mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2013 15:08:40 GMT -5
I can tell you, Virgil, for myself. I wouldn't have liked it if the same thing was done to President Bush, either. I would have been just as incensed as I am now. I don't care who the target is, what was done is still vulgar, crass, and disrespectful of the office of president. That's not a claim, it's a reality. It's always a bit dangerous to assume others would do as you might do, or others think as you might think. Those of us who are basically apolitical (mostly, independents) are not as likely to be standing on the back of a party bandwagon waving flags and pointing fingers.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2013 15:40:05 GMT -5
Well, that search would be fruitless even if it were possible. I wasn't on the board until late 2007. But even if you could find my old posts, you would find none of that kind of posting.
If you want to know my opinions, just ask me. I think that George W. Bush was certainly the worst President in my memory, and likely (as most historians and presidential scholars rate him) one of the worst in our history. In eight years he had exactly ONE moment in which he seemed truly presidential. His first national address after 9/11 was very good, and it was good for the country. I also believe that he was more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein, and could likely have been convicted of war crimes had he been tried. Saddam Hussein was surely a madman, but only on a regional scale. Bush had the power to disrupt peace worldwide whether there was a threat to this country or not. But in any post that I ever addressed him afterward, it was always as either George W. Bush or more likely as former President Bush. I may not respect the man, but I will always respect the office.
And even now, you will not ever see me post with made-up pejorative names about any person or group. You very well may see me post with a certain level of disrespect toward an individual poster or two, but that disrespect is well-earned. It is not at all based on my political ideology. And you will see me argue against the extremes on both sides. Extremes appeal to those who are either unwilling or unable to see different sides of an issue. Open-minded people who have any real intellectual capacity do not end up on the extremes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 16:32:01 GMT -5
I believe you. I can't recall any time you've piled on to a politician. You've machinegunned Paul on occasion, but he tends to evoke that in people. As for mmhmm, I can only recall two times she's attacked politicians. Once directly in the marathon Sen. Akin thread, and once indirectly by repeatedly contributing laffs and props to a discussion where posters were dragging Rick Santorum through the mud. I made hay in both cases. Aside from that, she passes the smell test too.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2013 17:08:55 GMT -5
I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear that you think she smells good. And I certainly have no trouble criticizing politicians, or anyone else for that matter, but to maintain my own credibility it has to be done properly. And names like Dumocrats, Republicans, Obummer, or the like say much more about the person using such epithets than about their target. And those are the people that I will instantly dismiss. If they cannot debate with integrity, they do not deserve the respect of being listened to. I don't know if you recall, but I was probably the main mover behind trying to get those types of epithets removed from MSN's P&M board. And as I recall we did have some posters leave as a result. But I'd bet not one of the posters who left because of it was known for making positive and substantive contributions to the board and its discussions. Trashy people making trashy posts is not conducive to an environment of legitimate and mature argument.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,445
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 18, 2013 17:13:48 GMT -5
Virgil-regarding yout reply #233: you do realize the clown with the Obama mask had a broomstick handle supposedly shoved into his rectum. The clown's hands are in his pockets so he isn't pretending he' riding a broom. I don't know what they call forcing a broom stick up someone's rectum up where you are, but in the States, that is called forcible rape.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 18:56:59 GMT -5
Virgil-regarding yout reply #233: you do realize the clown with the Obama mask had a broomstick handle supposedly shoved into his rectum. The clown's hands are in his pockets so he isn't pretending he' riding a broom. I don't know what they call forcing a broom stick up someone's rectum up where you are, but in the States, that is called forcible rape. I know, Tenn. I read the WP article you posted on it, which gives a good summary of what happened and both viewpoints. My argument in #233 is that portraying bodily harm is neither necessary nor sufficient to make an act "over the line". I give counterexamples of both types: stunts not involving harm that are clearly over the line, and stunts that do involve harm that most of us would consider fairly benign. If your point is that this particular act was over the line and racially motivated, I agree. I don't consider it to be a threat against Pres. Obama. I'm still on the fence as to whether Mr. Gessling deserves the professional sanctions leveled at him. He's an entertainer. From his Facebook responses, I'm guessing he isn't terribly intelligent. His sin is crossing the line from satire to slander. If it's his first major offense, it doesn't seem right to take away his whole livelihood. Especially since the powers that be seem to be throwing the book at him more as an attempt to redact the embarrassing fact that the crowd loved his act.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2013 19:02:30 GMT -5
Well of course not! If he were he wouldn't be a right-wing redneck, and he wouldn't have seen this as humorous in the first place.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,445
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 18, 2013 19:17:46 GMT -5
Virgil-unless there have been further updates, the only state fair Gessling has been banned from performing (as far as I know) is the Missouri state fair. There are other state fairs and rodeos in the U.S. he can perform. I suppose though it will be at the discretion of the other state fair governing boards and sponsors.
Gessling didn't help his career as a rodeo clown with his portrayal of the president.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 19:20:55 GMT -5
Well of course not! If he were he wouldn't be a right-wing redneck, and he wouldn't have seen this as humorous in the first place. It was funny, as far as his audience was concerned. Therein lies the paradox. Our entertainers are a function of our society. Pundits like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Maher wouldn't enjoy any notoriety if our society didn't have an appetite for the entertainment they provided. Clowns like Mr. Gessling wouldn't reach the conclusion that acts like this would bring down the house--and be correct in their assessments. It seems to me that we're shooting the messengers, in a sense.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2013 19:21:51 GMT -5
I'm sure I read he got an invitation to Texas. No surprise there.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2013 19:24:05 GMT -5
Which is why I've said twice that we are NOT better than that. You can read between the lines there, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 19:31:28 GMT -5
Virgil-unless there have been further updates, the only state fair Gessling has been banned from performing (as far as I know) is the Missouri state fair. There are other state fairs and rodeos in the U.S. he can perform. I suppose though it will be at the discretion of the other state fair governing boards and sponsors. Gessling didn't help his career as a rodeo clown with his portrayal of the president. I don't know how rodeos work in the US. As long as he's able to maintain employment as a rodeo clown somewhere during the year, I suppose his getting canned is fair. If he's blacklisted or otherwise can't get hired, all it accomplishes is adding one more soul to the unemployment rolls for the notably ironic reason that he did his job too well.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2013 19:36:38 GMT -5
Kindly show me, Virgil, where I have attacked politicians. I'd like to see that. I know I have spoken against things politicians have said, or done. I don't believe I have ever directly attacked a politician. Some, like Akin, I have found to be ignorant of certain things. He was. He proved his ignorance in what he said, and he did it all by himself. Now, show me where I have name-called, directly insulted a politician (not the politician's words or actions, but the politician himself).
Frankly, I don't like politicians. I think they're all crooks. I've said that enough times. However, if you're going to pinpoint me and throw out accusations, I expect you to back them up. If you can, I'll cop to it. If you can't, I expect you to do the same.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 19:45:02 GMT -5
Kindly show me, Virgil, where I have attacked politicians. I'd like to see that. I know I have spoken against things politicians have said, or done. I don't believe I have ever directly attacked a politician. Some, like Akin, I have found to be ignorant of certain things. He was. He proved his ignorance in what he said, and he did it all by himself. Now, show me where I have name-called, directly insulted a politician (not the politician's words or actions, but the politician himself). Frankly, I don't like politicians. I think they're all crooks. I've said that enough times. However, if you're going to pinpoint me and throw out accusations, I expect you to back them up. If you can, I'll cop to it. If you can't, I expect you to do the same. You realize that it can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to find these specific comments, and that you denied they were attacks when I pointed them out to you as soon as you made them, meaning (I'm just guessing here) that you'll probably still deny they're attacks when I point them out again, dooming us both to a pointless re-debate in a thread that really has nothing to do with them. Hence, I'll dig them up if you want, but only on the conditions that i) you acknowledge this is the one and only time in August 2013 that I'll waste time doing this, and ii) you acknowledge that I won't re-debate you on anything I dig up here. If these are acceptable to you, then I'll book some time tomorrow night or Tuesday night to dredge the swamp.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2013 20:15:33 GMT -5
Well of course not! If he were he wouldn't be a right-wing redneck, and he wouldn't have seen this as humorous in the first place. It was funny, as far as his audience was concerned. Therein lies the paradox. Our entertainers are a function of our society. Pundits like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Maher wouldn't enjoy any notoriety if our society didn't have an appetite for the entertainment they provided. Clowns like Mr. Gessling wouldn't reach the conclusion that acts like this would bring down the house--and be correct in their assessments. It seems to me that we're shooting the messengers, in a sense. As far as I'm concerned, it's always a good idea to be cognizant of the message you're carrying, and act accordingly.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,445
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 18, 2013 20:17:53 GMT -5
Virgil-unless there have been further updates, the only state fair Gessling has been banned from performing (as far as I know) is the Missouri state fair. There are other state fairs and rodeos in the U.S. he can perform. I suppose though it will be at the discretion of the other state fair governing boards and sponsors. Gessling didn't help his career as a rodeo clown with his portrayal of the president. I don't know how rodeos work in the US. As long as he's able to maintain employment as a rodeo clown somewhere during the year, I suppose his getting canned is fair. If he's blacklisted or otherwise can't get hired, all it accomplishes is adding one more soul to the unemployment rolls for the notably ironic reason that he did his job too well. Virgil-I don't know that much about the rodeo circuit in the U.S. myself. I don't know if it is a year-round event. State fairs though are usually summer and fall. This guy may have other employment during the off season (if there is an off season). A good counter example of this is the Dixie Chicks controversy from 2003. At a concert in London, Great Britian, Maines stated this about the impending invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush: "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." The Dixie Chicks received flack (including death threats) for making their comments on foreign soil (mind you 45,000 Great Britain troops were part of the initial invading force). The Dixie Chicks' music was banned from country music radio stations throughout the country. According to Wiki, two disc jockeys (in Denver) were even suspended by their radio station after the DJs played some song(s) by the Dixie Chicks and ignoring the ban on playing any of their music. Their record/CD sales plummeted. Performers and others must pay the price for expressing themselves. While they are always free to do so, there is often a cost. I imagine even mentioning the Dixie Chicks in this thread will cause a few posters to become apoplectic with rage.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2013 20:19:59 GMT -5
Kindly show me, Virgil, where I have attacked politicians. I'd like to see that. I know I have spoken against things politicians have said, or done. I don't believe I have ever directly attacked a politician. Some, like Akin, I have found to be ignorant of certain things. He was. He proved his ignorance in what he said, and he did it all by himself. Now, show me where I have name-called, directly insulted a politician (not the politician's words or actions, but the politician himself). Frankly, I don't like politicians. I think they're all crooks. I've said that enough times. However, if you're going to pinpoint me and throw out accusations, I expect you to back them up. If you can, I'll cop to it. If you can't, I expect you to do the same. You realize that it can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to find these specific comments, and that you denied they were attacks when I pointed them out to you as soon as you made them, meaning (I'm just guessing here) that you'll probably still deny they're attacks when I point them out again, dooming us both to a pointless re-debate in a thread that really has nothing to do with them. Hence, I'll dig them up if you want, but only on the conditions that i) you acknowledge this is the one and only time in August 2013 that I'll waste time doing this, and ii) you acknowledge that I won't re-debate you on anything I dig up here. If these are acceptable to you, then I'll book some time tomorrow night or Tuesday night to dredge the swamp. Virgil, I maintain my right to disagree with anybody - politician, or otherwise. Disagreeing with someone is NOT attacking that someone. I've taken a look at those two threads. I'll take a further look, as I have the time. If I directly attacked either Akin, or Santorum, I'll bring it up myself. It's who I am. I'm not averse to being found wrong, and will admit it if I am wrong. Whether you want to "dredge the swamp", or not, is up to you. I don't care. I know myself, and I know I'll disagree with ideas while not bayoneting the individual holding those ideas. I didn't make the accusation against you, however. You made it against me. I'm not about to debate you on it, or re-debate you on it. It's not worth my time, frankly.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2013 21:58:47 GMT -5
I take accusations pretty seriously, Virgil, so I've gone over my posts in those two threads. I can find one instance in which I referred directly to Mr. Akin in a derogatory manner, so ... mea culpa. I can read it and know I was being facetious, but another cannot be expected to do the same. That is, however, the only instance I found. Since you've referred to "comment s", the ball is now in your court. This is the post I found, with the subject comment bolded: mmhmm (10/20/2021 at 21:33) Akin Retakes The Lead In Missouri Oct 20, 2012 at 21:33 QuoteEditlikePost Options Post by mmhmm on Oct 20, 2012 at 21:33 Sorry. I had to prepare dinner and feed mother, then get her settled. Here's your link, paul: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.htmlWhat Romney is, or isn't doing has nothing to do with Akin, in my view. It's Akin I've been watching. That mongrel needs to return to the wild.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2013 23:54:14 GMT -5
So... tired. Tomorrow evening, if I have time. Incidentally, for the second case I stated "...once indirectly by repeatedly contributing laffs and props to a discussion where posters were dragging Rick Santorum through the mud." You weren't insulting Mr. Santorum yourself (at least I don't recall so). Others were insulting him. You were simply laughing at the insults, going with the flow so to speak. That's what I'd be digging up.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Aug 19, 2013 0:45:44 GMT -5
Virgil, and mmhmm - each of you go to your corners.
As far as rodeo clowns, yes they travel the circuit. Most rodeo clowns are former rodeo competitors who've either been priorly injured and can no longer compete, or they've retired from competing in events professionally.
They know their way around animals and how to distract them from the competitors - especially during events such as steer wrestling or bull-riding.
Being "entertainers" is also part of their job as a rodeo clown. I think this whole fiasco with the Obama mask is blown way out of proportion. It was a parody - I haven't heard any outrage from Obama himself over it.
I live in what's known as "Cowtown" in Canada and we have one of the biggest rodeos/exhibitions /competitions in the world (Titled the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth). I've been to more rodeos than Bayer has Aspirin.
Just my 2-cents from being around this environment for 50 yrs..
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2013 1:12:46 GMT -5
Psst.
Americans, remember, Lassie.
Slightly less 'ha ha'. Slightly more 'You %&%$$ W$%#$% black hatin' @$$$% @#$@$ Republican #$#^# %^%^&$ Democrat-lovin' #&$%# %&*@$ car-roof-dog-drivin' @#*&%# #$^#@ son of a snow leopard %^#$#^ &*%#$ ...'
Just like they taught us in social studies.
P.S. To blend in, I suggest you quickly adopt one of the following two positions:
1) Pres. Obama is a foreign-born communist Muslim who's plotting to bury the US in food stamps and who deserves to have a broom crammed up his rear while he's chased by a bull. 2) The rodeo clown should be gummed to death by tiny, toothless alligators. Or preferably, hauled off to Gitmo and tortured until he reveals the identities of his fellow conspirators, and then gummed to death by tiny alligators.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Aug 19, 2013 1:28:29 GMT -5
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 19, 2013 8:32:39 GMT -5
I don't know how rodeos work in the US. As long as he's able to maintain employment as a rodeo clown somewhere during the year, I suppose his getting canned is fair. If he's blacklisted or otherwise can't get hired, all it accomplishes is adding one more soul to the unemployment rolls for the notably ironic reason that he did his job too well. Virgil-I don't know that much about the rodeo circuit in the U.S. myself. I don't know if it is a year-round event. State fairs though are usually summer and fall. This guy may have other employment during the off season (if there is an off season). A good counter example of this is the Dixie Chicks controversy from 2003. At a concert in London, Great Britian, Maines stated this about the impending invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush: "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." The Dixie Chicks received flack (including death threats) for making their comments on foreign soil (mind you 45,000 Great Britain troops were part of the initial invading force). The Dixie Chicks' music was banned from country music radio stations throughout the country. According to Wiki, two disc jockeys (in Denver) were even suspended by their radio station after the DJs played some song(s) by the Dixie Chicks and ignoring the ban on playing any of their music. Their record/CD sales plummeted. Performers and others must pay the price for expressing themselves. While they are always free to do so, there is often a cost. I imagine even mentioning the Dixie Chicks in this thread will cause a few posters to become apoplectic with rage. The difference here is that the Dixie Chicks offended THEIR OWN FANS. They didn't have their careers ended because they said something that didn't offend Country fans but offended people who never listen to their music. How many of the folks who are frothing at the mouth over the rodeo incident have ever set foot at a rodeo or the Missouri state fair? I'm guessing not many. And when was the last time you've heard of some musician in a genre other than country having his career ended because he said something that offended country fans?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2013 9:09:01 GMT -5
I don't know how rodeos work in the US. As long as he's able to maintain employment as a rodeo clown somewhere during the year, I suppose his getting canned is fair. If he's blacklisted or otherwise can't get hired, all it accomplishes is adding one more soul to the unemployment rolls for the notably ironic reason that he did his job too well. Virgil-I don't know that much about the rodeo circuit in the U.S. myself. I don't know if it is a year-round event. State fairs though are usually summer and fall. This guy may have other employment during the off season (if there is an off season). A good counter example of this is the Dixie Chicks controversy from 2003. At a concert in London, Great Britian, Maines stated this about the impending invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush: "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." The Dixie Chicks received flack (including death threats) for making their comments on foreign soil (mind you 45,000 Great Britain troops were part of the initial invading force). The Dixie Chicks' music was banned from country music radio stations throughout the country. According to Wiki, two disc jockeys (in Denver) were even suspended by their radio station after the DJs played some song(s) by the Dixie Chicks and ignoring the ban on playing any of their music. Their record/CD sales plummeted. Performers and others must pay the price for expressing themselves. While they are always free to do so, there is often a cost. I imagine even mentioning the Dixie Chicks in this thread will cause a few posters to become apoplectic with rage. I'm not convinced this is an apples-to-apples comparison. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, they faced a public backlash for disturbing the sound of silence. In Mr. Gessling's case, the public generally supports him and the sanctions are being imposed by 'the man'. Notwithstanding that, you seem to be arguing that public reaction to the Dixie Chicks' comments was unreasonable and disproportionate. Suppose I agree with you. Where does your argument go from there? Disproportionate responses are par for the course and it all balances itself out in the end?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,445
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 19, 2013 10:07:06 GMT -5
formerroommate-the rodeo clown obviously offended one of the rodeo and one of the clown's fans because the fan took pictures/video of the 'parady' of Obama with a broomstick stuck up his ass.
If everyone in the stadium thought the 'parody' was all in good fun, we would never have heard or seen pictures of this incident would we.
And Virgil-the point I was making with the Dixie Chicks boycott was simply there is often a financial cost for freedom of expression. Nothing more-nothing less.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 19, 2013 10:35:22 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure at least one of the 3000 people there were offended. But the difference between this and the Dixie Chicks is that they pissed off a much larger portion of their fan base and country music listeners in general. Country music wasn't forced by external groups to eject the Dixie Chicks. It happened within. I can't really say the same thing about this rodeo clown incident. It seems more like Missouri rodeo association banned him because they knew they'd get all kinds of hassle from if they didn't distance themselves from this, and most of that hassle would come from people who would never set foot in an event like this.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2013 10:59:11 GMT -5
In that case, you're certainly right. At least he won't be condemned to sensitivity training along with the other clowns.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2013 11:36:18 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure at least one of the 3000 people there were offended. But the difference between this and the Dixie Chicks is that they pissed off a much larger portion of their fan base and country music listeners in general. as private individuals acting in a private forum, that is entirely their right. moreover, they didn't say that Bush should be thrown under a bull. they said they were ashamed HE was from Texas. it was a state pride thing, for them.Country music wasn't forced by external groups to eject the Dixie Chicks. It happened within. this is absolute bullshit. they were taken off the air by major radio conglomorates, while their albums went to the top of the charts. you have this part of the account 100%, completely wrong. it was a few obsequieous weasels that wanted them off the air, and a chorus of corporate flag waving know nothings.I can't really say the same thing about this rodeo clown incident. It seems more like Missouri rodeo association banned him because they knew they'd get all kinds of hassle from if they didn't distance themselves from this, and most of that hassle would come from people who would never set foot in an event like this. the rodeo was a public event, and portrayed our president as bull fodder. 100x less kind than what the Dixie Chicks did, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2013 11:42:43 GMT -5
Virgil-I don't know that much about the rodeo circuit in the U.S. myself. I don't know if it is a year-round event. State fairs though are usually summer and fall. This guy may have other employment during the off season (if there is an off season). A good counter example of this is the Dixie Chicks controversy from 2003. At a concert in London, Great Britian, Maines stated this about the impending invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush: "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." The Dixie Chicks received flack (including death threats) for making their comments on foreign soil (mind you 45,000 Great Britain troops were part of the initial invading force). The Dixie Chicks' music was banned from country music radio stations throughout the country. According to Wiki, two disc jockeys (in Denver) were even suspended by their radio station after the DJs played some song(s) by the Dixie Chicks and ignoring the ban on playing any of their music. Their record/CD sales plummeted. Performers and others must pay the price for expressing themselves. While they are always free to do so, there is often a cost. I imagine even mentioning the Dixie Chicks in this thread will cause a few posters to become apoplectic with rage. The difference here is that the Dixie Chicks offended THEIR OWN FANS. artists have the right to offend their fans. happens all of the time. then, their fans either grow up, and accept that artists are human beings that will occasionally offend, or pretend that they are only there to please them.They didn't have their careers ended because they said something that didn't offend Country fans but offended people who never listen to their music. How many of the folks who are frothing at the mouth over the rodeo incident have ever set foot at a rodeo or the Missouri state fair? I'm guessing not many. let's start with the frothing accusation first: who is doing that? And when was the last time you've heard of some musician in a genre other than country having his career ended because he said something that offended country fans? or doing something? happens all of the time. but most of the time, the fans have nothing to do with it. it is the tightey whitey corporate media that puts an end to their careers, and consigns them to a more enlightened cult following. ie: when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 15YO cousin (not an uncommon practice historically, or in the South at the time), his LABEL cut him, and nobody would pick him up. his fans didn't abandon him, they simply had no means of accessing his material from that point forward. his fans didn't give two s*&ts about it.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,240
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 19, 2013 11:51:28 GMT -5
There were definitely Dixie Chick fans that disowned them. It was also a time that President George Bush promoted the belief that anything said against the President, administration or war effort was un-American and un-patriotic.
Whether you agree or disgree with former President George Bush's actions, there was no other time in my life where any President so actively discouraged Americans from dissent with his policies.
|
|