Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Oliver Stone, Chuck Norris and Other Celebrity Hollywood Nuts Who Support Ron Paul

Actor Vince Vaughn isn't the only Hollywood nut to support Ron Paul for president. Other celebrities have voiced their support for the Republican wannabee-nominee, even though he's actually a Libertarian.  I don't know how I missed this, but in January the latest to claim he will vote for Paul if he gets the nomination is, of all people, the liberal  iconic film director/producer Oliver Stone. I'm not sure if I'm shocked about this latest bit of news or not, after all, his son Sean just became a Shiite Muslim
In an interview with Rock Cellar magazine, Stone was asked if an economic collapse would lead to the fall of the American “empire.”

“I think it’s a given,” Stone said. “There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate — I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama — is Ron Paul. Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.”
Of course, when it comes down to it, would he really vote for Paul?  I kind of doubt it. Talk is cheap. And Stone has always been a diehard, lefty liberal Democrat, and a strong Obama supporter. Not quite out there as Michael Moore, but pretty darn close.  His list of controversial films is a testament to how liberal he is: to name a few- Comandante (documentary about his meeting with Cuba's Fidel Castro), Salvador, Born On The Fourth Of July, Nixon, the documentary South of The Border which was criticized by many (including actress Maria Conchita Alonso) for portraying both Hugo Chavez and Castro in a positive light.

But they're not the only ones who heart Ron Paul. Although some of the celebs on this Facebook page list might just be wishful thinking on the part of the admins, some are rather surprising. Some not so much.

Other Paul endorsers:
American Idol singer Kelly Clarkson
Singer Michelle Branch (never heard of her)
Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry

Chuck Norris
Clint Eastwood,

However, Nicole Scherzinger (and several groups I've never heard of) did not endorse him. They had their twitter accounts hacked by Ron Paul-ites. Way to go, Paul supporters.

But, Paul will never get the nomination, so all those Paul supporters who happen to be Democratic will probably vote for Obama.


unrighteousfury said...

You think chuck Norris is a nut? He is about the most conservative person on the planet, far more than you are at any rate. Do you even know why he is a Ron Paul supporter? [he endorsed Romney by the way] He said "I would vote for Ron Paul because out of all of the politicians I have met which are many, he was the only honest one." Now I know you don't give a crap if a politician is honest or not, but some of us actually care about that. Come November we will either have the current liar [Obama]or a new liar [Romney] Romney created the same health care model Obama used and republicans are running around bashing Obama for it while supporting Romney in his stead. You people think Ron Paul supporters are crazy? I don't like Oliver Stone but he is right when he said "There is no way that we can continue this spending spree". Now how much money are you willing to bet me publicly that Romney the guy you will vote for won't continue to spend at current levels in fact I bet he doubles the size of government while in office. Want to take the bet? How's $500? I will bet $500 dollars going to the P.O box of your choice or address you want that Romney not only doesn't cut spending his first year in, but instead raises it. I will also bet you that he breaks at least half of his campaign promises first year in. Are you willing to take the bet? Of course Ron Paul would cut a Trillion with a t out of government right away and that is just to start, and make sure that government was only allowed to do what the constitution said they were. I know, what a crazy fuck! Oh wait I remember he is Neville Chamberlain right? He wants to appease the Iranians or some such made up nonsense because he doesn't want to invade their country. Of course their former head of Mossad, Dagon says to find other ways to deal with the threat than attacking them and he killed more terrorists than Obama and Bush could ever dream. I guess you know better though, a small peasant country that can't even produce enough fuel to drive their own cars is going to somehow be a military threat to us right? That's why Ron Paul is crazy right? He won't do that whole invade yet another sovereign nation thing and get us involved in another decade plus long conflict while taking away our civil liberties in the name of "Freedom" what a crazy asshole! Is anybody who doesn't agree with you and has actually been to another country a nut in your opinion?

Incognito said...

I didn't vote for Romney, but if he gets the nom, I obviously will.

Paul certainly won't get the nom, and if he did, he would never beat Obama.

And have I ever said we should invade Iran. No, I think not. Not sure where you pulled that out of the hat.

And as for Norris being more conservative than I am. Yeah, you're right. I consider myself more of a moderate. But there are certain issues that I am more conservative about than you and Paul. I don't believe in legalizing drugs. That's as liberal as you can get.

unrighteousfury said...

The drug thing is funny. Legalizing drugs is not a liberal stance it is a constitutional one.

All both Paul's have ever said was that states should have the right [which they do via the tenth amendment] to pass drug laws without federal interference. You may not like drugs being legal but why do you think the states shouldn't be able to legalize or criminalize them as they see fit? That makes zero sense.

Here is what happens

Paul says: "If states want to decriminalize things like Marijuana and free up our prisons for people that have actually committed a crime against the public welfare we should let them without federal interference which is our constitutional role."

Then a stupid right wing tool says: "He wants to make drugs legal, what a nut case!"

Even though he has never passed or even introduced a single bill that would do that. He just wants states to be able to decide for themselves which is their right.

Why is this so difficult to understand...are you purposefully distorting it in your own brain or what?

I can't believe you will vote for somebody just because they get the nomination even if they are scumbag...what a lemming.

Incognito said...

In what way are drugs a constitutional right? Where in the constitution does it say every man, woman and child should be allowed to smoke grass, crack, or inject heroin into his veins?

Many horrific crimes that have been committed have often been a result of drug use. I don't want more people accessing them simply because it is now legal.

As for voting for who gets the nomination. Not a lemming, I just want ANYONE but Obama. You should understand that, as a "true" bonafide conservative.

This is how I see it, though I don't expect you to understand. Even if Romney is 50% conservative, that's 50% MORE than Obama. Get it?

unrighteousfury said...

Doing drugs isn't a constitutional right. I never said it was. Let me break this down so you understand it.

This is what the tenth amendment says

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Specifically because the constitution is silent on the issue of drug use and the federal governments role in drug enforcement that means that the powers to enforce drug law [or not] are reserved for the states. So in other words if California says "Shoot heroin all day if you want" the federal government has absolutely no say so in it. It is a right reserved to the states to legislate. Trust me. You don't want federal authority to EVER supersede the authority of the state. Our founders understood this well which is why the amendment stood all these years.

So pretty please with sugar on top stop distorting what the man is saying. This is obviously a states rights issue and the federal government has ZERO constitutional authority to enforce federal drug laws that are not constitutional. If you don't like drugs you should petition a state assembly not a draconian federal authority...thats the constitution it, love it, learn it!

Tell me again now that you have the amendment in front of you how this is a liberal stance again?

Do you understand now why this is a constitutional issue?

By the way your logic is silly as well. 99% of gang funding comes from illegally selling drugs. If they became legal tomorrow their funding is cut literally over night. Don't believe me...look at prohibition the proof is in the pudding.

unrighteousfury said...

Oh and yes I get it.

What wonderful logic...I can apply that to anything to make it sound good can't I? For instance I can say that Joe is 50% more of a rapist than Fred so I am going to vote for Fred because even though Fred does do some raping...he does far less raping than Joe.

Are you people serious? I am not going to vote for the guy that started Obama care before Obama even thought of it. Both of these guys are scum.

Incognito said...

YOU said...
"Legalizing drugs is not a liberal stance it is a constitutional one."
maybe a question of semantics, but you said it.

Making drugs legal will just make it easier for people to do them. The fact that they are illegal now is a major deterrent for many. And yeah, I know if someone wants to take drugs they will. It's just more of an incentive with them legal.

and don't be ridiculous. major difference. then you are voting for Obama. plain and simple. just like all those people who refused to vote for McCain. We have them (and you, I assume) to thank for these past 4 miserable years, and another 4 to come.

unrighteousfury said...

"Making drugs legal will just make it easier for people to do them. The fact that they are illegal now is a major deterrent for many. And yeah, I know if someone wants to take drugs they will. It's just more of an incentive with them legal."

That's nice and all but what about the constitution? Stop ducking the real issue here and just come out and say you don't agree with the constitution.

Incognito said...

It has nothing to do with agreeing with the constitution or not. I just don't happen to see things in terms of black and white. because nothing ever is.