Subject:
|
Re: Liberalism: "Trojan-horse fascism without the jackboots"? [was What has to be the worst...]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:51:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
321 times
|
| |
|
|
After doing some 'brief' research...
I just get more and more set that people are idiots (part 3).
I'd include myself in this category 'cause I have done and said some very
stupid things... but in here, in o-t.d we throw around ideas, we discuss, we
harass (most of the time with a 'winky' at the end, implied or actual), and
basically have a pretty good time doing it--is safe in here, and, like the
motto for the "Fight Club", "What happens in o-t.d stays in o-t.d"...
Here's the thing...
Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits.
You know my stance on revoking the right of *anyone*'s ability to speak her
or his mind.
Fox news had an interview with the instigator of that particular on-line
petition, one Lori Bardsley
http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,78438,00.html
Now Fox News is "not biased at all" as their header leads us to believe--"We
Report. You Decide."
So John Gibson, a pillar in journalistic integrity, begins with,
"
Lori Bardsley is with Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits and she's so fed up
with these Hollywood types mouthing off that she's doing something about it.
...
Ms. Bardsley joins me now from Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. So, I can't
get them to shut up. How do you think you are going to be able to do it?
"
"I can't get them (the Hollywood actors) to shut up"
Okay.
Then there's the question,
"
GIBSON: Do you think that your voice has been outgunned by their celebrity
so far, anyway?
"
Well, outgunned by some of the Hollywood actors--other Hollywood folks are
shooting in the same direction.
Further...
"
BARDSLEY: Well, basically, at IPetitions.com, you can get on the petition
and read the statement. And most Americans agree with the statement. I have
16, 000-plus signatures on the petition."
Out of 300 million+ people, and 16,000 agree means "most Americans agree"?
To be said, not everyone has internet access, or will take the time to
stumble across the website, but inferring that most agree, well, I'll sit
here unconvinced.
Can I have a another web petition please--
"
And you can sign your name, and you can leave an opinion about how you feel
about the war and the anti-war rhetoric coming out of Hollywood.
"
One where I can express my views "about the
pro-war-ulterior-motive-"war-at-any-cost"-rhetoric and the anti-war movement
coming out of Hollywood.
And of course, the last resort, ad hominem attacks--
"
And they have the money to do so. I think that they acted like pampered
brats when Clinton was in office because they seemed to be in the public eye
all of the time. And they stood behind [Clinton] with Monica Lewinsky. I
think that they've been trying to smear Bush ever since Gore lost the
presidency, and I don't think this is an anti-war effort. I think it is all
political, and I think it's bogus.
"
It's bogus because they were pampered during the Clinton years? There was
no issues during Bubba's 8 years such as V-chip control and such that would
adversely affect the entertainment industry? Yeah, the Hollywood folks got
a 'free ride' during the Clinton years. I don't think that the Late Night
guys 'stood behind Clinton' at all--I was there--they raked Bubba over the
coals nightly--Dubya's getting off so much easier--the late night guys only
make fun of Dubya's IQ ;)
From the actual protest website--
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hollywoodceleb/
(warning--takes a long time to load)
"
We the undersigned American Citizens stand against Wealthy Hollywood
Celebrities abusing their status to speak for us. We do not believe that
they have a clear understanding of how we live, what we fear, and what we
support. We believe that celebrities Martin Sheen, Mike Farrell, Tim
Robbins, Rob Reiner, Barbara Streisand, and others with them are using their
celebrity to interfere with the defense of our country
"
How about celebrities such as Bruce, that guy from Law and Order, and
others, using their celebrity status to interfere with the peace of the
world? Want to shut them up, too? And how is it that 'the most powerful
nation on the planet' can be toppled by celebrities? If your "defense
against terrorism" is so frail that it can't stand up to people excercising
their 1st ammendment rights, then you have much more to worry about than
Hollywood actors.
"
We support President Bush in his efforts to defend our homeland (1), to
defend democracy (2), and to take any measures to end the threat of
terrorism (3). We do not claim to know more than anyone, especially
President Bush (4). We elect a President (5) who we can trust to make proper
decisions (6) based on facts available to him and not available to the rest
of us.
"
1 - Listening to other political pundits, Bush isn't 'defending the
homeland' with nearly enough resources or finances that it should take--he's
'hell bent' for war at any cost. I'd say, if I were a conspiracy theorist,
that he's putting a 'feigned interest' into homeland security--make it look
like he's doing *something* for the homeland, but when another attack comes
that may have been prevented if there was legitimate regard to 'homeland
defence', he'll say, "See?? There's my validation!" He'll let it happen
just to prove he's right--but I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
2 - How is your democracy threatened?
3 - Any measures to end terrorism? Dropping a nuc on Bagdad--that's a
measure, though I think it would make more anti-American terrorists than it
would kill. Oh wait, so will invading Iraq.
4 - "President" Bush is not empowered with mystical knowledge--What about
leaders of other countries? What about all these folks who are against the
war--they can't all be dumb. Dubya hasn't 'cornered the market' on all
things known.
5 - Bush wasn't elected--he was appointed
6 - How about dispensing with ulterior motives such as oil, past history and
the like--how can you trust someone to make a proper decision when there is
so much hatred there? Papa--"I hate him (SH), I really really hate him".
You wouldn't trust the father of a recently raped daughter to make a proper
decision regarding a suspect of the crime. How can you trust Dubya to make
a proper decision?
And I said suspect above--yes Saddam is a nasty man, but that's not the
stated purpose for the war rhetoric--it's to bring those that attacked
America to justice--Well, one of those men was found recently-not in Iraq
but in Pakistan.
Iraq is destroying missles. Slowly yes, but *somethings* getting done. Why
start a war over progress? Because Dubya *wants* it. There's no other
logical reason--the entire foundation for *war* with Iraq have been destroyed--
"Protecting Americans"?
False--Iraq cannot possibly injure/kill Americans, unless, of course, you
just happen to have parced 300,000+ troops off the border to Iraq.
"Not in UN compliance"?
True--but they're working on it, so why start a war when progress is being made?
"Protecting the Iraqi citizens"?
Blatantly false--war will *kill* Iraqi citizens
"Route out terrorists"?
False-War with Iraq will create more terrorists--"You killed my father,
prepare to die"
So what's left?
This went off on a bit of a tangent, but to bring it back...
Let the people speak their mind, no matter who they are (including
Dubya)--let *not* the people kill, no matter who they are (including Dubya).
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
