associates, but it's far from mainstream. Don't make the error of thinking that leftist actors are the only one out of touch with reality.

And this is also one reason why the newspapers are tanking around the nation.

Guess there's no audience there.

I don't think it's such a wonderful thing that people don't read newspapers and don't educate themselves.

But, again...I don't need politics from my entertainment or the actors who star in it.

No, you just want to listen only to people who share your view. So it's really not different from the people you despise.

 

[Alrik]

Okay, taking a step back and removing the personal POVs. Does Dwight have a valid point that Hollywood is largely Liberal? Yes. Can it make things difficult for Right leaning actors? Absolutely. If there is any question, just take a look at Mel Gibson. He was Hollywood's 'Golden Boy'....right up util he decided to do 'Passions'. Hollywood wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but Gibson bankrolled the thing himself and it became a blockbuster. After the success of 'Passions', Hollywood didn't want to have anythng to do with him. It does not excuse his very un-PC drunken tirade a few years back, but it really does give it some perspective. The same Hollywood Execs who made millions off of him over the years doing the kinds of films that they wanted put out, turned their backs on him when he wanted to do a movie that he felt strongly about.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Okay, taking a step back and removing the personal POVs. Does Dwight have a valid point that Hollywood is largely Liberal? Yes. Can it make things difficult for Right leaning actors? Absolutely. If there is any question, just take a look at Mel Gibson. He was Hollywood's 'Golden Boy'....right up util he decided to do 'Passions'. Hollywood wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but Gibson bankrolled the thing himself and it became a blockbuster. After the success of 'Passions', Hollywood didn't want to have anythng to do with him. It does not excuse his very un-PC drunken tirade a few years back, but it really does give it some perspective. The same Hollywood Execs who made millions off of him over the years doing the kinds of films that they wanted put out, turned their backs on him when he wanted to do a movie that he felt strongly about.

I think if anyone went a studio head of any political stripe and said you wanted to make a multi million dollar vanity project in a dead foriegn language about a guy getting the shit kicked out of him you wouldn't get too many takers. If the guy was someone other than Jesus, most of the audience would have bolted after the first reel.

 

[Alrik]

Okay, taking a step back and removing the personal POVs. Does Dwight have a valid point that Hollywood is largely Liberal? Yes. Can it make things difficult for Right leaning actors? Absolutely. If there is any question, just take a look at Mel Gibson. He was Hollywood's 'Golden Boy'....right up util he decided to do 'Passions'. Hollywood wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but Gibson bankrolled the thing himself and it became a blockbuster. After the success of 'Passions', Hollywood didn't want to have anythng to do with him. It does not excuse his very un-PC drunken tirade a few years back, but it really does give it some perspective. The same Hollywood Execs who made millions off of him over the years doing the kinds of films that they wanted put out, turned their backs on him when he wanted to do a movie that he felt strongly about.

I think if anyone went a studio head of any political stripe and said you wanted to make a multi million dollar vanity project in a dead foriegn language about a guy getting the shit kicked out of him you wouldn't get too many takers. If the guy was someone other than Jesus, most of the audience would have bolted after the first reel.

You might be on to something there.

 

[Cyke101]

Rush Limbaugh is great. His views reflect the mainstream -- not vice versa.

I think Gallup disagrees with this one. It appears the only national-level Republican figure less popular than George Bush is Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Maxwell Everett]

I have absolutely no doubt the political events he describes are factual. The liberal loonies I have encountered in my lifetime completely validate Schultz's described experiences.

His anecdotal experiences are not equivalent to facts. Also, your certainty appears to be based on a form of subjective thinking/validation, AKA confirmation bias. In other words, you tend to notice and look for what confirms your beliefs (Mr. Schultz), while ignoring or undervaluing the relevance of what contradicts your beliefs. This is very common, and I admit... I do it too, but I always catch myself and try to correct it.

Most are always oh-so-tolerant and compassionate...until they run into a conservative and conservative ideals. Then tolerance gets drop kicked out the window at warp speed and the true nastiness comes out; fangs beared.

Come to think of it, I don't think they are genuine with regard to ANY of their alledged "tolerance" and concern either. It's all smoke and mirrors and always has a politically ulterior motive behind it all. And it's about control. The more people they can convince of their alledged "benevolence" the more people willing to cede control of their lives to them -- vis-a-vis, big government. That's what it's really all about.

So there.

As I've already implied, I'm not interested in this Crips vs. Bloods garbage.

As for UFO's/Roswell/ETs...why not? As John Lennon sang in the song "Nobody Told Me" -- "There's UFO's over New York and I ain't too surprised."

How can anyone believe in the potential existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life and not accept the possibility that they may have technology far in advance of ours (particularly anyone broad minded enough to enjoy science-fiction -- or to dream of those fictional (?) possibilities)? If one accepts both possibilities, then it stands to reason they might have found a way to visit here...either in the past or the present.

No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence that this planet has ever been visited by extraterrestrials. It may have been, but no one has yet produced compelling proof. It all evaporates upon close scrutiny.

The same people who believe an ape can turn into a human given enough time seem to have a problem with alien visitation and UFOs.

That's pretty ironic to me... Personally, I'd sooner accept the theory of UFOs being alien craft.

The difference -- again -- is one of evidence. For example, the closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. Base-pair analysis of human chromosome 2 proves that it is the result of the end-to-end fusion of primate chromosomes 2a & 2b (formerly 12 & 13). This could only arise through sexual recombination -- heredity.

By contrast, there is no credible evidence of alien spacecraft or alien visitation. There is probably extraterrestrial life, but we don't have any proof that it's arrived here in the present or even the distant past.

Long story short: I have no problem with Schultz's UFO interest and his political experiences ring true to me. We see the kind of nonsense he describes every day from the likes of Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn...idiots like that. Why would anyone ever doubt what Schultz describes as being anything less than the "God's given truth"?

Because it's anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence carries no weight with me, nor should it for anyone who has good critical thinking skills. You agree with him because you share the same beliefs, both political and religious. This is really no surprise.

Your support and promulgation of Mr. Schultz's allegations amounts to hearsay. You have no direct experience regarding any of the things he writes about. You weren't a witness to these events, therefore you cannot claim they are factual.

 

[RAMA]

Damn shame if there is any such "blacklist" but I definitely can't support his politics. I guess he just needs to understand that a creative culture needs to be somewhere on the edge to break ground, and this is not done well by the conservative viewpoint. Ironic that STNG was one of the most liberal shows imaginable!

RAMA

 

[Cyke101]

I guess he just needs to understand that a creative culture needs to be somewhere on the edge to break ground, and this is not done well by the conservative viewpoint.

This I would disagree with. A creative culture needs to constantly evolve, yes, but there are different levels of conservatism, and even then, different areas of those levels (fiscal? social? artistic? etc. etc). John Malkovich and Vincent Gallo are two artists that I consider innovative, and they're very very conservative.

Rather, I think Schultz's problem is, ironically, not adhering to the classic conservative tenet of ... strapping on one's bootstraps and succeeding through hard work without outside help or a "hand out." Almost every conservative actor I've listed in this thread started out from humble beginnings, climbing the ladder of success one rung at a time, as opposed to being born into a legacy or simply having the right connections.

Ironic that STNG was one of the most liberal shows imaginable!

RAMA

I wonder if Schultz secretly puked in his mouth a little? (I kid, I kid)

 

[QuasarVM]

There's free speech and there's treason. Some of those actors should be kicked out of the country...let alone speak their garbage.

By your statement, these actors are engaging in an attempt to raise arms aganist the United States government and giving comfort and aide to the enemies of the state, foreign and domestic, by simply expressing a political belief that you don't happen to agree with.

Treason as defined by the U.S. Constitution:

(Article III, Section 3)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The word you are really looking for is sedition; speech or congress to insight insurrection. So expressing dissatisfaction with the current administration, regardless of political alliances, is sedition by your statement.

So any person, say an extreme conservative with a radio talk show, who disapproves publicly of an elected official is engaging in sedition or treason by your rational.

I may disagree with you and the extreme right. I also disagree with the extreme left, and I am a liberal.

But by God, do I defend anyone's right, regardless of political belief, to express their dissatisfaction about those who are elected to serve us, the people. The presidency, Congress, right down to the city council members are not automatically absolved of critique. They serve us. We do not serve them. Expressing of any such criticisms does not make it treason or sedition or an act of insurrection; calling it such is nothing more than hyperbole.

Moreover, Dwight Schultz has every right to print what he wrote on the subject. As does Alec Baldwin. As does anyone. And everyone is entitled to their informed opinion.

If you disagree with the extreme left then you and I are closer in thinking than you might think.

Anyway:

Mere disapproval of government policy is NOT what I am talking about. Naturally, as Americans, we have a right to dissenting viewpoints.

But, by hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Mahmood Amadinejad, yes...I would say Sean Penn is treasonous. Surely even you, as a liberal can see my point on this one.

I would also say that what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War was despicable and treasonous by hanging out with the Viet Kong while our troops were being shot at and killed.

These people who love enemies of the US more than their own country are NOT informed.

More like sadly deluded.

Words are one thing, but you cross the line when you venture to enemy states and trash talk the US.

That's an offence worthy of losing citizenship over in my opinion.

 

[QuasarVM]

Rush Limbaugh is great. His views reflect the mainstream -- not vice versa.

I think Gallup disagrees with this one. It appears the only national-level Republican figure less popular than George Bush is Rush Limbaugh.

Oh come on...you know polls can be skewed...and they are. Look at the ratings. Also, look at the ratings of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham...these people doing very well. You can't even begin to compare them with NPR or any of the extreme liberals like Al Franken...

 

[Cyke101]

Rush Limbaugh is great. His views reflect the mainstream -- not vice versa.

I think Gallup disagrees with this one. It appears the only national-level Republican figure less popular than George Bush is Rush Limbaugh.

Oh come on...you know polls can be skewed...and they are. Look at the ratings. Also, look at the ratings of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham...these people doing very well. You can't even begin to compare them with NPR or any of the extreme liberals like Al Franken...

Gallup is different. For one thing, it's the original, the standard, one that played a major, major role in every election season since its inception (including the last one), one that liberals and conservatives constantly cite together. We're not talking about a biased operation like MSNBC or Fox News, we're talking about a political institution that the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine rely on (or, surprise, the one that Anderson Cooper, Jon Stewart, and Bill O'Reilly cite when formulating their arguments).

For another thing, in every single one of their polls, Gallup's researchers list their survey methods. That level of transparency is there to combat accusations of skewed results, while at the same time allowing people to keep Gallup honest should it come out skewed.

I love this whole "If it doesn't agree with me, it's wrong" mindset.

But, by hobnobbing with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Mahmood Amadinejad, yes...I would say Sean Penn is treasonous. Surely even you, as a liberal can see my point on this one.

Republican Governor George Ryan hobnobbed with Fidel Castro. He was formally one of the most powerful conservatives in the nation, and the first governor to go to Cuba. He did that for the sake of trade talks, and was praised by members of his own party for taking such steps in the Clinton Era. Does that make him treasonous?

There's got to be more to countering political ideology with diplomacy than branding people you don't agree with as enemies of the state. God forbid what would've happened had FDR done that to Joseph Stalin during World War II. Moreover, I still don't see the part where Sean Penn is raising an army or pledging outside militant action against the US.