I was wondering what her views on political issues are. Here's what I've compiled myself and the evidence.

1.) She's against censorship/for free speech.

a.) On politically Incorrect concerning a case where a person was arrested at a tator festival for wearing a shirt with obsenities she said the this: "Rachael: No, if you're old enough to be able to read and know what it says, you're probably old enough to know what it means.
And you know what? You've probably heard it before." Later on the same show in the case of a person cursing at a cop, this happened.

Rachael: It should be legal.

Bill: It shouldn't be legal.
The first amendment is not an absolute and it never has been. People think the first amendment means that anything you utter in any way --

Nancy: So why can't you do that?

Bill: -- Is covered. And it certainly is not.

Nancy: Why shouldn't you be able to do that?

Rachael: What if he deserved it?

Even after the position is put out that the first amendment is not absolute and there are times when it should be overridden is argued. She still supports the person who cursed out the cop.

This is just conjecture now but I think by the way that she argues this, she has more a liberal political stance (versus a conservative stance). She does not argue like Nancy that free speech is protected but not always encouraged if it's profane which I see more as a conservative individual rights arguement for free speech, but I see here opinion as rather says there needs to be all the speech out there in the world and let people pick up what they want from that speech. And I think that's more liberal.

Although she might be more of a moderate, as shown by her offering sort of a compromise to the same issue.

Rachael: I was gonna say, maybe just something as simple as a small ticket could be issued to people who are that disrespectful.
I mean, that seems fair.
You know, if you have to get it out of your system.

b.) She's for the free flow of information and open source code, as per the documentary part of the antitrust dvd special feature.

2.) Against Rape. (As if people could be for it.)
There's a photograph of her at a "Take Back the Night" event.

There's my really lame list of 2 things I think she might have opinions on. Hopefully someone can contribute like what types of political events she's been at, or has found interviews with her that point one direction or the other on issues.

This has been my first post to the message board here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trowa_zero:
b.) She's for the free flow of information and open source code, as per the documentary part of the antitrust dvd special feature.

---

Welcome to the board Trowa. Yeh, i also agree with her on that one. Interesting stuff you mentioned, someone here will be able to help ya out as im not much of a fan of politics...

::Nick::

"The answer isn't in the box, it's in the band.."

[This message was edited by Nickz0r on January 18, 2003 at 04:26 AM.]

It's far from secret that Rachael supports liberal viewpoints.

-TR

So do I. I am opened for new ideas, and against anyone who puts a gag on an opinion for unjustified reasons...

Sad that still, we are quite restricted about what we can say to cops, since most of them have an ego...

I wonder what Rachael thinks about Violence in video games
I hate it how over protective moms have to shout out their voice about it

The whole fuss about violence in videogames is pathetic, its just an excuse used by politicians when they dont have an answer to why there is so much violence in our society. They dont want to admit that it might their fault so they blame it on computer games and violent films.

I played GTA3 today and last night i watched Goodfellas, both contain alot of violence but i havent had any urges to go out kill someone. People that kill people dont do it because they saw it in a video game, they would do it anyway. There were plenty of murders before games and films were around.

Anyway ill stop rambling now

Sorry, ive gone totally off topic, back to Rachaels political views......

quote:

---

Originally posted by HawkDawg:
I wonder what Rachael thinks about Violence in video games
I hate it how over protective moms have to shout out their voice about it

---

LoL! My mom yells at me when I'm playing TeKkenTag in my house hehe

-Mark

"It's far from secret that Rachael supports liberal viewpoints." TR

Yay! I'm so far left it's kinda crazy. So I'm kind of glad that's true. Like what for instance has she said anything about or supported?

boys/girls, just a few words about that.

1. 'til a specific age, children are in a kind of development, and combined with the fact that they sometimes can't differentiate between truth and fiction (even if they think they do), violent games and movies can possibly harm them in a way.

2. to forbid violent movies/games is the worst way to protect your children. if something is prohibited, even those that world usually not play/watch that stuff will try to get it.

3. violence of people is at least a combination between nature, EXPERIENCES and family/social background... think about it

4. you will probably change your view about all that, when you have you own children, and have to guide them through the life.

maybe liberal viewpoints are the best, because you don't get stuck into a habit, I don't care. make your own mind and don't eat everything, just because someone tells you it tastes good.



- Christian

I probably didnt explain myself very well

I agree that young children shouldnt be subjected to violence in games and films as i agree it could harm them in some way. I just think if it makes them go and kill people then there was something wrong with them in the first place, and it shouldnt be blamed on the games.

But i totally agree, games like GTA3 shouldnt be played by children. (Although im sure i would have wanted to play it if i was 14 or something).

Im going off topic again...ill leave it now

quote:

---

I just think if it makes them go and kill people then there was something wrong with them in the first place, and it shouldnt be blamed on the games.

---

I agree 100%

Me too!!!

-Mark

i wonder what are views are on war in iraq. that's a very hot topic. what about the kyoto accord? that's another hot topic. i for one am for war in iraq. not to kill the people but definitely to oust the government. i mean iraq definitely isn't the largest threat to the US right now but saddam hussein is definitely a maniac. also i am against the kyoto accord. our idiot of a prime minister thinks its good but he ain't so smart. i have done the reasearch and what i have concluded is that the world is not in as bad a state as the average joe thinks it is. don't look at the crap published by national geographic or green peace. look at stuff published by real scientists. there's more real evidence that says global warming doesn't exist than there is for it. i would encourage everyone to look into that topic.

peace out y'all.

-boba fett
"milk sucks. got beer?"

the problem with going to war in iraq is that the population there is significantly muslim, and with the whole deal in afghanistan, muslims aren't thinking to highly of the US right now. and that brings forth more muslim extremist groups like al qaida(spelling?). all in all going to war with iraq would be bad news..

north korea should be the main area of concern.. not iraq.. sure we know iraq HAD something going, not too sure if they still do, but now we know north korea HAS something going.. notice the use of past and present tense? which one scares you more? the past? or the present? anyways.. when schools in another country teach their kids to hate you.. it's a bad thing.. mmmmmkay?

Ahem. Let's not get too with this one. I see an endless debate brewing here.

-TR

but a post can only make it so far without getting a little bit off topic

I agree with Kujo with all he said. If N Korea were to gain nuclear weapon capability or at least be a source of nuclear material, China, Russia, and Japan would all go ape shit. If Saddam actually does have undisclosed weapons of mass destruction it would be about the same as it is now which as been relatively under control. And there isn't really popular international support for war with Iraq anyways. We might just come out of the whole thing with all people in the region and the world thinking the US is arrogant. The only reason we're paying more attention to Iraq is because they have oil and N. Korea can't even feed it's own people.

As for the kyoto treaty I'm not really sure.
I think the evidence that global warming is happening is actually good, temperatures have been raising over the last like 50 years. It's a matter of what causes that warming that is at issue I think. There is natural cycles to temperatures and according to the cycle the temperature should be going up now, but maybe some or a lot of it is anthropocentric(sp?). Either way I think measures should be taken to deal with the effects of warming. I'm not sure preventative measures like the Kyoto treaty will do that well. Especially since less developed countries will never sign it and will just go on polluting more if others are accepting those regulations and losing business because of it.

About this being off topic, I really hope you don't close this thread down. This is a community of people, just let people talk. We all like Rachael but maybe we should be allowed to get to know each other better and not just Rachael. It's not like we're learning much from this thread, when it's focused just one Rachael because it would just consist of my post and TR's post about her supporting liberal views not being a secret.

I wish I knew exactly how and specific things. It'd be really interesting to me. *sigh*
They don't do too many interviews and things with her when she's in independant films, do they?

I suppose assuming that her work is reflective of her opinions she's for drug education as being the main drug policy since she was in that PSA.

trowa_zero,

There is no problem with a bit of getting-to-know-ya posts, but this MB is meant to be about Rachael, so we don't want it to become totally cluttered with posts that don't relate.

A little bit of Off-Topic rambling = OK
Endless Off-Topic rambling = Quite bad

Thanks.

-TR

Ummm,
isn't that even a very personal and private area to analyse her political views (according to religion, etc.)?

Well, liberal views are very common. I mean who is not for open source (if you don't own a huge firm...)?
Or: who is not against rapes (except thieves...)?

The only really interesting point is the censorship opinion. But that is shared by million of (mainly young) people who don't believe in old fashioned conservative views...

Schaumi

Geez, asking whether or not she has a tattoo, she smokes, or she has a boyfriend, which are questions asked all the time here, are ever more personal. (What she does with her body and who she associates with really isn't too helpful for us to know and involves decisions about use of her own property, I guess that's the right word, and time.)

Political views might be considered private just to protect the people that hold them from being persecuted, but I think they are more argueable public than those questions asked above, since she might have gone to public events for certain causes. In a lot of cases celebrities use their status to bring more attention to certain issues.
It's also helpful for everyone to have their opinions known publicly if there isn't any persecution for having those opinions, since it facilitate democratic debate and such.

She, of course, has no obligation to tell people, but I don't think it's a taboo topic to discuss what she thinks. Geez, anyway I want to know more about how she's like personality wise. Doesn't everyone here? That's why there are interviews with actors.

We can talk about our own views on this thread as well. I don't mind I'd tell any one what I think about something public, it's interesting to me either way. I doubt some of the people on this board have thought about the kyoto treaty. Maybe just to be a little more interesting they should, or at least see what other views are out there.

About liberal views being very common, well, there isn't just liberal and conservative. There are different shades to each and maybe even some completely independant. For instance look at my discussion about free speech. I identifies different ways that people could support it. Some "liberals" are for censorship like Sen Lieberman, some "conservatives" would be for it too, they would try to play up the "family values" aspect of the arguement. But some "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are against censorship because it impedes on individual rights and prevents a market place of ideas and quelches self expression.