Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 261
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Wow... deja vu. Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks and the whole "using your position as a platform" and "shut up and sing" debate?

    *shudder*
    Yes. People absolutely had the right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. But why would someone support efforts to boycott the Dixie Chicks, but not Beck? It's exactly the same debate, and the hypocrisy occurs when someone says "Dixie Chicks should be boycotted", but "Beck is being silenced".
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    That's another point--keep in mind these boycotts are ORCHESTRATED--not a natural reaction from individuals, and hence, I don't find them to be very convincing.
    The exact same argument is used regarding the tea parties and town hall events. In both cases, there are elements that are orchestrated, and elements that are grass roots, based upon information (or some would argue misinformation) from organized groups.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Glad to hear it. Moreover, I'm glad to hear another person acknowledge the term Classical Liberal".
    Same here. I don't think many realize that the Libertarians of today are in many ways the true Jeffersonian Democrats. The Classical Liberals believed in the people being free to do mostly what they want. Somewhere along the line, liberal has come to mean that the Federal Government can do whatever it wants.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    HAHAH! Yes, get that Gawker Audience.
    Better yet--get Kate a Pre, she is GREAT at product placement. She could be the new Pre Creepy-chick!

    KAM
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I agree that Sprint can choose to spend their dollars where they wish, but did they independently look at Beck's show and say "that isn't to our liking" or did they cave to some pressure group? Are they any better than Beck? I don't know much about them, and am not seeking to judge, but rather pointing out that Sprint is not acting out of some sort of moral purpose--they are reacting to threats.

    I'd prefer a company that takes a stand based on some principle, rather than cowering in the face of threats. Maybe they are--perhaps they said "We disagree with Glenn Beck," but I haven't seen them say that.

    KAM
    They are letting their money talk. Since Beck's show has high numbers, one could argue that they are pulling their ads in contrast with their financial interest. It's easy to say that their actions are a response to a threat, but it could just as easily be a stance on principle.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The Classical Liberals believed in the people being free to do mostly what they want.
    Unless, of course, you were a slave.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    They are letting their money talk. Since Beck's show has high numbers, one could argue that they are pulling their ads in contrast with their financial interest. It's easy to say that their actions are a response to a threat, but it could just as easily be a stance on principle.
    Which principle was broken here?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You're making my point for me. Dissent should be considered patriotic (within reason - I would argue that dissent that prevents others from speaking doesn't advance any conversation, and thus isn't really patriotic), but when Van Jones did it, he was "inciting a riot".

    If you're arguing that the town hall groups are being patriotic, then how can you justify saying that Van Jones' protest march is not also patriotic? It's inconsistent, unless you're agreeing that the OP's statement is simply wrong.
    You forwarded the notion that "black guys" were subjected to criticism, when "white guys" weren't. That is not true--both are criticized--in my view usually unfairly.

    I didn't make any statement about Van Jones at all. I didn't say what anyone did was unpatriotic. I was responding to your statement that seems to claim that white people protesting is accepted and black people protesting is not. That's an inaccurate assessment as I see it. You seem to be saying that only one group is singled out and criticized, but that's not true.

    I provided an example of "white guys" that are criticized, which disproves your point. As a side note--I don't see this as a racial issue, but rather a political one.

    The fact is, dishonest people will use whatever tactics they can to attack those they disagree with--calling them mobs, rioters, unpatriotic, etc, while they happily accept people they agree with doing very similar things. That's hypocritical--I don't care what side you are on.

    The standard tactic which is apparently in play currently is to brand anyone who criticizes the President as Racist...well, not universally, but regularly. TEA party protestors are called racists, Town hall protesters are also called racists, and mobs.

    One other note--I don't think holding a contrary view is Patriotic. A view either is or isn't patriotic. The RIGHT to have a dissenting view is 100% American however. If I hold a view that says we should blow up government buildings, that's probably not too patriotic.

    KAM
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Which principle was broken here?
    Sprint may simply not want to support someone who's positions they don't agree with, such as calling the president a racist, spreading misinformation about health care, proposing an attack by Osama bin Laden as a way to rally citizens, and joking about poisoning the Speaker of the House.

    I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of that position. I'm merely stating that, given Beck's viewing numbers, this doesn't seem to be a financially-based decision. Now, an argument can certainly be made that they're bowing to pressure, but it's already been pointed out that there doesn't seem to be a sense of financial urgency that would be caused if they didn't drop their advertising.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You seem to be saying that only one group is singled out and criticized, but that's not true.

    KAM
    I never said that the "white guys" weren't being criticized....but this criticism certainly doesn't come from the same folks who are demonizing Van Jones for engaging in the same actions. It's hypocritical.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes. People absolutely had the right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. But why would someone support efforts to boycott the Dixie Chicks, but not Beck? It's exactly the same debate, and the hypocrisy occurs when someone says "Dixie Chicks should be boycotted", but "Beck is being silenced".
    I agree with Bujin!!!! People/companies have the right to boycott anyone they want. If you knew how many movies I refuse to go to because of the freakin' hollywood liberals, LOL....well....let's just say we don't go to many new movies in this household. I simply can't support them in anyway, and that is my right! My wife loves to watch GB and I know he won't lose viewers, but, money talks and I guess if all the advertisers pullout, and no one comes back in, might be the end of GB on Fox. I think it is great that the Dixie Chicks went from being popular in the country music scene to totally getting black balled. They were idiots (in my opinion) and glad that one woman got her fat **** spanked. I also totally refuse to support the Boss and other musicians. They have the right to voice their opinion, but should stick to music while on stage or risk losing listeners.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The exact same argument is used regarding the tea parties and town hall events. In both cases, there are elements that are orchestrated, and elements that are grass roots, based upon information (or some would argue misinformation) from organized groups.
    Actually, this is openly advertised as an organized effort to boycott advertisers. There is no mystery here, nor is this an accusation. Its just a fact. Various groups have organized a boycott. I'm not saying its a crime.

    Are there independent individuals writing sprint and telling them that they saw Glenn Beck's show and will no longer use their service? I can't really say, but it is possible. What I do know is that there is an orchestrated boycott, because they advertise it openly.

    KAM
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree with Bujin!!!! .
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I never said that the "white guys" weren't being criticized....but this criticism certainly doesn't come from the same folks who are demonizing Van Jones for engaging in the same actions. It's hypocritical.
    Here's your quote I was responding to: So I guess the takeaway message is that if a bunch of white guys scream at town meetings, it's an expression of their first amendment (and 2nd amendment if they're carrying AK-47's), but if black guys march in protest it's "inciting a riot".

    Perhaps I am mistaken, but you seem to be claiming that the "message" is that "White guys" can scream and it is an exercise in the first amendment, but when "black guys" do it, then its called inciting a riot.

    It seems to me that you were forwarding the notion that white guy protests are considered legitimate, but black guy protests are not. According to you, I've misunderstood you. It seems like you are very specifically saying in your quote that White guys are not being criticized.

    What exactly am I misreading here?

    KAM
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I agree with Bujin!!!! People/companies have the right to boycott anyone they want. If you knew how many movies I refuse to go to because of the freakin' hollywood liberals, LOL....well....let's just say we don't go to many new movies in this household. I simply can't support them in anyway, and that is my right! My wife loves to watch GB and I know he won't lose viewers, but, money talks and I guess if all the advertisers pullout, and no one comes back in, might be the end of GB on Fox. I think it is great that the Dixie Chicks went from being popular in the country music scene to totally getting black balled. They were idiots (in my opinion) and glad that one woman got her fat **** spanked. I also totally refuse to support the Boss and other musicians. They have the right to voice their opinion, but should stick to music while on stage or risk losing listeners.
    I read somewhere that most of this is just posturing by the companies that are signing on to the boycott. They still advertise with FOX but will won't advertise during Beck's time slot. In fact, some of them never advertised during his slot to begin with, and others just moved their add to a different slot. Fox isn't losing any significant money.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I read somewhere that most of this is just posturing by the companies that are signing on to the boycott. They still advertise with FOX but will won't advertise during Beck's time slot. In fact, some of them never advertised during his slot to begin with, and others just moved their add to a different slot. Fox isn't losing any significant money.
    I hope not....to no one's surprise....I enjoy Fox and getting information that isn't slanted to the left. Oh sure, Fox may slant toward's the right....but I have no problem with that since it is the only TV news outlet that I'm aware of that actually does! Every once in awhile I slide one station to the left (no pun intended) and see what is going on with MSNBC and I can't stay long. I just don't agree with their take on the news. I gave up on CNN too many years ago to even remember the last time I watched. GO FOX!!!!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Unless, of course, you were a slave.
    There was always quite a bit of contention over that very issue. AAMOF, one of the stipulations in the Constitution was designed to phase out the slave trade.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Sprint may simply not want to support someone who's positions they don't agree with, such as calling the president a racist, spreading misinformation about health care, proposing an attack by Osama bin Laden as a way to rally citizens, and joking about poisoning the Speaker of the House.

    I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of that position. I'm merely stating that, given Beck's viewing numbers, this doesn't seem to be a financially-based decision. Now, an argument can certainly be made that they're bowing to pressure, but it's already been pointed out that there doesn't seem to be a sense of financial urgency that would be caused if they didn't drop their advertising.
    I love Bujin's style. He throws out several accusations, based on 'out of context references' at best, or totally suspect otherwise.... and then dodges backing them up because he's "not interested in arguing about the merits of that position".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I think it is great that the Dixie Chicks went from being popular in the country music scene to totally getting black balled. They were idiots (in my opinion) and glad that one woman got her fat **** spanked. I also totally refuse to support the Boss and other musicians. They have the right to voice their opinion, but should stick to music while on stage or risk losing listeners.
    I agree that it was idiotic of the Dixies Chicks to attach Bush given their fan base is/was concentrated in the South. They are still making CDs though and my wife is still buying them.

    Glen Beck OTOH is just an *****.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by IamHydrogen View Post
    No, saying the president is a racist without any particular information to prove such a claim doesn't make you a racist. It makes you an *****.
    Obama is drawing a new round of criticism for his comments on a Philadelphia radio sports program yesterday in which he said his grandmother
    is a "typical white person" who has fears about black men. He was attempting to explain a portion of his speech on race earlier this week—specifically, the statement that his white grandmother gets nervous when a black man approaches her on the street. - Obama 'Typical White Person' Comment Delights Clinton Aides - News Desk (usnews.com)
    Emphasis on "typical WHITE person." He later tried to say she was merely timid of ANY person she didn't know, but that's an absurd excuse. First, the question he was answering was about race in society and how his grandmother used racial stereotypes. Second, he didn't say a "typical timid person," but instead included race in his statement. There's simply no honest way to spin this one away from his use of a racial stereotype. Let's be honest, for a white person to use a "typical black person" line would result in immediate accusations of racism.

    "Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact."
    Without "seeing all the facts" he repeated the "black vs white" line begun by Mr. Gates who himself is on the record for making racist statements in the past. He could have stopped at the "in their own home" part, but he expanded his comments to claim that white police officers unfairly target minorities. Rather than tone down the accusations made by his friend, the President amplified them 1000 times via a press conference on TV.

    Do we need to mention about how he spent 20 years listening to Rev. Wright's sermons?

    Anyway, that's just a few quick examples of where we're really not seeing an attempt to "transcend" the matter. I can't say whether or not people are taking these examples too far, but these examples exist, nevertheless.
    Last edited by semprini; 08/26/2009 at 02:05 PM.
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions