Protesters to turn backs... [Archive] - CookingLight.com Community

beacooker

12-21-2004, 12:50 PM

Although I thought overall it was harsh, I thought the guy in the article (http://community.cookinglight.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67828) posted by Escher put it pretty well when he said:

We believe that George W. Bush and his henchpeople are a real threat to the survival of democracy. We believe that they're killing people for profit. And we believe that they don't have a goddamn clue about forfending terrorism on U.S. soil.

So, no, I don't feel a compelling need to 'support the leader of this great country'. To me, supporting George W. Bush is akin to supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering, and hate. I will never support him.

Escher, what do you mean by saying that the protestors' move is 'ineffective'? What would you consider to be effective? I (and presumably the people who are turning their backs) don't want Bush to be the President, however, I have no effective way of producing that outcome, now do I?

Escher

12-21-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by beacooker
Escher, what do you mean by saying that the protestors' move is 'ineffective'? What would you consider to be effective? I (and presumably the people who are turning their backs) don't want Bush to be the President, however, I have no effective way of producing that outcome, now do I?

Ummm...Effective is nominating/supporting/voting in a more appealing candidate for President.

But you are correct in suggesting that the left is powerless to do so. :D :p :D Of course, that's just my opinion.

The fact that you think Bush is a "real threat" to Democracy proves only how deeply you have your head buried in the sand of rhetoric.
Disagree with his policy? Fine. Think he's taking the country in the wrong direction? Ok. But a "threat to democracy" is pure horse puckey.
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_17.gif I'm sorry, I'll save my cries of Wolf for something that is truly dangerous....

leightx

12-21-2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Escher

Ummm...Effective is nominating/supporting/voting in a more appealing candidate for President.
\

Ummm...I would guess that most people that are protesting Bush believe that they DID nominate/support/and vote for a more appealing candidate for President.

beacooker

12-21-2004, 02:03 PM

You have your opinion about where my head is, I have my opinion about where yours is. Of the two, I prefer the sand. ;) :p

Escher

12-21-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by leightx
Ummm...I would guess that most people that are protesting Bush believe that they DID nominate/support/and vote for a more appealing candidate for President.

Clearly, they failed.
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2004.png
Those are the cold, hard facts, and they aren't moving for anyone, regardless of whether backs are turned or not.

This whole scenario reminds of thos silly parents who put on bake sales, donating to proceeds to the various school functions. They buy the ingredients, bake for hours, setup their little stand, and collect pennies on the dollar for the investment of time and energy invested. Far better to simply open the wallet and write a check directly to the school, and skip the inefficient middle-man process.

Not exactly a 1 to 1 analogy, but the astute reader may be able to interpret my meaning.

Escher

12-21-2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by beacooker
You have your opinion about where my head is, I have my opinion about where yours is. Of the two, I prefer the sand. ;) :p

There you go! Excellent. I so long for worthy adversaries....

badunnin

12-21-2004, 03:03 PM

I'm sorry, so if our guy didn't win, we just have to sit on our hands for the next four years until we can vote again? That's crap.

leightx

12-21-2004, 03:04 PM

So let me get this straight. The only effective protest is to nominate a candidate for President and vote for him. If he doesn't win, then you might as well give up? No more protesting, since you obviously can't nominate a new guy for 4 more years, and nothing else is "effective"?

Chefzhat

12-21-2004, 03:41 PM

Escher, I think your map is backwards!

Michigan is NOT a red state.

PAMMELA

12-21-2004, 04:25 PM

I'm quite sure California is not red either.

Kristilyn1

12-21-2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by beacooker

To me, supporting George W. Bush is akin to supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering, and hate. I will never support him.

I for one am SO glad that all the nasty hate-mongering is over, aren't you?

Only in La La Land would the above be an actual opinion and not just a real foolish thing to say. Lumped in like crabmeat aren't we? Have a very Merry Christmas Scrooge!

Kristi

leightx

12-21-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

I for one am SO glad that all the nasty hate-mongering is over, aren't you?

Only in La La Land would the above be an actual opinion and not just a real foolish thing to say. Lumped in like crabmeat aren't we? Have a very Merry Christmas Scrooge!

Kristi

Huh?? :confused: I believe that Beacooker was stating just that - an opinion. No where did she say that everyone who supports Bush is supporting greed, fear-mongering, and hate. She said, and I quote, "To me..." And I would think that's a perfectly valid opinion. For her to support Bush would be (in her mind) to support greed, et al.

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 05:03 AM

To me (meaning in my opinion) supporting George W. Bush is akin to supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering, and hate.

Above is a direct quote. I support Bush, therefore I am supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering. whatever. Of course we are all entitled to our opinion. The above is not just an opinion, it is an indictment of people everywhere who support Bush. If you really can't see the statement above for what it is, anything I say isn't going to open your closed eyes and mind.

Kristi

HejazSunKat

12-22-2004, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by MrsReber
Yes, they do have every right to protest, but how is our country supposed to come together? Personally, regardless of who won the election, I would feel the need to stand behind that person as the leader of this great country.

That's just me, though, and I do understand that there are many others out there who simply don't like him. But we do need to focus on the future.

I'm sorry Susan, but this man and his policies are so antithetical to everything I believe in I cannot support him. That is what my heart, mind and conscience tell me. I accept that the election went his way and he is President of the United States for the next four years but I believe there are plenty of ways that I can help my country without lending my support to someone who is so deeply repugnant to me and for the life of me I will never understand this 'cult of Bush' where he must be followed unquestioningly and never criticized. He is only a politician yet people treat him with such reverence, just like the Reagans. :confused:

Chefzhat

12-22-2004, 05:57 AM

Linda, there was a "cult of Clinton" and a "cult of Kerry" as well. Putting your faith and trust in a leader shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Protests are great for show, but are wholly ineffective. Time and effort should be put into elections and issues closer to home where the effects are more tangible.

Escher

12-22-2004, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by badunnin
I'm sorry, so if our guy didn't win, we just have to sit on our hands for the next four years until we can vote again? That's crap.

I didn't say that, now did I?

Escher

12-22-2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by leightx
So let me get this straight. The only effective protest is to nominate a candidate for President and vote for him. If he doesn't win, then you might as well give up? No more protesting, since you obviously can't nominate a new guy for 4 more years, and nothing else is "effective"?

I didn't say that either. Just because back-turning is ineffective, I didnt' say give up. Come now, it's not all black and white....

Escher

12-22-2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Escher, I think your map is backwards!

Michigan is NOT a red state.

Actually, the colors are arbitrary, as neither party has an official color. In fact, in all the years in the past, the standard in the US was to have the incumbant party depicted as blue, and the challenger as red.

Since the 2000 election was so close, and there was so much mass education on the state-by-state breakdown, the public erroneously inferred that Red somehow represents Republican/Blue Democrat all the time, instead of just for that election.

In fact, if there was a party/color standard, it would be the opposite. From my understanding, in Europe, the more left a party is on the political spectrum, the more likely it is to be depicted as red.

But, again, in the US, the standard has been for years to depict the challenger red, and incumbant blue.

Of course, it's not set in stone, and if some people can't grasp that concept, I'm sure the red/republican blue/democrat sytem will be standardized, further entrenching the two-party mindset.

HejazSunKat

12-22-2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Linda, there was a "cult of Clinton" and a "cult of Kerry" as well. Putting your faith and trust in a leader shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Debie, I'm sure you're absolutely right that there were zealous supporters of both Clinton and Kerry (and any other politician who we could name) but even though I voted for both of those people I personally did it with one eye open. It's always a leap of faith when you cast a vote for someone that they are going to keep their side of the bargain and live up to their campaign promises but I've never, ever put my 'faith and trust' in a leader 100%. I think my job as a citizen is to question them in order to keep them on the straight and narrow; I don't see that in Bush supporters. It seems that whenever he is questioned or criticized there is outrage that anybody would have the temerity to question the commander in chief. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks when one of them expressed an opinion they had every right to express. Who CARES what a Dixie Chick thinks? I'm cynicial enough to believe that they didn't get to the national stage by being nice guys. National politics is a blood sport and if these guys play and win they've made a lot of bargains and compromises along the way.

Escher

12-22-2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat
I will never understand this 'cult of Bush' where he must be followed unquestioningly and never criticized. He is only a politician yet people treat him with such reverence, just like the Reagans. :confused:

Yes, Republicans are mindless drones, simply following a cult of personality. :rolleyes:

Stereotype much?

ellielk

12-22-2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Escher

Ummm...Effective is nominating/supporting/voting in a more appealing candidate for President.

But you are correct in suggesting that the left is powerless to do so. :D :p :D

Seems to me that the right is equally powerless.

And, as far as the protest goes, although it won't change anything, it will illustrate opinion. IMHO, I'd rather a non-violent, peaceful display than a rock-throwing, effigy-burning, riot.

Escher

12-22-2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by ellielk

Seems to me that the right is equally powerless.

And, as far as the protest goes, although it won't change anything, it will illustrate opinion. IMHO, I'd rather a non-violent, peaceful display than a rock-throwing, effigy-burning, riot.

Absolutely agreed.

On both points.

Hey folks, I'm not a spokesperson for the right, I'm Libertarian, remember?

Chefzhat

12-22-2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat
Debie, I'm sure you're absolutely right that there were zealous supporters of both Clinton and Kerry (and any other politician who we could name) but even though I voted for both of those people I personally did it with one eye open. It's always a leap of faith when you cast a vote for someone that they are going to keep their side of the bargain and live up to their campaign promises but I've never, ever put my 'faith and trust' in a leader 100%. I think my job as a citizen is to question them in order to keep them on the straight and narrow; I don't see that in Bush supporters. It seems that whenever he is questioned or criticized there is outrage that anybody would have the temerity to question the commander in chief. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks when one of them expressed an opinion they had every right to express. Who CARES what a Dixie Chick thinks? I'm cynicial enough to believe that they didn't get to the national stage by being nice guys. National politics is a blood sport and if these guys play and win they've made a lot of bargains and compromises along the way.

Well, you know me :) I question, question, question. And disagree. I tend to support the party, not the candidate.

As for the Dixie Chicks, the outrage was that they were making a personal attack. Not a constructive criticism. They were lambasted for their lack of tact, as well they should have been. Again, entertainers should just keep their silly mouths shut and do their job.

beacooker

12-22-2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

Above is a direct quote. I support Bush, therefore I am supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering. whatever.

Kristi

Kristi, I can see where you could take that interpretation of it, if you want to believe that I am someone who goes around thinking these things about 51% of the population. Another way to intrepret it, and what the truth is, is that I assume that to the vast majority of Bush's supporters, Bush doesn't represent those things, because otherwise they wouldn't have voted for him.

I'm married to someone who voted for Bush. If I believed that he supported greed, ignorance, etc, I would be in divorce court right now, instead of looking forward to cuddling up on the couch with him in front of the tree tonight.

jmarie

12-22-2004, 07:18 AM

I think Cher had it right...how many years ago?

The beat goes on, the beat goes on......
Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de.... la de da de da.

Charleston was once the rage, uh huh.
History has turned the page, uh huh.
The mini-skirt's the current thing, uh huh.
Tennybopper's our newborn king, uh huh.

And the beat goes on....the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de... la de da de da.

The grocery store's the supermart, uh huh.
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh.
And men still keep on marching off to war.
Electrically they keep a baseball score.

And the beat goes on...the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de..... la de da de da.

Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss.
The cars keep going faster all the time.
Bums still cry 'Hey buddy, have you got a dime?'

And the beat goes on.... the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain.
La de da de de... la de da de da.

Fom Cher and Me
MERRY CHRISTMAS, YALL!
(Think about it.)

badunnin

12-22-2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Escher

I didn't say that, now did I?

No, you didn't say that. But I never said you did.

ellielk

12-22-2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by beacooker

Kristi, I can see where you could take that interpretation of it, if you want to believe that I am someone who goes around thinking these things about 51% of the population.

That would be 51% of the VOTING population. There are still too many citizens of this country who don't vote. But, that's another thread.

leightx

12-22-2004, 08:21 AM

Wow - there's certainly a lot of nit-picking going on here.

Hopefully Kristilyn, with your obviously superior and wide-open mind :rolleyes: , you can understand now what Beacooker and I were trying to say. Funny - my closed-minded interpretation turned out to be correct after all. Perhaps when we don't assume the worst about people...

Of course, you can read what you want into pretty much anything. I'm sure you still see her quote the way you want to, and you're allowed to interpret things as you wish. Just try not to resort to put-downs and personal attacks the next time though, k? Or is it only ok to make generalizations and put-down certain people (Beacooker, the Scrooge in LaLa Land; and me, for being closed-minded), but not an entire group? Just trying to clarify the rules here.

ChristieinMB

12-22-2004, 09:39 AM

Ahhhh, we were just starting to get along,
Escher you just love to stir the pot! I am amazed that so many jump in to get burned!
:D :D
Christie

Escher

12-22-2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by ChristieinMB
Ahhhh, we were just starting to get along,
Escher you just love to stir the pot! I am amazed that so many jump in to get burned!
:D :D
Christie

As much as the moth is drawn to the flame, so too is the flame drawn to the moth.

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by HejazSunKat

It seems that whenever he is questioned or criticized there is outrage that anybody would have the temerity to question the commander in chief. Look what happened to the Dixie Chicks when one of them expressed an opinion they had every right to express. Who CARES what a Dixie Chick thinks? I'm cynicial enough to believe that they didn't get to the national stage by being nice guys. National politics is a blood sport and if these guys play and win they've made a lot of bargains and compromises along the way.

First off, just because the PRESS depicts this idea that Bush is not to be questioned (by showing all these crazy outraged people) does not mean that this is a universal truth. I mean, listening to talk radio which is predominantly conservative, there are very few people calling in who LOVE Bush and think he is perfect and not to be questioned. Most are deeply conflicted about the war in Iraq, but feel that he is a better choice, not the Messiah. This religious right myth, that Bush is being held up as the second coming--is IMO, a complete and total fiction. I think it's conveniently used as a tool to try to depict Bush and his supporters as exclusively religious nuts. Yes, he has religious nuts on his side, yes he has people who think that everything he does is perfect--but on the other side--haven't we all seen the crazy communist liberal supporters? I would never be foolish enough to assume that those are the only people who supported him. I think some people (and no, I'm not naming names on here!) need to believe these Bush myths to explain what they are too close minded to admit--that normal, sane, smart people DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM! The minute you underestimate your opponent, you've already lost the battle. Personally, I hope this kind of delusional thinking carries right on into the next election cycle.

Second: The Dixie Chicks. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but from what I understand--the outrage stemmed from the fact that they did not have the guts to state their beliefs at home because it was unpopular and might cost them ticket sales or a drop in album sales, but were more than happy to air their dirty laundry abroad, so to further ingratiate themselves to their audience. Since we all can only guess at their motivation--the people who are outraged have the right to decide that they DON'T care what the Dixie Chicks say and reflect that with refusing to buy their albums. You have the right to express whatever opinion you want, but you also have the responsibility to accept the consequences. They are in the entertainment industry--they exist to entertain me. The minute I cease to be entertained, I have the right to no longer support them. Yes, some people went overboard in their reaction to their statements. But aren't they on the same par as people who chuck paint at fur wearing women?

Kristi

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by beacooker

Kristi, I can see where you could take that interpretation of it, if you want to believe that I am someone who goes around thinking these things about 51% of the population. .

My apologies if I did indeed misinterpret your statements. Your explanation above was much more eloquent than your original post.

Kristi

Escher

12-22-2004, 11:53 AM

Kristlyn1's stock just went up several notches in Escher's book.

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by leightx
Wow - there's certainly a lot of nit-picking going on here.

Hopefully Kristilyn, with your obviously superior and wide-open mind :rolleyes: , you can understand now what Beacooker and I were trying to say. Funny - my closed-minded interpretation turned out to be correct after all. Perhaps when we don't assume the worst about people...

Of course, you can read what you want into pretty much anything. I'm sure you still see her quote the way you want to, and you're allowed to interpret things as you wish. Just try not to resort to put-downs and personal attacks the next time though, k? Or is it only ok to make generalizations and put-down certain people (Beacooker, the Scrooge in LaLa Land; and me, for being closed-minded), but not an entire group? Just trying to clarify the rules here.

Remember, Santa IS watching. You don't see any irony in that I'M the one who has to reinterpret the things that other people say, yet you do not?! What I find interesting, is that I do that all the time! I also understand that we have new rules regarding insults? Or is it just ME who has new rules regarding insults? Saying someone is close minded is an insult and not an observation? Never mind, don't answer. Just for clarification, you are not alone in having decided long ago who I am and what my purpose is here, so you are "justified" in refusing to consider my point of view or opinion, that was what I was referring to. I do have to say that I didn't realize we had a set of siamese twins on here.......

Kristi

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 12:25 PM

sometimes, I repeat things in order to beat dead horses--in fact, it's one of my hobbies, but today I really feel that I need further clarification on this. And yes, for the record I am perfectly willing to take Beacooker's words at face value regarding what her ACTUAL intent was in stating these words:

"To me, supporting George W. Bush is akin to supporting greed, ignorance, fear-mongering, and hate. I will never support him. "

I just want to note that my earlier interpretation of these words was not some crazy twisting of her words. I took them at face value and the case here is not that I am someone who twists words to suit herself but that simply put, Beacooker expressed herself in an unsuitable way, that did NOT reflect what she really MEANT. I interpreted what she actually SAID. And yes, if what she said above, was what she meant--then YES, that would make her a Scrooge!!!!

If I said: "supporting Bill Clinton is supporting the Devil" wouldn't you take that to mean that if you were a Clinton supporter, you were a Devil supporter? How else should that be taken? Save your breath if your only comment is to complain about how I come across, etc., not because you don't have the right to say it, but because I've already heard it and don't agree.

Continue on people!

Kristi

leightx

12-22-2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

Remember, Santa IS watching. You don't see any irony in that I'M the one who has to reinterpret the things that other people say, yet you do not?! What I find interesting, is that I do that all the time! I also understand that we have new rules regarding insults? Or is it just ME who has new rules regarding insults? Saying someone is close minded is an insult and not an observation? Never mind, don't answer. Just for clarification, you are not alone in having decided long ago who I am and what my purpose is here, so you are "justified" in refusing to consider my point of view or opinion, that was what I was referring to. I do have to say that I didn't realize we had a set of siamese twins on here.......

Kristi

I'm not sure what some of this post means, but I'll do my best...

Kristi - I have absolutely nothing against you personally. I don't think you are closed-minded; in fact, I've seen you open yourself up to different interprations of things and try to see both sides of an issue on several threads on these boards. I enjoy debating as much as you do. But you do seem to be awfully quick with the snide personal attacks.

Believe it or not, the way you interpreted her post is not the only God-given interpretation. I know to you it seems painfully obvious that your way is the RIGHT way to interpret it. To me, I didn't get that at all, until I read your post lambasting her for it. It was quite obvious to me that she meant that she couldn't personally support GWB, b/c FOR HER it would be supporting greed, etc. Is it possible (gasp!) that there are different ways to interpret posts?!?! And that maybe, just maybe, you might not be right all of the time? I was merely trying to point out a different interpretation, Kristi, and somehow I'm the one that's closed-minded? :confused:

If you said "Supporting Bill Clinton is supporting the Devil", even without the "To me...", I would assume that you disagreed with his policies on pretty much everything. I would NOT assume that you thought everyone who voted for him was a devil-worshipper. That's just me though...

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by leightx

Believe it or not, the way you interpreted her post is not the only God-given interpretation. I know to you it seems painfully obvious that your way is the RIGHT way to interpret it. To me, I didn't get that at all, until I read your post lambasting her for it. It was quite obvious to me that she meant that she couldn't personally support GWB, b/c FOR HER it would be supporting greed, etc. Is it possible (gasp!) that there are different ways to interpret posts?!?! And that maybe, just maybe, you might not be right all of the time? I was merely trying to point out a different interpretation Kristi, and someone I'm the one that's closed-minded? :confused:

If you said "Supporting Bill Clinton is supporting the Devil", even without the "To me...", I would assume that you disagreed with his policies on pretty much everything. I would NOT assume that you thought everyone who voted for him was a devil-worshipper. That's just me though...

1st part: Not sure why you think I am so convinced I am "right"? I am ALWAYS one who can find validity in another's arguments--even if I reject their views. I felt YOU were implying that my way of interpreting it was crazy somehow and you couldn't understand how I got to the place I did. Again, what she MEANT to say and what she said are two very different things. And then, here you are saying "it was quite obvious to me that she....". I was merely reading and responding to her ACTUAL words said, while you were willing to guess that you KNEW what she was really thinking? Before she clarified it?

2nd part: I am completely stumped on how you are interpreting my statement about Clinton. I guess you are right, that you can choose to interpret people's words through the filter of your own beliefs about the person or whatever, but my statement, if read at face value certainly is pretty clearly put.

3rd: I do want to point out that your post is surely meant to be sarcastic and mocking--- I am not in the least put out by this as I think it's a valid and amusing way to communicate, but since you have criticized my style of communication--I do want to point out that you are indulging in it as well.

Kristi

leightx

12-22-2004, 03:28 PM

Hmmm...I'm not sure how to explain myself any differently. Again, there are different ways to interpret her post. She did NOT say "Bush supporters are supporting greed, etc." That would have been clearly offensive, even to me. You seem to think that you are interpreting what she ACTUALLY said, while I am just responding to what she MEANT to say. I think we are BOTH interpreting her post in 2 completely different ways. To me, what she MEANT to say, and what she actually did say are the exact same thing. To you, they are different. That doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa. It also doesn't mean that one of us is closed-minded. It means that we have interpreted a post differently. Is that really so hard to understand?

Kristilyn1

12-22-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by leightx
Is that really so hard to understand?

Sigh. Like I said before, I interpreted your post to imply that I had somehow willy-nilly come up with this crazy interpretation of her original post. We will have to agree to disagree on who's interpretation is WHATEVER, HOWEVER, WHOMEVER.

I am however, willing to agree that the sun will come up tomorrow if you are.

Kristi

leightx

12-22-2004, 03:50 PM

Forgot to add - I wasn't criticizing your "style of communication". I took offense to being called closed-minded. I also took offense at this remark.

Just for clarification, you are not alone in having decided long ago who I am and what my purpose is here, so you are "justified" in refusing to consider my point of view or opinion, that was what I was referring to. I do have to say that I didn't realize we had a set of siamese twins on here.......

Actually, I'm not as much offended by it as I am confused. Who you are? What your purpose is? From your posts, I gather that you are a somewhat conservative-minded SAHM. Beyond that, I have no idea. Believe it or not, I'm interested in what you have to say, and I've rethought my position on at least one issue based on a post of yours. Please don't be so quick to tell me how I view others on this board.

There is a difference in being sarcastic and posting personal attacks IMO.

leightx

12-22-2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

I am however, willing to agree that the sun will come up tomorrow if you are.

Kristi

Yes, absolutely! :D

HejazSunKat

12-22-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Escher
Yes, Republicans are mindless drones, simply following a cult of personality. :rolleyes:

Stereotype much?

Oh please, for every Democrat who thinks Republicans are mindless drones there are an equal number of Republicans who look upon Democrats as chardonnay swilling elitists. For the record I don't happen to subscribe to either view.

Unlike some people I refuse to indulge in labeling or in pigeon-holing people. I think labels are divisive and it's usually the people who plead for unity who are the first to throw them around. Thanks for putting words in my mouth too. You don't have to be a Republican to be a Bush supporter, in fact, had I myself agreed with Bush's politics I would have been more than happy to vote for him. I didn't NOT vote for him because of his party affiliation. I am not stuck on labels. I was commenting on what I think is the curious phenomenon of many Bush supporters seeming to take criticism of their elected official so personally. I honestly don't get that. If you believe in Bush's politics and I don't what difference does it make to you what I think? Many Bush supporters act as if a member of their own family has been mortally insulted whenever anyone has the nerve to actually question his leadership. That's our JOB people. That's a responsibility of democracy.

cminmd

12-22-2004, 10:46 PM

Again, entertainers should just keep their silly mouths shut and do their job.

Unless the entertainer is a Republican- then he can use his movie star experience to become Governor and stump for Bush in Ohio. I also seem to remember several celebs hob nobbing at the Republican Convention. Not to mention other Conservative Celebs like James Woods, Faith Hill and the mother of the Judds. Republicans never seems to complain when they use their celebrity to talk about issues or raise money on behalf of conservative candidates.
It seems to be only stars that support Democrats who deserve such criticism.
How do Republicans not have whiplash from having it both ways?

Grace

12-22-2004, 10:55 PM

Speaking at a political convention, where everyone is there specifically to hear political speeches is not the same as making political comments on a concert stage, where people are there to hear the entertainment, and the audience is not necessarily a group of like minded thinkers (like the convention crowd is), not to mention, when you sell tickets to make a profit for yourself (something that isn't done at the convention by the entertainers), and people pay their hard earned money to hear you entertain, and you then shove your political views down the throats of the captive audience who again, have PAID to see you (solely to make you rich), it's really a different animal.

There were plenty of celebs at the democratic convention too, and no one was complaining about that.

And lastly, Arnold was running for office, so he had to speak his political views. If the Dixie Chicks (any one of them) were running for office, they would be expected to speak their political views too. They aren't running for office anywhere. Not even for dog catcher. So that's why no one's interested in their political views.

Nothing like comparing apples to baseballs.

HejazSunKat

12-23-2004, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Grace
If the Dixie Chicks (any one of them) were running for office, they would be expected to speak their political views too. They aren't running for office anywhere. Not even for dog catcher. So that's why no one's interested in their political views.

But Grace - people DID care, very much. I can understand why people who were at that concert might have gotten upset, especially those who didn't share their political leanings. If I'd paid good money to see a concert I'd be a little peeved too to have to listen to that, even if I agreed with them. I'd be like: "Oh, shut up and play!" My question was, why, afterwards was there such a backlash against them? I believe they even got death threats. Whoa - for saying they don't like Bush? I've heard the argument before that it was because they stated their objections abroad but I don't buy that. They're famous, this is a connected world. It's not like what gets said in one country stays there anymore, everything is around the world in a New York minute. My question was, whether it's me or the Dixie Chicks or anybody else we could name why do people get SO upset over criticism of Bush? Here's my 50 cent theory to partially explain it: I think it's a 9/11 backlash. That event was so devastating and scary for people and the unity it brought out in Americans (which, unfortunately, I missed because I was living in an Arab country, some of whose citizens were happy about it :rolleyes: ) felt so comforting that for anybody to question the president was being unpatriotic and threatened the precarious cocoon of security that had been created. I think since Bush was president at the time of the event he happened to benefit from people's fears and he actually used them for his own gain to get himself re-elected. He RAN on people's fears instead of on what he was going to do for the future of America.

Chefzhat

12-23-2004, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by cminmd
Unless the entertainer is a Republican- then he can use his movie star experience to become Governor and stump for Bush in Ohio. I also seem to remember several celebs hob nobbing at the Republican Convention. Not to mention other Conservative Celebs like James Woods, Faith Hill and the mother of the Judds. Republicans never seems to complain when they use their celebrity to talk about issues or raise money on behalf of conservative candidates.
It seems to be only stars that support Democrats who deserve such criticism.
How do Republicans not have whiplash from having it both ways?

To quote Escher - Stereotype much?

For the record, I think all entertainers should shut their silly mouths, not just the ones that support the Democratic party.

Your example using the Govenator is completely off base - he was running for office after all. Oy.

The Dixie Chicks didn't even just say "we don't like GWB", they said that they were ashamed of being from the same state, and other very derogatory comments. That was the problem. And the fact that they probably don't have half a brain between them, but feel completely free to attempt to comment on politics; in France of all places. What exactly were they trying to accomplish?

HejazSunKat

12-23-2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Chefzhat
The Dixie Chicks didn't even just say "we don't like GWB", they said that they were ashamed of being from the same state, and other very derogatory comments. That was the problem. And the fact that they probably don't have half a brain between them, but feel completely free to attempt to comment on politics; in France of all places. What exactly were they trying to accomplish?

Debie, I do know what they said (and I'm not being sarcastic). To me the whole thing amounted to the fact that they were not fans of GWB, they said something (though arguably not in an appropriate place) and people went NUTS. Not like it matters but I thought they were in England when they said it? As for commenting on politics - smart people or stupid people we all do it. If they're citizens then I think entertainers have as much right as anybody to voice an opinion but I don't think they should use their professional performances to espouse their personal views. If they want to use their celebrity to support a candidate or a cause, give an interview.