Well you have Penn to make your point, but I don't think it's automatic.

Like I've said before. Religion is the work of the devil. What's more diabolical than having people slaughter each other in the name of God?

Peace

Being a good or bad actor, or singer, makes no difference on becoming a completely unhinged political nutcase. And it certainly isn't a predominantly 'right' tendency.

See Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Harry Belefonte, Alec Baldwin, Marin Sheen, Meryl Steep, Richard Gere, Danny Glover, Ted Danson, Janeane Garofalo, just to name a quick list off the top of my head.

Maybe the Israelies should just continue to do what they have been doing:

1. Killing little Palestinian kids and using them for blood rituals
2. Dropping poisoned candy from helicopters into Palestinian schoolyards
3. injecting the AIDS virus into Arab prisoners
4. Marketing radioactive belts to Arabs
5. Burning Palestinians in ovens

Etc.

Those are not accusations of fringe elements, either. They are all positions taken by Hamas and the PA, broadcast on numerous shows sponsored by the PA and Hamas.

I am not actually a big fan of Israel and many of their actions, but I really cannot see why they get singled out as the problem when it is their enemies that are bent on their destruction, not the other way around.

Not only is the concept wrong, and not only has it been proven by Israel's enemies to not lead to peace. In addition to the nature of the speech placing Israel more closely toward equal blame for strife in the region, which is false (Israel's enemies are almost completely at fault, Israel nearly free of blame), Israel is now being pressured, when it has been the party making routine concessions, a largely one-way record of them, with the other side not keeping to theirs. Now Obama is pressuring Israel with the settlement stance of his administration (effectively a form of “land for peace”), undercutting its bargaining power in any future negotiations. It was also simply wrong to be blunt and openly public, though it did fit in with the nature of his speech.

There's a risk of a great deal of harm if the Congressional Dems and members of Obama's executive mistake public appeal and acclaim for Obama with a desire for vast new amounts of government interventionism and spending and taxing, and for a swing to the left that is not being sought by the majority. Already there seems to be with health care the notion that the public approves of all kinds of spending and deficits (far greater than in GOP leadership times) and that there's no need to wait for the economy to improve before launching ambitious new things such as we're starting already to see with health care.

What he did criticize is the demand that Obama is making for Isreal to swap land for peace- which time and time again Isreal has attempted to do according to international peace brokers demands, and then has been attacked in the aftermath of the concessions.

I guess if you can swallow that kind of paranoid fantasy non-fact based rhetoric , just write out those checks.

Obama re-called for the two-state solution, Israel's right wing doesn't want it. Voight appears to see that as a direct attack upon Israel. I don't begin to see any logic in that. As I said in the other post, consider the alternatives: (sorry for the paste, but let's put the criticism in context.

1. Apartheid – Rule the Palestinians much as the South African whites did.
2. Expulsion. – Kick out the Palestinians from Palestine. or kill them all and let Jehovah sort them out.
3. One State – Make the Palestinians Jewish citizens. as if they would want such citizenship, and would include either the dissolving of Gaza among neighboring Arab states or annexation by Israel.

I know you didn't say you were defending all Voight said, but I'd welcome any rational alternative.

What a lot of these criticisms of Voight's style and rhetoric seem to miss is that this was a partisan fundraising appearance. Do you guys really think that when Dems speak before that audience they give detailed intellectual discussions of policy? Do we need to dig up some footage of 'thick' rhetoric at DNC events?

As for your comment about the two state solution, Hemm, Voight didn't indicate that that's the point of difference he has with Obama. I take it that his objection is to the hard line that Obama is taking on Isreali settlements, which is clearly putting pressure on Isreal and creating tension with the internal politics there, as well as with conservative supporters of Isreal here.

“I'm not a fan of actors taking the political stage though in general, “

I guess that leaves out Ronny and Arnold.

As to Voight's speech. Can the man be substantive in any way? You yourself state his rhetoric was a little thick. We only disagree as to the thickness.

How do you separate anything of value from the hyperbole? Obama was failed in all he's touched, he's turned back mid-east relations by advocating the only logical hope for an Israeli/Palestine solution?

You read the other post about this speech? I listed three alternate solutions, If the two-state is so bad, which alternative does Voight or the right advocate?
If you wish to blame Obama for the economy, you ignore the eight years that led to its demise. Convenient for right wing fund raising but lacking rational analysis.

I won't even touch the Caesar comment except to say after 8 years of cowboy foreign policy, Voight demonstrates intellectual blindness or simple ignorance.
Crazy talk? you betcha

On Obama as a false prophet I would say it a different way. Obama comes across as an eminently reasonable and thoughtful man, but when you look at what he actually is saying and doing there is certainly the potential for harm as well as positions that are at odds with themselves.

Kathy, since you still haven't specified what he said which you find shocking or 'mad', it's rather hard for me as a conservative to address your complaint. I stated in the other thread that I think he goes too far in his criticism of Obama's rhetoric on Isreal, but that's just a matter of degree. I disagree with the intensity and the way he stated it, but the position itself isn't at all indefensible IMO.

And yes, he is an actor. Or was. At one time he was a very good actor — some might even say outstanding. I don't know if he was hiding this side of his nature all along, or if he has some terrible mental wasting disease, but what came out of his mouth at that fundraising dinner was frightening. I confess to being a little shocked that anyone who self-identifies as as a respectable, mainstream conservative would find his positions respectable.

Perhaps it's neurosis, common along with other problems among lefties, or it's just a distraction from more pressing, adult things, such as the “create [then added, later] or save 3.5 million jobs” that has achieved the stellar figure of 150,000 jobs, or the sinister takeover of the Detroit dinosaurs (now augmented by Congressional meddling in addition to horrible behavior by the Obama administration), to name something bigger that we adults (non-lefties) prefer as examples of more important issues to be concerned about. (The “camel's nose, head, and front quarters” in the form of the “public option” health care proposal currently considered is far too important to eclipse any neurosis about any single Republican.) To name something that is a small issue but more important than the trivial subject of obscession and neurotic behavior of the moment by Mikey here, what about the revised “pay-as-you-go” proposal by Obama that isn't on an annual but on a ten-year basis, and which specifically excludes discretionary spending?

Serious, intelligent issues aren't the object of the lefties' (“Moderates'” is misleading) obscession and frequent commentary that makes gossip columns often more intelligent, sadly.

Well said CStanley. If we want to start focusing on the crowd in Hollywood to find the crazies, it wouldn't be very hard. Why the spotlight on Voight, anyway? This is the second post on him here in the last two days. Did Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney or even Miss California not say something worthy of print today?