Thread: Turn the tables! Don't enter if your thin skinned

Originally Posted by edk442

...maybe not congress, but the entire population of the US. Not too mention a few death-threats. Made me listen to them that much more, knowing they have a spine and the guts to speak out. Good documentary too.

The entire population of the U.S. was not against the Dixie Chicks ---- most people did not have as much of a problem with what they said as much as where they said it. They would have guts if they would have said it in Texas --- not saying it to a population that largely felt like they do ---

I would have respected them if they would have said it here.

Would you have respect for a Canadan musician who went to the U.S. and bad mouthed your government or prime minister? --- I hope not.

And if you think that it takes guts for Americans within the Hollywood/ Music/Entertainment field to say something bad about a conservative/rightwing president then you don't understand how things work here. They will always have jobs -----


Justin

Also for the Europeans amongst us that may not know. (semi off the original topic but just to enlighten)

Generally the term conservative is assigned to Republicans and supporters mostly because of issues pertaining to areas such as abortion, marriage, etc.

While the term liberal is generally assigned to democrats and supporters for their same stance on the same issues.

It's interesting to note, however that the "conservatives" generally support the death penalty, quite a drastic and extreme measure, while "liberals" generally oppose the death penalty.

Another generality is that "conservatives" typically (not always) espouse traditional "Christian" values, which scripturally would be exclusive of the death penalty. "Liberals" generally espouse modern, and some would say, antithetic values compared to traditional Christianity, yet oppose the death penalty, which would adhere to the scriptures supporting the era of forgiveness (i.e. the "5th dispensation").

Rush is a die hard Republican and anyone who disagrees with 100% republican views are subject to scorn in his show.

I applaud the man for not backing down in the face of adversity.

PS if anyone wants to debate anything off topic with me I'll gladly accept gentlemanly emails or private messages so this thread doesn't become hijacked

I live in US, but I don't follow the news very closely and I've missed this whole thing...
Just went over and tried to find out what happened by reading the transcript of the show and the letter from the senators.

My impression is that this is another blown-out-of-proportion thing from both sides for purpose of rallying their respective audience. Why?

Side 1 - Limbaugh:
- at the time of the show Limbaugh had no idea if the first caller is a phony soldier or not.
- the second caller is the first to use the phrase 'phony soldiers', making a general statement about how the other side never talks to real soldiers, therefore they hold the views they hold. Limbaugh seems to agree that any real soldier is bound to be looking forward to serving in Iraq

Side 2 - Senators:
- their claim is that he has publicly insulted all soldiers who do not agree with the way the war in Iraq is being handled (even while serving there) and they quote a group of these. They demand a public apology, not an end of his career (which may be the same, I don't know)

I cannot see that Limbaugh made such an insult in any direct way so that it would warrant a resolution from the Senate. But in the larger contest of the interview I think that was the overall impression I'd get. He had just accused a caller for not being a republican because all republicans according to Limbaugh want to be in Iraq until the 'job' gets done. Also I'd disagree with the spin that he is the innocent private citizen who has gotten assaulted by the government for expressing his views.

I have a friend who signed up to the National Guard and wanted to go and serve in Iraq. He did go and served for about 9 months. He then proceeded to look for and find a way to change the structure of his initial commitment so that he does not get send there again. I believe he would agree with Limbaugh that US should not be setting any time table to pull out, but he also believes that he has done his share.

So, again, I think it's blown way out of proportion for political purposes. And in case you were wondering I would not be bidding on that auction - I've already gotten an autograph of the senior NY senator soliciting my support for a cause I ended up voting against. And that letter is already recycled together with the one by the national republican convention or some similar entity.

That was my problem too. The fact that they went to Europe and started things out with "Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

That just sounds to me like a dumb redneck opening her mouth. I've lived around dumb rednecks long enough to know what that sounds like

Anyway, I think it's great that Rush is using this to his advantage. Not many people would be able to turn that around, especially in such a way as to make Reid look like a fool.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

That was my problem too. The fact that they went to Europe and started things out with "Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

That just sounds to me like a dumb redneck opening her mouth. I've lived around dumb rednecks long enough to know what that sounds like

Anyway, I think it's great that Rush is using this to his advantage. Not many people would be able to turn that around, especially in such a way as to make Reid look like a fool.

That was also my problem with the Dixie Chicks!
Lots of people talk bad about America, but to go to another country and speak to an audience that for the most part agree...That strikes me as cowardice, not guts! Rush, on the other hand said everything on the open airwaves where anybody could hear, and is standing his ground to boot !
By the way, the Dixie chicks apologized for their statements here in the USA!

I know they did, which I admire. My point is just that the Senate never sent their record label a letter asking to cancel their contract with the Dixie Chicks. It seems like very selective use of power which goes against free speech. I'll get off my soap box now. I never really meant to rant

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I know they did, which I admire. My point is just that the Senate never sent their record label a letter asking to cancel their contract with the Dixie Chicks. It seems like very selective use of power which goes against free speech. I'll get off my soap box now. I never really meant to rant

I know what your point was!
My point was that they talked bad about America for their benefit and then apologized because that also served their purpose!

I guess I am a little cynical!

I see very little difference in what Rush has been doing for years, what the Senate did, and what the Dixie Chicks did - using a conflict in which American soldiers are dying to promote their personal agendas. As a veteran, I find all three of them are offensive. The DCs should have not hijacked a music event for the sake of the spotlight; the Senate has better things to do (I would hope) and Rush will never stray from anything which gets his name in the press. He should be very careful regarding anything to do with the military, given the fact he has never served. (Oddly enough, many of those who are "gung-ho" for the conflict in Iraq have never worn the uniform). The letter auction is damage control, albeit for a good cause. I would be more impressed if an auction had been set up just because, and not after controversy.

As for Conservative versus Liberal - for our non-US folks - there are other parties in the US, but they never make much of an impact. My position is based on the issue at hand, not a party or even the individual. I try to vote on issues or for people I feel will be of the best benefit to city, state, or nation....even if in some cases I do not benefit or am actually negatively affected (i.e. school taxes...I have no kids, but only a well-educated electorate will perpetuate the Republic...which also means not taking everything you hear/read as fact.....). For most Europeans, they would find the Democratic Party more conservative that they are used to for a group being "liberal". There is no real "centrist" party in the US with any power...instead, there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. There are also a few Independents thrown in the mix. On a historical note, the Democrats used to be viewed as the Conservatives and the Republicans, under Abraham Lincoln, were viewed as liberal because of their abolitionist views. I doubt anyone from that era would recognize either party today.

A friend of mine once said: Politicians are politicians...the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the size of the crumbs left to public.....



Greg

Originally Posted by JMS

My point was that they talked bad about America for their benefit and then apologized because that also served their purpose!

and how is that different from what Rush Limbaugh (the original topic of the thread) does? He talks bad about people who do not share his views and then he doesn't appologize because he doesn't have to and not apologizing serves his purpose of keeping his job as ultra-radical talk show host.

I don't see the logic how expressing disagreement with the decisions that the president of your country equates with talking bad about your country.

Or may be nobody ever expressed their disagreement with President Clinton during his low point?

If I'm being too provocative, please let me know - I don't have thin skin and I'm not offended by any of the postings in this thread, but may be somebody can take offense at mine. I'd just prefer a discussion instead of preaching to the choir type of thread, you know


Edit: I was posting at the same time as WB - wouldn't have posted this had I seen his post. I think his is way more interesting and better than mine and would prefer the discussion moves around what he said. Don't want to delete mine, though since it was already posted and somebody may be replying to it.