|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 9, 2005 10:56:34 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
Artknocker
Underground Idol
"No bloviating--that's my job."
Posts: 320
|
Post by Artknocker on Aug 9, 2005 13:58:41 GMT -5
And how exactly have you discerned that particular artists are "blindly" antiwar and antibush, as opposed to antiwar and antibush through serious principled consideration of political issues?
Come on, M, even you have to admit that some celebs/pseudo-pundits (*cough* Al Franken *cough* Michael Moore) that constantly rip on Bush are not-so-carefully letting their seething bias seep through their so-called objectivity. If you can't see that, then you're the one that has the blinders on, my dear.
So then why would it be hard for you to undertsand that it's just as annoying for the other side when people are blindly pro-war, pro-bush and pro-anything so they can say America is always right?
It's not at all hard for me to understand, and for the record, as conservative as I am, I don't consider myself to be one of those people. Not all people on the Right agree with every idea/solution proposed by Republicans (but at least they're proposing them, which is more than I can say for the majority of Dems who just bitch and moan). Even JAC and CF don't see much my way and vice versa (although they seem to be more moderate to me, but whatever).
There are two things I've regretted lately...
Why would you regret those things? Don't you want me to become more well-rounded? (I know--I'm already round enough! Beat you to it!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 9, 2005 14:17:01 GMT -5
No offense art, but it seems in this particular thread you're looking more for validation then discussion. I don't know if anyone would disagree about you stance on Moore and Franken but I also don't know many people who feel they are representative of the general left or even for that matter the celebrity front of the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 9, 2005 14:22:12 GMT -5
Art, I don't think you know much about my politics to determine that I'm more moderate than you. Not that I know much about your politics either, I acknowledge. But it appears from what you're labeling me moderate because I recognize the "right" of liberals to exsist in this world. What's worse, I like them being around. I don't see that as a political stance. I just see the ability to respect and enjoy input from people who don't see the world as you do to be maturity.
|
|
Artknocker
Underground Idol
"No bloviating--that's my job."
Posts: 320
|
Post by Artknocker on Aug 9, 2005 15:07:26 GMT -5
Not only do I not like liberals, I refuse to recognize their right to exist. I think anyone to the left of Michael Savage should be shot. In fact, I think only he and I should exist. That would be real interesting, wouldn't it? (There, that was just as ridiculous as your interpretation was, CF.)
I had been to CE9 well before I made this board. I knew this site was not as ideologically balanced as the old RS. The question is a simple yes or no with elaboration expected, of course. That's all I'm after here--not to say "you're wrong and I'm right" or to convince anyone of anything. Once again, it would be boring if we all agreed, would it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 9, 2005 15:15:59 GMT -5
Art, I don't really think what i said is all that ridiculous. There are really two ways of looking at politics. One is almost as a sporting event - which side do you want to win? Which side do you want to lose? Who is your biggest rival? The second is more of a break down of ideology. What is the best solution to a problem? The sides don't matter as much as your ideas on how to deal with things.
Now, I could be wrong. You really have not said a whole heck of a lot about yoru views of various issues. But from what you've said around here only (because obviously that's the only way I've had to know anything about your views) it seems quite clear that you're looking at politics more from the sporting event perspective. YOu've stated that you find celebrities who spout off about viewpoints that don't jive with your own are idiots in your view. You've claimed that you're in line with Mary and my way of thinking on this, but your statements certainly do not indicate that your anywhere close to hers or my own view on the issue. Point me in the right direction if I've missed it, but I can't really think of a single liberal you've expressed any sort of respect for.
Who knows - maybe you're to the right of the people of Singapore when it comes to actual issues. But so far, all I've seen you do is knock liberals. I don't really consider that to be all that conservative. I just see that as disliking the liberal point of view. There are those who determine their politics on who they don't like. Then there are those who know what they believe, and they're confident enough in those beliefs to argue them. The people who follow what they believe don't really spend nearly as much time knocking the ohter side as you've been doing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Aug 9, 2005 15:24:34 GMT -5
While my politics are pretty left, I must say that I don't like liberals anymore than Michael Savage. Besides, most "liberals" are far from the original definition anyway.
|
|
Artknocker
Underground Idol
"No bloviating--that's my job."
Posts: 320
|
Post by Artknocker on Aug 9, 2005 15:45:40 GMT -5
Ideally, I would like the two sides to come together as often as possible and work toward compromises. But in an election, of course I want the candidate that most closely represents my beliefs to win. Doesn't everyone? Look, I have very strong convictions, so consequently I feel just as strongly against the polar opposite. I don't know how many times I have to explain this so I'll just sum it up: what's idiotic is their thinking they're in an appropriate position to play pundit. Now go ahead and have fun dissecting that. I don't know if you're just trying to annoy me or what, but you seem to enjoy picking apart every little thing I post--it's a habit of yours I remember from the old RS, too. There's discussion, but then there's arguing just for the sake of arguing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 9, 2005 15:59:30 GMT -5
But knocker, why is it ok for you to play pundit and not ok for Edward Norton to play pundit? Is it not just because they disagree with you?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 9, 2005 15:59:46 GMT -5
And there's thin skin.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 9, 2005 16:00:45 GMT -5
This is, after all, their right. This is America, knocker. If you don't like you, you can get the heeeeeeeelll out!
There, I said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 9, 2005 16:11:44 GMT -5
But knocker, why is it ok for you to play pundit and not ok for Edward Norton to play pundit? Is it not just because they disagree with you? Exactly. Art, it's not that I (or anyone else I'd venture to guess) have any problem whatsoever with your views being what they are. The issues that have been taken up with you have been your mischaracterizing others viewpoints, and your dismissing views expressed by others because they don't jive with yours. I don't agree with Tim Robbins 99% of the time. That does not mean that if he knows what he is talking about, he doesn't have good reason to express it if he wishes. Hell, I think Bill Maher's show is great Friday night entertainment when I"m worn out after playing tennis. If it wasn't for celebrities talking about politics, his show would be nothing. I said earlier that I don't really like it when people like George Clooney or Ben Affleck go off about their political viewpoints, and either refuse to be challeneged on them, or when challenged, have absolutely nothing to back it up other than "this is what I think, so there". I gotta be honest here ... I don't see all that much difference between your posts here and what Clooney and Affleck do. If that is picking apart your posts, then I guess I'm picking! But it's with the same detail that I pick apart Clooney and Affleck, and you didn't seem to have a problem with that a few days ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 9, 2005 16:12:26 GMT -5
So celebraties shouldn't have opinons in public, I guess. I take my opinons to work and will discuss them with anyone who wishes to hear them. Why should famous people be any different? See even though I disagree with every molecule in Toby Keth's body, I believe he has the right to sing songs about whatever he wants, he has the right to proclaim his political beliefs in whatever medium he so chooses. If he wants to first and foremost thank the lord in his liner notes and then write a song about how all manner debauchary is okay as long as it's done in Mexico, I'll fight for his right to be a dumbass.
|
|
Artknocker
Underground Idol
"No bloviating--that's my job."
Posts: 320
|
Post by Artknocker on Aug 9, 2005 17:12:17 GMT -5
You really think songs should always be taken literally, DED?
I can't believe you all still don't get this. Bill Maher has just as much right as Bill O'Reilly to say what he wants. I have every right to dismiss it as anti-American tripe if I so wish. But they are paid to opine. Actors are paid to act. Musicians are paid to sing and play. If I pay (with my hard-earned money) to attend a Pearl Jam concert, I'm not expecting a rally--I am there to rock, not to hear Vedder go off on Bush. That will turn me off as a fan and as a consumer. Why don't they get that? Now, if he was for Bush, it may not turn me off as much, but if he kept it up for like, a good five minutes, I would be rolling my eyes impatiently (or getting up to take a leak). They all have a right to free speech--every last one of them. I have a right to disagree not only with what they say, but with the manner that they espouse it. And I guess it does steam me that they are all liberals. (Why does anyone need to hear from has-beens such as Ed Asner and Harry Belafonte anyway? If you have 100 Hollywood liberals bashing Bush or the Republican agenda, why does there need to be 101 all saying basically the same thing?) If there are any conservatives in Hollywood, are they expressing their opinions--at least near as vocally? But I don't think any of them should be contributing their political views unless asked--and even so, why would you want or care to know? You see, they have to access to unduly influence people, and they take full advantage. You may not see it this way, but I think they cross a line. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes are paid to give their opinions behind the microphone--it's their job. You can argue that you can turn them all off, and none of them know anything more than anybody else, but I see a clear difference between Sean Penn opening his fat mouth and Rush Limbaugh opening his. People actually want to hear Rush's opinions--as evidenced by his ratings. Maybe I should just let the elite celebs continue to sound idiotic and self-important, but now that I think of it, I think the real problem is the complicit liberal media that's all too happy to give airtime to them and mask it as news. They're all in cahoots. That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 9, 2005 17:42:07 GMT -5
Why does anyone need to hear knocker's position on anything?
|
|
