I would say actors, or anyone in the public eye, should gaurd their comments to some extent. If an actor starts making public comments that make him look like a wacko, he'll start to be viewed less favourably by his potential audience.
...er...well, except for the old saw, 'no such thing as bad publicity'.
He might be less favorably viewed by potential supporters in a Presidential bid. Iavas, I think what doesn't bother me about this site, and others of this ilk, is what has been termed the 'crab-factor'. Every time someone tries to rise above his equals, he is brought back down into the muck by his fellows.
It will be highly entertaining, and sell lots of commercials and newspapers, to see Arnie try. It's good business. He will not succeed. The eastern establishment will not allow it. The idea of any constitutional amendment at this stage of the game seems highly unlikely.
OTOH: if they actually ever manage to convene a constitutional convention, I'll be on the next plane to anywhere-but-here.
I think it's all too easy to right off facts because of a bias against the person presenting them.
Or to accept as 'fact' that which is poorly substaniated because of a bias in against the person they describe.
Is there absolutely no information at all on sites like infowars that you guys would take seriously?
(Oh, Iavas you disappoint me with this question. Are there any absolutes at all?)
As for taking any of the information seriously, yes, probably. But what I do with that seriousness is bound to be different that what another is likely to do with it. For instance, there was a scrolling blurb quoting him saying somthing about '95% of the people in this world need to be told what to do...'. Substitute 'want' for 'need' and I'd have to agree. It's pathetic, but how else to account for the popularity of dictatorships around the world?
There's a lot of wierd stuff going on...
Yes, but then the world has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since we got kicked out of the garden. We still haven't made it.
...but I suppose it's more comforting to believe that all our leaders act openly and with the best of intentions!
I do try to believe the best of people. I didn't like Bill Clinton the moment I clapped eyes on him on the front of some newspaper, long before he won the nomination. I said to myself, 'That guy thinks he's God's gift to women.' And he frankly gave me the creeps because of that. It came as no shock to me whatsoever to find out about his inappropriate behaviour with Monica Lewinsky.
That said, I do believe, in my heart of hearts, that Bill Clinton meant well for the country and when it came to performing his job as President, he put all his mind and heart into it. I think he was wrong and misguided, but I do believer he acted with the best of intentions.
If you enjoy infowars, you might also enjoy reading something by Otto Scott,
The Secret Six. It's hard to find, and usually very expensive, but available in larger libraries and well worth the effort.
As for conspiracy theories. I do believe in them too. But also in a wildcard that most people do not take into consideration. It is a spiritual one. But that is for another thread, I think.