Penn on CNN right now

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Discussing voting. And I quote - "We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Updated sig!!!

 

[circuit slave]

Penn? Sean Penn? When you say right now, do you mean right right now? , because right now I gotsta git my Washington Week on!--------on PBS, so I won't be watching that.

Well, you tell Sean Penn I said to shut his lame Hollywood opinion up or I'm not gonna buy Fast Times at Ridgemont High on DVD.

What kinda stupid comment is that? Evil? There are people around the world who don't even have the privilege to vote. He should say something wiser like just plain vote. What is it anyway? only 47% of the people exercise their civic duty anyways. Yeah, let's not vote at all.

 

[crimresearch]

Obviously this Penn person is just a stooge of the vast media conspiracy... he wouldn't last a second on JREF, with wishy washy crap like that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Penn? Sean Penn? When you say right now, do you mean right right now? , because right now I gotsta git my Washington Week on!--------on PBS, so I won't be watching that.

Well, you tell Sean Penn I said to shut his lame Hollywood opinion up or I'm not gonna buy Fast Times at Ridgemont High on DVD.

What kinda stupid comment is that? Evil? There are people around the world who don't even have the privilege to vote. He should say something wiser like just plain vote. What is it anyway? only 47% of the people exercise their civic duty anyways. Yeah, let's not vote at all.

Penn Jillette. I hope you were being sarcastic, or was it really not obvious?

 

[circuit slave]

Penn Jillette. I hope you were being sarcastic, or was it really not obvious?

er......oops! ...uh.....oh , that Penn.....well did he do any of those cool tricks with Teller?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I disagree.

IMO, keeping Bush in the White House not only won't create a viable third party, but has devastating consequences for women, gays and lesbians, our economy, our foreign relations, the environment, the Supreme Court, and the poor.

sorry,I'd love to see a third party (and no need to stop at three either) but there's too much at stake this election for me to sit on my couch, not vote and help one guy who I really despise win.

btw TCS...I thought that you believed Libertarian politics were screwy?! Why place so much weight on Penn's (big time Lib) political views?

 

[bignickel]

Another St. Louis voice must weigh in (and then head to bed, because he's going the geek-fest that is Archon in the morning):

I believed that back in 2000. After years of 'lessor of two evils', I wanted to vote for a candidate instead of against one. Because that's the only real way to start having a real change take place; voting for the candidate that stays closest to the center will never change the status quo.

"Republicans and Democrats are the same group", said I, "just color-coded to make us think there are 2 parties."

So, I voted for Nader. Who had some issues I agreed with, and who wasn't a complete meglomaniacal lunatic at the time (as opposed to now). Didn't really swing Missouri (not even close), but if after 8 years of properity, a vice President can't pick up a more-than-50% margin, why should he be Pres? The election's his to lose. And no matter who we have in office, other than Nader, thing's are going to stay pretty much the same as they always have, right?

Ah. But then WTC happened. Then Afghanistan happened. Then the Patriot Act happened. Then Iraq happened. Then 'Freedom Fries' happened...

So, pretty much every day since Afghanistan has been a walpeen hammer on the side of my head going NO! NO! ! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Don't get me wrong: I still think that America deserves the President that it ends up with.

I just don't think that the rest of world does.

Maybe some day we can have a nice, boring election where nothing major will be happening in the next 4 years, just like the 90's, and I can vote on the issues I want again instead of tossing some guy out of office...

 

[Dorian Gray]

Til the landslide takes you down

 

[CFLarsen]

"We have to either start voting for loony third party candidates or not voting at all. If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil."

That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

I think I spot a pattern with Libertarians here: A profound dissatisfaction with life. It is everybody else's fault, everybody else is stupid and evil, only Libertarianism can save the world.

Let's assume that very few people vote. I'm not sure if there needs to be a certain amount of people voting before the election is declared valid, but if there is not, it would only mean that those who did vote - a very small minority - would grab all the power.

Penn seems to advocate "Divide and lose".

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

I think I spot a pattern with Libertarians here: A profound dissatisfaction with life. It is everybody else's fault, everybody else is stupid and evil, only Libertarianism can save the world.

Let's assume that very few people vote. I'm not sure if there needs to be a certain amount of people voting before the election is declared valid, but if there is not, it would only mean that those who did vote - a very small minority - would grab all the power.

Penn seems to advocate "Divide and lose".

Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

That's an interesting - and telling - quote.

It is interesting, because Penn seems to consider third party candidates - Badnarik is one - as "loony". That means he thinks his own political conviction is "loony".

It is telling, because Penn seems to brush aside all other political ideologies as possible except the Republicans and Democrats. He cannot fathom that people might find other ideologies worthwhile. It's either the two "evil" ones, or the "loony" ones.

Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

Vegas is real, its Branson thats fake.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

Let's get real for a moment here. Penn is an entertainer. He's a jokester, a trickster, a gadfly, a con man, a merry prankster. Furthermore, much of his life is built around a largely fictional construct known as Las Vegas. This can be fun in small doses or occasionally enlightening, but I count his political opinion about as much as I count the opinion of any other celebrity.

He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title.

So why don't you call up CNN and tell them you want them to put you on so you can talk about how important it is that we all vote on November 2?

Let us all know as soon as you get booked so we can all tune in.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

Penn is a libertarian but I am not sure he is a member of the Libertarian party.

There are more libertarians than there are Libertarian party members.

I have often--snidely--remarked that if as many people who claimed to be Libertarian or have Libertarian sympathies actually voted Libertarian, the Republicans would be a third party by now.

Who knows? I might even be right.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

So why don't you call up CNN and tell them you want them to put you on so you can talk about how important it is that we all vote on November 2?

Let us all know as soon as you get booked so we can all tune in.

What's that got to do with anything?

If Penn had used his time slot to insist that everyone should vote for Badnarik, I would agree with the 'who cares what celebrities think about politics' sentiment...but civics isn't politics.

How is the lack of non-famous people on CNN relevant to that distinction?

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

He wasn't talking about his opinion on politics in the OP...he was talking about voting, which last I checked, he held an equal franchise with every other citizen, regargless of job title.

Ayup. Every other citizen gets to speak on CNN. Right, right.

 

[ManfredVonRichthoffen]

So here is my standard voting procedure.

1) Unless a particular candidate is offensive, as I found bush for religious reasons in the last election, then for the major elections I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party.

2) For minor elections(railroad commisioner) I make my statement by picking the third party candidate if offered.


But lately I'm thinking of changing my whole system. I'm thinking of going from a party based voting system, to a single issue based voting system. Single issue voters seem to get more attention from the candidates than those that vote for party platforms.

If I change my system, it would look something like this:

1) I vote for the person who pledges to work on my issue.

2) I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party if neither person pledges to work on my issue.

3) I vote against the incumbant/incumbant party if the incumbant/incumbant party hasn't made any progress working on my issue.

4) I vote for the incumbant/incumbat party if the incumbant/incumbant party has made progress working on my issue.

In all three cases, I write to the campaign of all candidates and explain my vote, and my system for voting.


My issue of choice is the drug war. There has already been made the connection between terrorist funding and the drug war. It makes the streets more dangerous. It makes the world more dangerous. It ruins American's lives.




*edited to add: Even in the issue system, I still wouldn't vote for a party that based its entire platform on that issue. I need a party that has plans to do the rest of the governing they need to.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

Ayup. Every other citizen gets to speak on CNN. Right, right.

So Penn shouldn't be allowed to present a skeptical viewpoint like "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil..." on CNN *because* he is famous?

Or because it offends your partisan sensibilities?

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penn on CNN right now

So Penn shouldn't be allowed to present a skeptical viewpoint like "If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it's going to keep getting more evil..." on CNN *because* he is famous?

Or because it offends your partisan sensibilities?

Penn is allowed to say whatever he wants, to do whatever he wants with the wealth and opportunities that he has managed to sieze, etc. etc.

I would have thought this was a simple concept. It constantly amuses me how when I express an opinion, people such as yourself interpret it as an attempt to Restrict Someone Else's Rights, or What They Should Be Allowed.

However, I also have the right to react, and the way that I react is that I consider his opinion on politics or voting or gardening or how to treat an ingrown toenail or how good chicken liver tastes or anything outside of their area of expertise just the same as I treat the opinion of any joker who sits down next to me at a bar. Not that Penn would ever do that, since he makes such a big deal out of being a teetotaler, so maybe it's a Starbucks. So he's a Celebrity, so he gets to be on CNN. Big fat hairy deal.

Your reaction suggests that this is somehow offensive to you, or it makes you angry, or something I cannot even guess at. Are you willing and able to describe that?