Yeah, the actor.
QuoteThe Daily Caller has learned that Hollywood actor and political activist Ben Affleck met with Democratic Massachusetts Senator John Kerry during a Wednesday visit to Capitol Hill.
CBS Boston's John Keller reported Tuesday that Affleck's name has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Kerry if President Obama chooses him as Secretary of State.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/19/ben-affleck-meets-with-john-kerry-amid-rumors-of-senate-run/
He was in "Gigli" perfect......
He did poink lotsa hot babes though. Hmmmmm.
Quick question, just because we "know" him from his movies, does that automatically qualify/disqualify him from holding that office?
Quote from: MetalDog on December 19, 2012, 07:57:58 PM
Quick question, just because we "know" him from his movies, does that automatically qualify/disqualify him from holding that office?
Not in the least. The little I've seen of his politics makes him suspect in my eyes, but he'll probably do the People's Republic of Massachusetts right.
Being in "Gigli" says something about his judgement.
But I am sure he is Commie-er than Marx.
Folks hop professions all the time. I'll be happy to disagree with his politics, but I'm not going to rule him out just b/c he started as an actor. So did Reagan.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 19, 2012, 09:42:13 PM
Folks hop professions all the time. I'll be happy to disagree with his politics, but I'm not going to rule him out just b/c he started as an actor. So did Reagan.
I thought of Reagan, too, though his Iran-Contra affair was a real blemish to his record.
That's okay he couldn't recall it.
Didn't he used to be a commie too?
Sure, why not? It would be nice to have MORE people in government whose biggest achievements before office didn't take place 35 years ago.
Yeah we need more hollywood influence on DC and things that effect you life daily. Can we have Whoopie Goldberg next? Please. Maybe some Samuel Jackson logic in Congress that'd be awesome too.
Why not... if Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Nancy Culp, and Fred Thompson can do it, then why not this guy:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grolschfilmworks.com%2Fmedia%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2FMovi_Arma0010.jpg&hash=f0a0772da8e34d713ae8639dfc04fc7229060aff)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hotflick.net%2Fflicks%2F1999_Dogma%2Fbig%2Ffhd999DGA_Ben_Affleck_005.jpg&hash=dff3bca1c9990e91b37c8d69ded599f01798c71a)
He ain't no Ronnie. And frankly American needs to drop its celebrity craze. They aren't smarter, better, or any of that other nonsense. Less hollywood would be a good thing IMHFO.
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 20, 2012, 10:16:08 AM
Why not... if Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Nancy Culp, and Fred Thompson can do it, then why not this guy:
Don't forget Al Franken, Clint Eastwood (local politician in Carmel), Jesse Ventura, Jim Bunning, John Glen, and Gerald Ford (ok, well, maybe he wasn't that big of a football star).
Meh. Affleck is politically active and has better or equal credentials to many of the jokers already in Congress. I fail to see the problem.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on December 20, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
Meh. Affleck is politically active and has better or equal credentials to many of the jokers already in Congress. I fail to see the problem.
I'm with you. Other than the fact that I believe him terribly ill informed, he won't do any more damage than anyone else. And he's young enough that he may yet learn something.
hahahahahahaha
OK, I was just kidding on that last one.
I thought "terribly ill-informed" was a prerequisite for a spot in Congress. ;)
I have no idea if he is misinformed. I do not know what he does in his
spare time. But he was in "Gigli". Maybe he has so much money that
he won't feel the need to steal any? He is not a lawyer.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on December 20, 2012, 12:00:51 PM
I thought "terribly ill-informed" was a prerequisite for a spot in Congress. ;)
<chuckle>
Yeah. Al Frankin is one I'd be proud to call Senator. Seriously let's just run the freaking surrender flag up the pole now.
I'll tell you what - I don't agree with a lot of Franken's policies, but the guy is incredibly well-informed and can intelligently discuss just about any major political topic you want.
I can certainly respect the people that know what they're talking about, even if I disagree with them. Franken absolutely falls in that category, and I'd rather have an informed guy I disagree with than a dolt like Todd Akin. Fortunately, I've been able to choose between pretty well-informed candidates my last few elections.
And that's why I'm not immediately ruling out Affleck as an option. I've never heard the guy talk about politics, but I'm not going to assume he knows nothing. I'm also not going to assume I'll disagree with him, either. Fred Thompson came out of Hollywood, but was a pretty staunch right-winger. There's all sorts of political persuasions wrapped up in celebrity these days.
Sorry but I'm not buying the Franken is informed line. Akin made a stupid comment. Granted and it's no different every single clown up there right now. I don't know crap about Akin. Don't really care. Nor do I really care if the Dare Devil is elected. People get what they vote for in the elections. Do I think we need more Hollywood influence in American politics. No I don't. I'd rather see more police, firemen, accountants, small business owners being elected. But we are a celebrity culture and it'll contribute to our downfall.
While we are at it. Let's just be honest and end the lie that if a more moderate conservative ran, he'd get support from liberals. You don't get more center of mass in American politics than Scott Brown. Who for the most part was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. And yet...
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 01:27:16 PMI'd rather see more police, firemen, accountants, small business owners being elected.
we can definitely agree on this point
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 01:32:44 PM
You don't get more center of mass in American politics than Scott Brown. Who for the most part was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. And yet...
Heck, you don't get too much more center-right than McCain. And truth is, he probably would've won if the bottom hadn't falled out of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros 6 weeks before the election. People forget he was ahead after Labor Day.
Or Mitt Romney.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 20, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 01:27:16 PMI'd rather see more police, firemen, accountants, small business owners being elected.
we can definitely agree on this point
I'd like to see more Joe the Plumber types, but no sane American wants to put himself through the hell of an election and so we're all worse for it.
Quote from: Centurion40 on December 20, 2012, 10:16:08 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hotflick.net%2Fflicks%2F1999_Dogma%2Fbig%2Ffhd999DGA_Ben_Affleck_005.jpg&hash=dff3bca1c9990e91b37c8d69ded599f01798c71a)
as long as he wears this in the oval office
and i always pictured Jarhead to be the spitting image of Jesse Ventura - the Predator image, not the politician image
That is a pretty bad @$$ costume. I probably need one.
Quote from: LongBlade on December 20, 2012, 01:42:33 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 20, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 01:27:16 PMI'd rather see more police, firemen, accountants, small business owners being elected.
we can definitely agree on this point
I'd like to see more Joe the Plumber types, but no sane American wants to put himself through the hell of an election and so we're all worse for it.
The expense involved in running doesn't exactly help, either.
Al Franken is incredibly well informed politically and has been for some years
I am with Brant on this one. Now if you do not know Al Franken is very aware
politically that does not say much for your own political knowledge. I do not
know if I like him as a politician but he knows...stuff.
Al Franken is a flake. I'd like to see some of the so called knowledge and being informed because it sure as the hell hasn't played out in legislation he's written or the committees he's sat on leading to any meaningful discussion of anything.
Well, I'm no fan of Mr Franken, but at least we know he knows something about the USA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfcrqXtxOM), which can't be said for a lot of our elected officals...
ha...just noticed that that video is labeled "Al Franken draws the United State of America" :)
With the state of the planet maybe all these pols should be
comics and play it for laughs instead of being allowed to make
important decisions. Mostest bestest laffs wins..... even though
the Republicans are at a serious disadvantage in the humour
department. You can only take so much Bill O'Reilly before
you puke and that's just his novel.
I agree with Brant, I think Al Franken is fairly well educated and is able to hold a fairly intelligent debate of policy. I do not always agree with his politics, he is even a bit too left for me. But I agree with him more than I say, agree with Bison. ;)
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 05:19:05 PM
Al Franken is a flake. I'd like to see some of the so called knowledge and being informed because it sure as the hell hasn't played out in legislation he's written or the committees he's sat on leading to any meaningful discussion of anything.
This could apply to so many many politicians. We had a Young-Earth Creationist on the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology (along with Todd Akin, whose comments were wildly non-scientific).
Regarding Scott Brown, he wasn't altogether "center-right." But it really does not matter what the nation thinks, just his constituents, and they clearly wanted someone more (way more) left.
Also, McCain and Romney failed because of the political machine. Both men espoused politics and policies that I heartily supported 8 years ago. But, because they needed to get the support of their party hardliners, they "changed their minds" and began to use the rhetoric of the farther right. I very much supported McCain during the Bush years, when he stood up against Bush on many key issues. Romney and his views on healthcare were very palatable to me. But both disavowed those beliefs during their respective campaigns. What else COULD they do? They had to out conservative people like Rick Perry. This is a failing of our system, that the minority needs to be coddled for the primaries, then the majority needs to be assuaged by immediately moderating. This is why Romney looked like such a waffler.
Point proven. Thanks SoM. Not that you intended to do so but you did. There is no compromise to be had. The most moderate of conservatives are never moderate enough and their supposed hypocrisy is never as acceptable as a liberal's hyprocrisy is. The is no desire for a moderate government. That is why we are an increasingly divided nation. Enjoy the ride.
Lots of compromise there. I am sorry the conservatives are picked on.
Quote from: Bison on December 20, 2012, 08:34:41 PM
Point proven. Thanks SoM. Not that you intended to do so but you did. There is no compromise to be had. The most moderate of conservatives are never moderate enough and their supposed hypocrisy is never as acceptable as a liberal's hyprocrisy is. The is no desire for a moderate government. That is why we are an increasingly divided nation. Enjoy the ride.
Actually, I think it is more nuanced than that. Like it or not, large numbers of people in the nation do not care about or are on the liberal side of social issues such as gay marriage, women's choice, prayer in school (separation of Church and State), and even universal healthcare (of some sort). So when the liberals have their primaries, they sell the liberal rhetoric, but do not have to moderate as much when selling it to the public come election day. The Conservatives, post-Bush, have been very divided by Bush-era politics, which was socially conservative but less fiscally conservative. I believe you have a mosaic in the Republican party that mirrors the liberals of the early 2000s. You have fiscal conservatives who are socially libertarian, you have social conservatives, you have religious social conservatives, and you have a mix.
Again, like it or not, Bush consolidated the Left and pushed a lot of moderates who did not care for social conservativism toward the left.
I do find your tone interesting, however. You seem to decry the fact that the moderate conservatives are not moderate enough. Whose fault it that? If they continue to lose elections because they pander too much to a radical base, then they aren't learning anything nor being responsive to their constituents. I've repeatedly said that the conservatives need to quit this "It is our way or the nation is doomed" rhetoric and start to understand how their vision (which has some very strong aspects) can coincide with and guide the vision of the American people at large.
Good points SoM.
I'd decry that conservatives aren't libertarian enough. The numbers of evangelicals make it difficult to ignore them, but I find their lack of social tolerance a great weight dragging down the party as a whole.
Quote from: LongBlade on December 21, 2012, 06:14:30 PM
Good points SoM.
I'd decry that conservatives aren't libertarian enough. The numbers of evangelicals make it difficult to ignore them, but I find their lack of social tolerance a great weight dragging down the party as a whole.
Why are evangelicals the only group viewed as extreme? That's insane frankly. I find liberal intolerance of religion and pro-life stances extreme. However as with all things it's not a compromise in the mind of a liberal unless you abandon your core values and accept theirs.
Quote from: Bison on December 21, 2012, 06:56:21 PM
Why are evangelicals the only group viewed as extreme? That's insane frankly. I find liberal intolerance of religion and pro-life stances extreme. However as with all things it's not a compromise in the mind of a liberal unless you abandon your core values and accept theirs.
You're correct. I didn't mean to call them the only "extreme" but rather the biggest hindrance on the GOP.
Plenty of crazies of all fabrics, not the least the libertarians (to which I more or less subscribe). I suspect that you and I share more values than we disagree on.
Sorry - gotta run. Will catch you cats later. Good discussion - here and elsewhere.
I'd disagree that they are a hinderance. I would agree that they are quickly becoming the only segment in the population that it is cool to show unchecked bias against. The offense? Positions on abortion and gay marriage. The left's obsession with killing babies, which is what abortion is and there is no way around it, is frankly sick IMO. However, I'm the intolerant one. See how that works? Gay marriage has been voted down in states like California by overwhelming popular vote, but its those evil social conservatives are the extreme and intolerant ones. Sorry but I don't want a party or a politican that caves on the basic premise of life. I guess that makes me extreme, which I'm fine with but just remember soon we'll all be old and guess who gets to choose if you are a valuable asset to society or not.
The Death Panels!!!!!
I assume that was your attempt at a sarcastic witticism. Needs work.
Speaking from experience. Living with socialised medicine
we have to fight off the death panels daily.
You can decry the change in social tone Bison, but I was not posting my "liberal opinion" but actual fact of the matter - fewer young people care about social conservativism. Sure, the Right can stick to its principles, in regards to gay marriage and women's choice, but that will lose them elections and will prevent other and very valid parts of their platforms to be ignored.
Quote from: BisonGay marriage has been voted down in states like California by overwhelming popular vote, but its those evil social conservatives are the extreme and intolerant ones.
Just FYI, this is wrong. The margin on Proposition 8 was 504,000, or the difference of 5%. I would hardly call this a "huge majority."
But I did not label the Evangelical Right as radical or "crazy." Just that they represent a faction within the Right that pushes the rhetoric toward social conversativism that other members of the Right (i.e. the Libertarians) do not support. That is not a *bad thing* per se, but I do think it is cutting off some of the Right's support among Moderates. You have less of the factionalism in the Left (I maintain because of Bush). There was a lot more factionalism in the Left during Clinton and early Bush.
Please. It lost SoM. It lost in a very liberal leaning state. A state that Obama carried by 21%. So perhaps it's not as popular as you'd like to believe it is. Let's just blame the Evangelicals and Catholics. It's easier to process that way.
Quote from: Bison on December 21, 2012, 08:50:46 PM
Please. It lost SoM. It lost in a very liberal leaning state. A state that Obama carried by 21%. So perhaps it's not as popular as you'd like to believe it is. Let's just blame the Evangelicals and Catholics. It's easier to process that way.
I think that the inability to see the broad picture here is why the Right is failing. It barely lost and the amount of money spent by the Mormon Church in the campaign for Proposition 8 was staggering.
I am not sure why you say there is "blame" placed on the Evangelicals and Catholics? Look at the makeup of the party - I am correct in my assessment. The Libertarian element of the right does not want social conservativism. The moderate "Reagan conservatives" differ in their support of social conservativism. Catholics are also split on the issue (the Church may have an official stance, but individual Catholics have a multitude of stances). As are a few of the Evangelical churches. Young people, by and large, do not care about gay marriage.
My prediction is that, if the right continues to espouse social conservativism as its core, then it will increasingly have trouble at the polls. Todd Akin and Indiana's Mourdouk lost (and they were predicted to win). Romney lost. Prop 8 might have won (four years ago) but several states legalized this election.
Anyway, this is drifting from the OT. Point is, Ben Affleck only has to appeal to his constituents, not to America.
By your logic liberals are split on it too since it lost.
Quote from: Bison on December 21, 2012, 09:39:45 PM
By your logic liberals are split on it too since it lost.
Not sure I follow. Obama won, there were some liberal gains of traditionally conservative seats, and several more states legalized gay marriage. California is not the only state in the Union.
Anyway, good talk.
Well actually conservatives own more governorships and state legislatures now, but it's all much to do about nothing for us plebs.
Liberal is such a dirty, dirty word it should be by definition all things horrible.
At least in this country it IS. You guys do not know from your liberals.
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 20, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
and i always pictured Jarhead to be the spitting image of Jesse Ventura - the Predator image, not the politician image
Yup, +1.
Quote from: LongBlade on December 20, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on December 20, 2012, 11:37:30 AM
Meh. Affleck is politically active and has better or equal credentials to many of the jokers already in Congress. I fail to see the problem.
I'm with you. Other than the fact that I believe him terribly ill informed, he won't do any more damage than anyone else. And he's young enough that he may yet learn something.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but this is pretty much how I really feel.
Quote from: Toonces on December 22, 2012, 01:30:15 AM
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but this is pretty much how I really feel.
Not sure if I am either ;)
Myth Busted:
Quote"I love Massachusetts and our political process, but I am not running for office. Right now it's a privilege to spend my time working with Eastern Congo Initiative (ECI), supporting our veterans, drawing attention to the great many who go hungry in the U.S. everyday and using filmmaking to entertain and foster discussion about issues like our relationship to Iran."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/26/sorry-good-will-hunting-loving-liberals-but-ben-affleck-is-not-running-for-senate/
No surprise. I mean, if his career was in the toilet, maybe. But it isn't, so a move into politics would be unexpected.
He is making more than he could steal....
Senator Gigli. Gaaaaghh!