So many topics...
National News
There are so many things to write about this morning its rather difficult to choose! The Baghdad Wall, VT Students offered a "free semester", Rove...existing, just so many things.
If I have to limit it to just one topic this morning, I think I'm going to have to go with WHY CELEBRITIES SHOULD STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM POLITICS! Nothing was more frustrating for me in the last election than people who ACT for a living jumping on the political bandwagon. If anything it made me respect the politicians AND the actors both less. It was a pitiful display of actors thinking they possessed actual substance and political prowess because they are popular in Hollywood and on the Silver Screen.
The politicians are no better, sinking to new lows by snagging up any ACTOR (key word) who would use their name and "support" in the same sentence. Politics has turned into a popularity contest with corruption replacing integrity, trendy buzz words replacing substance. It is so frustrating that these people use their fame and presence in front of so many people to spout rhetoric.
The Dixie Chicks? Natalie Maines has two years of higher education at Texas A&M...that doesn't sound like the type of person who should be imposing her political solutions upon millions of people. Do to the 'Chicks have a right to their opinion? Of course! Everyone does! It just seems like abuse of power for these people to get in front of millions of people at a time based on their talent for singing, acting, juggling, whatever....and then switch gears into politics (something many of the "talking heads" seem to know nothing about anyway!), especially when they KNOW people who already adore them will listen without thinking twice!!
Anyway, after that little rant, my case and point (and topic) for today is Sheryl Crow. Beautiful, talented, cancer survivor, who sold her soul to Clairol (or something equally ridiculous) recently in some silly commercial about her "hair tour"....who knows. ANYWAY, our esteemed and apparent "Green Expert" now has a total solution for saving the planet!!! Read on and tell us what YOU think:
"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required," - Sheryl Crow...
That's right...Save the Square, Save the World!
It's not at all that I disagree with the fact that saving toilet paper would indeed save paper and thus trees....but come on. What can you do with one 4" by 4" piece of Charmin double-ply?
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
This is off your topic which I'll think about and be back to, buuuut...
I think celebrities voicing their political opinions and perhaps swaying someone's vote makes a lot more sense than when it comes from a pulpit! At least the celebrities pay taxes!!
I think celebrities voicing their political opinions and perhaps swaying someone's vote makes a lot more sense than when it comes from a pulpit! At least the celebrities pay taxes!!
debate said:
I couldn't agree with you more Dubya.
I've always wondered if anyone actually changed their vote because there favorite actor endorsed someone else? I'm sure there has been, and that's just scary to me.
Why would someone allow something as important as there vote to be swayed by someone that has little to no pertinate experience or education.
I really feel as if most of these celeb's only get involved in politics to get the free press, so there pricetag goes up for there next film, or album, or whatever. That's not the right motivation to get involved in politics. Shame on them.
And on the whole Sheryl Crow thing.... I'm speachless on that one. WOW.
I've always wondered if anyone actually changed their vote because there favorite actor endorsed someone else? I'm sure there has been, and that's just scary to me.
Why would someone allow something as important as there vote to be swayed by someone that has little to no pertinate experience or education.
I really feel as if most of these celeb's only get involved in politics to get the free press, so there pricetag goes up for there next film, or album, or whatever. That's not the right motivation to get involved in politics. Shame on them.
And on the whole Sheryl Crow thing.... I'm speachless on that one. WOW.
Danny said:
Dubya,
I think if it is expressing an opinion, that is fine. However, I think some use their celebrity status to do that. Overall though, I don't know that actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Linda,
I agree those in the religious community shouldn't tell people how to vote. Though it is my understanding that the individual incomes that a some preachers make is taxed(I could be way wrong on that though).
All,
Overall the issue I have is when the topic remains only on one issue. There is more to running our country than any one platform or idea. Not everyone is going to fully agree with everyone on every idea, such is life, but sometimes it seems that one issue seems to stand out each election and that is all people seem to vote on. To me this seems like a bad idea overall.
Anyway... yeah.
I think if it is expressing an opinion, that is fine. However, I think some use their celebrity status to do that. Overall though, I don't know that actors shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Linda,
I agree those in the religious community shouldn't tell people how to vote. Though it is my understanding that the individual incomes that a some preachers make is taxed(I could be way wrong on that though).
All,
Overall the issue I have is when the topic remains only on one issue. There is more to running our country than any one platform or idea. Not everyone is going to fully agree with everyone on every idea, such is life, but sometimes it seems that one issue seems to stand out each election and that is all people seem to vote on. To me this seems like a bad idea overall.
Anyway... yeah.
lindainks55 said:
The politicians only tell what they want people to believe. And the saddest part is there are way too many people who don't spend the time to find out anything more.
I don't think equating education and intelligence or education and the ability to be well informed makes any sense. You guys are going way off on a tiny limb to make that comparison! Maybe some entertainers are well informed? Probably some are. Some voters aren't! Added to that sad fact are the Americans who don't even bother to vote.
I don't think equating education and intelligence or education and the ability to be well informed makes any sense. You guys are going way off on a tiny limb to make that comparison! Maybe some entertainers are well informed? Probably some are. Some voters aren't! Added to that sad fact are the Americans who don't even bother to vote.
debate said:
Why shouldn't the religious community get to tell people how to vote? The ACLU, Greenpeace, PETA, KKK, etc all tell there followers how to vote.
Dubya said:
Agreed, Linda. I don't think the pulpit has any place in politics either...and I wouldn't bet that all of those actors actually pay taxes either; Johnny Depp's gone French, hasn't he?
Danny,
Voicing your opinion or even endorsing a candidate because they have a solid platform, a great solution, or because they are a proven leader is certainly one thing. The politician campaigning alongside the actor because that politician knows people will vote the way the actor does is deplorable.
Then you have people like Obama for whom politics seems to be a running popularity contest. He's the flavor of the month because he's hip and trendy, not because he truly has the capability to run the country.
Hillary? She's alright, in my opinion. Scary, but a functional scary, I think. Not that I'll vote for her, but the Dem with proven competence is better than the "cool guy".
Anyway...way off track. Everyone definitely has their right to an opinion. And, in actuality, they probably help get voters to the booths. I just think people in those positions of influence should push towards voting and political involvement IN GENERAL, not imposing their own (oft misguided) agendas.
Does that make any sense?
~Dubya
Danny,
Voicing your opinion or even endorsing a candidate because they have a solid platform, a great solution, or because they are a proven leader is certainly one thing. The politician campaigning alongside the actor because that politician knows people will vote the way the actor does is deplorable.
Then you have people like Obama for whom politics seems to be a running popularity contest. He's the flavor of the month because he's hip and trendy, not because he truly has the capability to run the country.
Hillary? She's alright, in my opinion. Scary, but a functional scary, I think. Not that I'll vote for her, but the Dem with proven competence is better than the "cool guy".
Anyway...way off track. Everyone definitely has their right to an opinion. And, in actuality, they probably help get voters to the booths. I just think people in those positions of influence should push towards voting and political involvement IN GENERAL, not imposing their own (oft misguided) agendas.
Does that make any sense?
~Dubya
Danny said:
Linda,
You know, it is sad. To not see many people vote. I don't know how anybody gets someone to vote, or interested in voting. Wish we could find a way to solve it, but as I've said before here, apathy is what it seems like in my generation, generally get the feeling that we think it doesn't matter who we vote for we aren't going to get what we want so what does it matter? How does one change that? Not a clue.
I don't care about the education of someone, I figure that anybody can express an opinion. Doesn't mean I, or you, or anybody else has to agree with it. I think the only issue I have is some actors seemingly use their celebrity status, like some preachers do, to talk about the hot topic of the day.
Right or wrong, is up to those listening to them. I don't know that a celebrity should be considered an expert on the matter, but they could be informed. However, by their nature as an actor I am leery listening to them because they could be injecting a bit of sensationalism into a particular topic that really doesn't need to be there.
You know, it is sad. To not see many people vote. I don't know how anybody gets someone to vote, or interested in voting. Wish we could find a way to solve it, but as I've said before here, apathy is what it seems like in my generation, generally get the feeling that we think it doesn't matter who we vote for we aren't going to get what we want so what does it matter? How does one change that? Not a clue.
I don't care about the education of someone, I figure that anybody can express an opinion. Doesn't mean I, or you, or anybody else has to agree with it. I think the only issue I have is some actors seemingly use their celebrity status, like some preachers do, to talk about the hot topic of the day.
Right or wrong, is up to those listening to them. I don't know that a celebrity should be considered an expert on the matter, but they could be informed. However, by their nature as an actor I am leery listening to them because they could be injecting a bit of sensationalism into a particular topic that really doesn't need to be there.
debate said:
Sorry Dubya, I got a bit off topic there. I did find this interesting article about Sheyl Crow's Requirements for her show. Go to page four of the sheet.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/s...
Typical Enviromentalist Hypocrocy. Do what I say, NOT what I do...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/s...
Typical Enviromentalist Hypocrocy. Do what I say, NOT what I do...
Dubya said:
Linda,
You're probably correct; it isn't necessarily fair to equate education to awareness. You are right.
Do you think there is any difference then between politicians and celebrities?
- Debate, my opinion on the matter goes for all those entities. NO ONE should tell you how to vote. Your VOTE is your power. I don't agree with PETA or Greenpeace influencing voters and more than I agree with Tom Cruise using his stardom to convert people to Scientology. It's still abuse of power.
Our responsibility is to EDUCATE people on the issues and let them decide, not impose our views.
~Dubya
You're probably correct; it isn't necessarily fair to equate education to awareness. You are right.
Do you think there is any difference then between politicians and celebrities?
- Debate, my opinion on the matter goes for all those entities. NO ONE should tell you how to vote. Your VOTE is your power. I don't agree with PETA or Greenpeace influencing voters and more than I agree with Tom Cruise using his stardom to convert people to Scientology. It's still abuse of power.
Our responsibility is to EDUCATE people on the issues and let them decide, not impose our views.
~Dubya
Dave Shuck said:
The hypocrisy of it all is what is so bizarre, and it seems they never get called on it. John Travolta and his array of private jets, yet he preaches that we should all (and by that he means everyone else) should be driving a Prius.
Sheryl Crow uses more carbon resources in a single week of her concert tour than I do all year.
"...when the global warming warrior hits the road, her touring entourage (and equipment) travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/s...
But... I am sure she is buying carbon credits since that is apparently the answer.
Sheryl Crow uses more carbon resources in a single week of her concert tour than I do all year.
"...when the global warming warrior hits the road, her touring entourage (and equipment) travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/scrow/s...
But... I am sure she is buying carbon credits since that is apparently the answer.
Danny said:
Dubya,
I agree. I think the problem is, and I stated just above, is the sensationalism factor of what ever is the hot topic of the day. Thus it comes down to the individual to determine how much weight to place on the information stated by the celebrity or anyone else for that matter.
I agree. I think the problem is, and I stated just above, is the sensationalism factor of what ever is the hot topic of the day. Thus it comes down to the individual to determine how much weight to place on the information stated by the celebrity or anyone else for that matter.
lindainks55 said:
Right on Danny! It SHOULD be up to those listening. Everything presented should be weighed, investigated, measured and each person should make up their own minds. In that perfect world. In reality we have people who don't even know the name of their elected representative, etc. There are many who take the easy way out and listen to someone they trust or admire. Easier than actually thinking. Sad.
Everyone has the right to their personal opinions. Each of us here have ours and we speak them. If we had a larger stage, greater name recognition our personal beliefs would be heard by more. Public people have the ear of the public. So? I can't see anything wrong with any public person stating their opinion. Makes it no more right or wrong than each of us speaking our personal political opinions. Some just have a wider audience.
I still have a BIG problem with the pulpit of any church being used to speak personal political opinions.
Everyone has the right to their personal opinions. Each of us here have ours and we speak them. If we had a larger stage, greater name recognition our personal beliefs would be heard by more. Public people have the ear of the public. So? I can't see anything wrong with any public person stating their opinion. Makes it no more right or wrong than each of us speaking our personal political opinions. Some just have a wider audience.
I still have a BIG problem with the pulpit of any church being used to speak personal political opinions.
Dubya said:
What a hypocrit. 3 Tractor Trailers, 4 Buses, and 6 Cars?
Good job, Sheryl...using one square with all those people, I bet you go through a whole roll of toilet paper...what...every week? I can smell the air getting cleaner by the second.
~Pfft...
Good job, Sheryl...using one square with all those people, I bet you go through a whole roll of toilet paper...what...every week? I can smell the air getting cleaner by the second.
~Pfft...
Vaughn Tolle said:
It seems to me that the "celebrities" in politics represent a symbiotic relationship; the celebs get to speak their opinion in a highly publicized environment, thereby gaining the potential for additional folks to see the movie, buy the CD; the politician gets to bask in the limelight, perhaps gaining more votes from those fans of the celebrities. Nothing too unusual about this, really; I believe this has been happening (with different "flavors" of celebrities) since the beginning of the Republic. Yes, there are hopes of the celebs that feel strongly about an issue that the politico being supported will do something about the issue; again, not anything different from this and the making of cash contributions to a campaign.
As to political endorsements from the pulpit; the difference there is the status of a church as a 501(c)(3) organization; there are many tax exempt organizations, but only donations to those exempt under 501(c)(3) are deductible for income tax purposes by the donors. Thus, the anti-politicization rules under said section. A regulatory attempt to ensure that the donations go for the "charitable, religious, educational or scientific" purpose for which the same were made.
Nothing proscribes the preacher from making political comments, endorsements, etc., as a private citizen, outside the church itself.
As to political endorsements from the pulpit; the difference there is the status of a church as a 501(c)(3) organization; there are many tax exempt organizations, but only donations to those exempt under 501(c)(3) are deductible for income tax purposes by the donors. Thus, the anti-politicization rules under said section. A regulatory attempt to ensure that the donations go for the "charitable, religious, educational or scientific" purpose for which the same were made.
Nothing proscribes the preacher from making political comments, endorsements, etc., as a private citizen, outside the church itself.
Dubya said:
Linda / Danny,
I agree that it SHOULD be up to each person to weigh, investigate, and measure what they are being told vs. what they (think they) know.
I guess my point is that there are masses of people out there who just blindly follow what others tell them. Knowing that and still blindly charging forward with the "topic of the week" or other misguided agenda is irresponsible, in my opinion.
Look at how many people are sending money to Darfur, or how many celebrities jumped on the African Adoption bandwagon. Oprah made an entire school in South Africa for girls. Tons of celebrity proponents have jumped out of the woodwork in support of people in Africa.
That's all terrific; I'm actually very pleased with the way Oprah's school turned out. But WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE HERE in the US? How many homeless people live in New York? How many children in the US are in need of adoption? How many kids were shot last week in gang violence? Some celebrity says it's the right thing to do and all attention focuses on it, blindly.
I think we all three agree here though for the most part.
~Dubya
I agree that it SHOULD be up to each person to weigh, investigate, and measure what they are being told vs. what they (think they) know.
I guess my point is that there are masses of people out there who just blindly follow what others tell them. Knowing that and still blindly charging forward with the "topic of the week" or other misguided agenda is irresponsible, in my opinion.
Look at how many people are sending money to Darfur, or how many celebrities jumped on the African Adoption bandwagon. Oprah made an entire school in South Africa for girls. Tons of celebrity proponents have jumped out of the woodwork in support of people in Africa.
That's all terrific; I'm actually very pleased with the way Oprah's school turned out. But WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE HERE in the US? How many homeless people live in New York? How many children in the US are in need of adoption? How many kids were shot last week in gang violence? Some celebrity says it's the right thing to do and all attention focuses on it, blindly.
I think we all three agree here though for the most part.
~Dubya
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dubya, when you posted "I guess my point is that there are masses of people out there who just blindly follow what others tell them. Knowing that and still blindly charging forward with the "topic of the week" or other misguided agenda is irresponsible, in my opinion.", you just identified the problem with anyone in a position of leadership in an organization (including a pastor in a church) telling people how to vote, e.g. While I think there is plenty of room for those of celebrity, national, regional or local, to encourage those who follow them to become educated on the issues, register to vote, vote for the candidates who represent their (voter's) position, the same does not extend to "telling people for whom to vote". However, those of celebrity, by expressing their opinions and beliefs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, will bring many along with them just because s/he said so; this is unfortunate, but a real effect of the high regard many hold those of celebrity. It's much easier to just do what the person says, as opposed to taking the time to educate oneself, etc.
Dubya said:
OK, that's all I'm saying :) You hit the proverbial nail (my position) on the head. Thanks, VT!
Also, I will again reiterate my objection is equally against the Church imposing its political agenda upon the masses.
~Dubya
Also, I will again reiterate my objection is equally against the Church imposing its political agenda upon the masses.
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
Total agreement from here! Is there some way we who know how important it is to be well informed can make a difference with the masses who blindly follow (whoever)? I don't know which is more troubling to me -- those who blindly follow or those who don't bother to do anythng and totally absolve themselves of all responsibility. Except maybe to complain.
Dubya said:
"Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Ben Kanobi, Star Wars: A New Hope, 1977
Sorry...seemed appropriate!! haha
~Dubya
Sorry...seemed appropriate!! haha
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
From what I'm hearing and reading the current administration may be doing more for voter apathy than past administrations. Many are fed up to the proverbial HERE with the political antics, the war of choice, corruption, etc., etc., and are paying attention, getting more involved. Bushco have (collectively) been the greatest ambassadors for the Democratic Party!
Vaughn Tolle said:
The issue then, Linda, is whether these folks will take the time to register and actually VOTE in the next election. Regardless of what party affiliation they claim, they need to educate themselves and take the time to do that necessary to formally express their opinion. Then, they need to continue to do so in subsequent elections.
You may note a hint of resignation/cynicism in the above; this is based upon the hue and cry in 1976, followed by a return to apathy in 1980 et seq.
You may note a hint of resignation/cynicism in the above; this is based upon the hue and cry in 1976, followed by a return to apathy in 1980 et seq.
WSClark said:
Yeah, I agree that celebrities should not influence the national debate. Let's start with Reagan and Schwartznegger.
When the Right starts disowning the wingnut celebrities, then I will disown the left wingers.
Until then, STFU.
Seriously.
When the Right starts disowning the wingnut celebrities, then I will disown the left wingers.
Until then, STFU.
Seriously.
WSClark said:
By the way, W, where is your criticism of right wing "CELEBRITIES" like Bruce Willis, Ted Nugent, Kelsey Grammar, Charlie Daniels, Alan Jackson, Patricia Helton, Toby Keith, etc, etc, etc, etc.........
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
WSClark said:
Here is a list of right leaning "celebrities." Please ignore these or STFU about the Dixie Chicks.
A.C. Green
Aaron Tippin
Adam Sandler
Al Leiter
Alabama
Alan Autry
Alan Jackson
Alex Spanos
Allen Asbury
Amy Grant
Andrew Lloyd Weber
Andy Garcia
Ann Margret
Antonio Freeman
Arnold Palmer
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arsenio Hall
Art Linkletter
Barbara Mandrell
Barret Swatek
Bellamy Brothers
Ben Crenshaw
Ben Stein
Bill France Jr.
Billy Bob Thornton
Billy Dean
Blake Shelton
Bo Derek
Bob Backlund
Bob Hope
Bob Knight
Bobby Allison
Bobby Bowden
Brad Paisley
Brian McComas
Brian McKnight
Britney Spears
Brittany Murphy
Brooks & Dunn
Bruce Boxleitner
Bruce Willis
Buzz Aldrin
Cale Yarborough
Candace Bushnell
Carolyn Dawn Johnson
Charles Barkley
Charles Durning
Charlie Daniels
Charlton Heston
Chely Wright
Cheryl Ladd
Chuck Norris
Clint Black
Connie Stevens
Cornbread
Craig Biggio
Creed
Crystal Gayle
Dale Dye
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Dale Jarrett
Dan Snyder
Dana Carvey
Danny Aiello
Darrell Waltrip
Darryl Worley
David Robinson
David Silveria
Dean Cain
Dean Jones
Debby Boone
Delta Burke
Denise Austin
Dennis Franz
Dennis Miller
Dennis Quaid
Dixie Carter
Don Cherry
Don King
Don Shula
Donald Bellisario
Doris Day
Drew Carey
Elliott Sadler
Emma Caulfield
Emmitt Smith
Faith Hill
Frank Bonarrigo
Fred Thompson
Freddie Prinze Jr.
Gallagher
Gary Coleman
Gary Oldman
Gary Sinise
Gene Simmons
George Steinbrenner
George Strait
Gerald McRaney
Gladys Knight
Gloria Carlin
Gloria Estefan
Godsmack
Greg Anthony
Hank Williams Jr.
Heather Locklear
Howie Long
Jaci Velasquez
Jackie Mason
Jaclyn Smith
James Caviezel
James Earl Jones
James Woods
Jane Russell
Janine Turner
Jason Priestley
Jay Black
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Jeff "Skunk" Baxter
Jeff Burton
Jeff Gordon
Jeff Kent
Jennifer Capriati
Jennifer Hanson
Jennifer O'Neill
Jerry Doyle
Jerry Seinfeld
Jerry Weintraub
Jessica Simpson
Jimmie Johnson
Jimmie Walker
Jimmy Fedd
Joan Rivers
Joe Gibbs
Joe Nichols
Joel Schumacher
John Elway
John Malkovich
John Michael Montgomery
John Millius
John Tesh
Johnny Bench
Johnny Mathis
Johnny Morris
Jon Secada
Jon Voight
Joyce DeWitt
Julie Strain
Karl Malone
Kathy Griffin
Kathy Ireland
Kathy Lee Gifford
Keith Urban
Kelsey Grammer
Kid Rock
Kim Alexis
Kirk Cameron
Kurt Russell
Kurt Warner
Lance Armstrong
Larnelle Harris
Larry Gatlin
Larry Miller
Lawrence Funderburke
Lee Ann Womack
Lee Greenwood
Leeann Tweeden
Lenny Dykstra
Liam Gallagher
Linda Davis
Linda McMahon
Lisa Hartman Black
LONESTAR
Loretta Lynn
Lorrie Morgan
Louise Mandrell
Marie Osmond
Marilyn Manson
Marilyn McCoo
Mario Andretti
Mark Helprin
Mark Paul Sebar
Marshall Tucker Band
Martina McBride
Mary Higgins Clark
Matt LeBlanc
Matt Stone
Mel Gibson
Merv Griffin
Michael Martin Murphey
Michael W. Smith
Michael Waltrip
Mick Hucknall
Mike Curb
Mike Ditka
Mike Helton
Mike Piazza
Mike Portnoy
Montgomery Gentry
Morgan Brittany
Naomi Judd
Nappy Roots
Natalie Grant
Neil Armstrong
Noble Willingham
Nolan Ryan
Norm MacDonald
Oak Ridge Boys
Ozzy Osbourne
Pat Boone
Pat Sajak
Patricia Heaton
Paul Anka
Phil Vassar
R. Lee Ermey
Reba McEntire
Rebecca St. James
Reggie Miller
Reggie White
Reggie Williams
Ric Flair
Richard Lee Jackson
Richard Petty
Richard Roeper
Rick Schroder
Ricky Martin
Ricky Skaggs
Rob Lowe
Rob Schneider
Robert Conrad
Roger Clemens
Roger Penske
Roger Staubach
Ron DiCianni
Ron Silver
Ronald Reagan
Ronnie Milsap
Rusty Wallace
Ryan Gosling
Sam Shepard
Sammy Kershaw
Sara Evans
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scott Glenn
Sean Astin
Sean Elliott
Sela Ward
Shannen Doherty
Sharon Osbourne
Shirley Jones
Shirley Temple Black
Steve Largent
Steve Young
Steven Curtis Chapman
Stormie Omartian
Susan Howard
Susan Lucci
Susie Castillo
Tanya Tucker
Ted Nugent
Terri Clark
The Rock
Thomas Kinkade
Tiger Woods
Tim McGraw
Tim Slagle
Toby Keith
Tom Clancy
Tom Cruise
Tom Selleck
Tony Danza
Tony Stewart
Trace Adkins
Tracy Byrd
Tracy Scoggins
Travis Tritt
Trey Parker
Trisha Yearwood
Troy Aikman
Ultimate Warrior
Vince Gill
Vince Vaughn
Vincent Gallo
Wanda Sykes
Wayne Gretzky
Wayne Huizenga
Wayne Newton
Winona Judd
Wynn Varble
Yakov Smirnoff
Yaphet Kotto
Yo-Yo Ma
A.C. Green
Aaron Tippin
Adam Sandler
Al Leiter
Alabama
Alan Autry
Alan Jackson
Alex Spanos
Allen Asbury
Amy Grant
Andrew Lloyd Weber
Andy Garcia
Ann Margret
Antonio Freeman
Arnold Palmer
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arsenio Hall
Art Linkletter
Barbara Mandrell
Barret Swatek
Bellamy Brothers
Ben Crenshaw
Ben Stein
Bill France Jr.
Billy Bob Thornton
Billy Dean
Blake Shelton
Bo Derek
Bob Backlund
Bob Hope
Bob Knight
Bobby Allison
Bobby Bowden
Brad Paisley
Brian McComas
Brian McKnight
Britney Spears
Brittany Murphy
Brooks & Dunn
Bruce Boxleitner
Bruce Willis
Buzz Aldrin
Cale Yarborough
Candace Bushnell
Carolyn Dawn Johnson
Charles Barkley
Charles Durning
Charlie Daniels
Charlton Heston
Chely Wright
Cheryl Ladd
Chuck Norris
Clint Black
Connie Stevens
Cornbread
Craig Biggio
Creed
Crystal Gayle
Dale Dye
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Dale Jarrett
Dan Snyder
Dana Carvey
Danny Aiello
Darrell Waltrip
Darryl Worley
David Robinson
David Silveria
Dean Cain
Dean Jones
Debby Boone
Delta Burke
Denise Austin
Dennis Franz
Dennis Miller
Dennis Quaid
Dixie Carter
Don Cherry
Don King
Don Shula
Donald Bellisario
Doris Day
Drew Carey
Elliott Sadler
Emma Caulfield
Emmitt Smith
Faith Hill
Frank Bonarrigo
Fred Thompson
Freddie Prinze Jr.
Gallagher
Gary Coleman
Gary Oldman
Gary Sinise
Gene Simmons
George Steinbrenner
George Strait
Gerald McRaney
Gladys Knight
Gloria Carlin
Gloria Estefan
Godsmack
Greg Anthony
Hank Williams Jr.
Heather Locklear
Howie Long
Jaci Velasquez
Jackie Mason
Jaclyn Smith
James Caviezel
James Earl Jones
James Woods
Jane Russell
Janine Turner
Jason Priestley
Jay Black
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Jeff "Skunk" Baxter
Jeff Burton
Jeff Gordon
Jeff Kent
Jennifer Capriati
Jennifer Hanson
Jennifer O'Neill
Jerry Doyle
Jerry Seinfeld
Jerry Weintraub
Jessica Simpson
Jimmie Johnson
Jimmie Walker
Jimmy Fedd
Joan Rivers
Joe Gibbs
Joe Nichols
Joel Schumacher
John Elway
John Malkovich
John Michael Montgomery
John Millius
John Tesh
Johnny Bench
Johnny Mathis
Johnny Morris
Jon Secada
Jon Voight
Joyce DeWitt
Julie Strain
Karl Malone
Kathy Griffin
Kathy Ireland
Kathy Lee Gifford
Keith Urban
Kelsey Grammer
Kid Rock
Kim Alexis
Kirk Cameron
Kurt Russell
Kurt Warner
Lance Armstrong
Larnelle Harris
Larry Gatlin
Larry Miller
Lawrence Funderburke
Lee Ann Womack
Lee Greenwood
Leeann Tweeden
Lenny Dykstra
Liam Gallagher
Linda Davis
Linda McMahon
Lisa Hartman Black
LONESTAR
Loretta Lynn
Lorrie Morgan
Louise Mandrell
Marie Osmond
Marilyn Manson
Marilyn McCoo
Mario Andretti
Mark Helprin
Mark Paul Sebar
Marshall Tucker Band
Martina McBride
Mary Higgins Clark
Matt LeBlanc
Matt Stone
Mel Gibson
Merv Griffin
Michael Martin Murphey
Michael W. Smith
Michael Waltrip
Mick Hucknall
Mike Curb
Mike Ditka
Mike Helton
Mike Piazza
Mike Portnoy
Montgomery Gentry
Morgan Brittany
Naomi Judd
Nappy Roots
Natalie Grant
Neil Armstrong
Noble Willingham
Nolan Ryan
Norm MacDonald
Oak Ridge Boys
Ozzy Osbourne
Pat Boone
Pat Sajak
Patricia Heaton
Paul Anka
Phil Vassar
R. Lee Ermey
Reba McEntire
Rebecca St. James
Reggie Miller
Reggie White
Reggie Williams
Ric Flair
Richard Lee Jackson
Richard Petty
Richard Roeper
Rick Schroder
Ricky Martin
Ricky Skaggs
Rob Lowe
Rob Schneider
Robert Conrad
Roger Clemens
Roger Penske
Roger Staubach
Ron DiCianni
Ron Silver
Ronald Reagan
Ronnie Milsap
Rusty Wallace
Ryan Gosling
Sam Shepard
Sammy Kershaw
Sara Evans
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scott Glenn
Sean Astin
Sean Elliott
Sela Ward
Shannen Doherty
Sharon Osbourne
Shirley Jones
Shirley Temple Black
Steve Largent
Steve Young
Steven Curtis Chapman
Stormie Omartian
Susan Howard
Susan Lucci
Susie Castillo
Tanya Tucker
Ted Nugent
Terri Clark
The Rock
Thomas Kinkade
Tiger Woods
Tim McGraw
Tim Slagle
Toby Keith
Tom Clancy
Tom Cruise
Tom Selleck
Tony Danza
Tony Stewart
Trace Adkins
Tracy Byrd
Tracy Scoggins
Travis Tritt
Trey Parker
Trisha Yearwood
Troy Aikman
Ultimate Warrior
Vince Gill
Vince Vaughn
Vincent Gallo
Wanda Sykes
Wayne Gretzky
Wayne Huizenga
Wayne Newton
Winona Judd
Wynn Varble
Yakov Smirnoff
Yaphet Kotto
Yo-Yo Ma
debate said:
Wow, you guys keep a lists of the Right Wingers. That's funny. Is this the "they said something I don't agree with so I'm going to label them right wingers" list
And you lib's get on us for labeling people.
Funny thing is, I don't see anyone on your list making stupid comments like Sheryl Crow did, then requesting all those carbon burning vehicles to take her equipment everywhere.
I have to ask WS, are you going to start using only one square of toilet paper per trip?
BTW, Why can't you lib's have a civilized debate without swearing and getting all upset?
And you lib's get on us for labeling people.
Funny thing is, I don't see anyone on your list making stupid comments like Sheryl Crow did, then requesting all those carbon burning vehicles to take her equipment everywhere.
I have to ask WS, are you going to start using only one square of toilet paper per trip?
BTW, Why can't you lib's have a civilized debate without swearing and getting all upset?
lindainks55 said:
WOW!
Let's agree that ALL of them no matter what direction they lean have the absolute right to voice their opinions! It's a freedom guaranteed to Americans.
At least until bushco can figure a way to make that a threat to national security and add it to the UNpatriotic act.
We've had a roof put on our house today. I'm a little batty. Last time I saw my little girl cat (who is a drama queen) her head was spinning around like that girl's in the movie. I'll need to have a lapful of her this evening! The big boy cat is hidden away someplace very safe -- probably in the basement. We are all ready for some quiet. But, hey, the insurance company wanted to buy me a roof...
Let's agree that ALL of them no matter what direction they lean have the absolute right to voice their opinions! It's a freedom guaranteed to Americans.
At least until bushco can figure a way to make that a threat to national security and add it to the UNpatriotic act.
We've had a roof put on our house today. I'm a little batty. Last time I saw my little girl cat (who is a drama queen) her head was spinning around like that girl's in the movie. I'll need to have a lapful of her this evening! The big boy cat is hidden away someplace very safe -- probably in the basement. We are all ready for some quiet. But, hey, the insurance company wanted to buy me a roof...
lindainks55 said:
NO ONE has sworn and no one has gotten upset -- UNTIL NOW! And now I am upset that you can possibly think you have the right to decide you are blog moderator on the very first day you even posted! You won't win friends and influence people with that attitude, nor will you earn any respect.
I would suggest you spend some time learning the difference between too, to, two; there, their, they're; and other obvious errors you've made in your posts today. When you've a grasp on the English language then come back and tell anyone how and what they should post.
Or maybe you would just like to be as calm as you think everyone else should be and not worry at all about spelling and grammatical errors and just join in the conversation by letting others post their opinions and you post yours?
I would suggest you spend some time learning the difference between too, to, two; there, their, they're; and other obvious errors you've made in your posts today. When you've a grasp on the English language then come back and tell anyone how and what they should post.
Or maybe you would just like to be as calm as you think everyone else should be and not worry at all about spelling and grammatical errors and just join in the conversation by letting others post their opinions and you post yours?
WSClark said:
The Google is easy to use, Golfie, even for the challenged like you. As for keeping a list - it's all there. As for swearing.............. whatever.
Apparently you don't remember the wingnuts calling for the execution of liberals, "DEBATE?", or you wouldn't make such stupid statements, but I shouldn't expect any more from the right.
As for one sheet or TP - she was obviously referring to the feminine use of TP, not to taking a Rove.
Damn, even Fleetwood could have figured that one out.
Thanks for coming over from WE Blog, Dragon Breath, we need a few more wingnuts to beat up. The others went down too easy - hope you can do better - chump.
Apparently you don't remember the wingnuts calling for the execution of liberals, "DEBATE?", or you wouldn't make such stupid statements, but I shouldn't expect any more from the right.
As for one sheet or TP - she was obviously referring to the feminine use of TP, not to taking a Rove.
Damn, even Fleetwood could have figured that one out.
Thanks for coming over from WE Blog, Dragon Breath, we need a few more wingnuts to beat up. The others went down too easy - hope you can do better - chump.
WSClark said:
Perhaps you should have labeled your post "Why Left Wing Celebrities Should Stay Away From Politics."
Obviously, you don't have a problem with RIGHT WING CELEBRITIES.
Obviously, you don't have a problem with RIGHT WING CELEBRITIES.
rm6046 said:
I couldn't help but LMAO when I read Dubya's article. My late father had an aunt who lived in Riverside, CA back in the 1940's, '50's and 60's (until she died around "66 or '67). Anyway, the old bat had outlived 5 husbands, the last one being a multi-millionaire ship builder who had become enormously wealthy during WWII. She never had children by any of these husbands, nor had any of the husbands been married previously. But, she would go to the store, and buy a package of toilet paper, bring it home, sit down in her chair, and take the roll apart, piece by piece, then place a small stack, perhaps an inch or two high, on the back of the commode and hide the remainder elsewhere. I hadn't thought of that in years, until this morning. I'm sure that she was "environmentally aware" all those many, many years ago ... or not! :)
You couldn't even accuse her of being thrifty ... even my "fiscally conservative" father called her the "tightest, cheapest old bat he had ever known"!
You couldn't even accuse her of being thrifty ... even my "fiscally conservative" father called her the "tightest, cheapest old bat he had ever known"!
debate said:
Linda, I do agree with you that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I also feel that we should be able to have a DEBATE about this great country, with out being belittled and berated just because I don't agree with you.
Can't you come up with something better than my poor typing skills? I'm a little disappointed ...
When and where did I ever tell someone what they can and can't post Linda? Did i once say I was moderator? No. Can I participate just like you do? Or is an exclusive liberal club that doesn't like free speech?
You said "Or maybe you would just like to be as calm as you think everyone else should be and not worry at all about spelling and grammatical errors and just join in the conversation by letting others post their opinions and you post yours?" Well, that what I thought I was doing. I didn't realize I was debating my English teach from high school.
Clark, if some right winder said liberals should be executed, then they should get the same treatment that the left wingers get. Public humiliation and discredit. I'm sorry I don't know ever thing that has been said by every right winger on your list but Who said that? I would like to dump them in the same pile of people I try to ignore that I put the left wingers who say stupid things in.
I also feel that we should be able to have a DEBATE about this great country, with out being belittled and berated just because I don't agree with you.
Can't you come up with something better than my poor typing skills? I'm a little disappointed ...
When and where did I ever tell someone what they can and can't post Linda? Did i once say I was moderator? No. Can I participate just like you do? Or is an exclusive liberal club that doesn't like free speech?
You said "Or maybe you would just like to be as calm as you think everyone else should be and not worry at all about spelling and grammatical errors and just join in the conversation by letting others post their opinions and you post yours?" Well, that what I thought I was doing. I didn't realize I was debating my English teach from high school.
Clark, if some right winder said liberals should be executed, then they should get the same treatment that the left wingers get. Public humiliation and discredit. I'm sorry I don't know ever thing that has been said by every right winger on your list but Who said that? I would like to dump them in the same pile of people I try to ignore that I put the left wingers who say stupid things in.
WSClark said:
Really?
Are you going to denounce Ann "the Man" Coulter? Rush "Viagra" Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Michael Savage? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Bret Hume?
If you are not going to denounce them, then you have no room to talk and you should really, really, STFU.
Are you going to denounce Ann "the Man" Coulter? Rush "Viagra" Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Michael Savage? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Bret Hume?
If you are not going to denounce them, then you have no room to talk and you should really, really, STFU.
debate said:
Yes really, something as stupid as that, I would denounce them.
Of course the next debate when you start throwing up the things they've said will be, was it a truly stupid comment, or do you just think it's stupid because you don't agree with it.
Can you answer my question? I'd really like to know who said that about executing liberals? I bet it's Ted Nugent but i'm not having much luck finding it on Google...:)
Of course the next debate when you start throwing up the things they've said will be, was it a truly stupid comment, or do you just think it's stupid because you don't agree with it.
Can you answer my question? I'd really like to know who said that about executing liberals? I bet it's Ted Nugent but i'm not having much luck finding it on Google...:)
lindainks55 said:
Good story, rm. Easier to laugh about her "thriftiness" today than if you were a visitor at her house back when.
WSClark said:
Whatever, DEBATE or whom ever you are. With any luck, you won't be back again.
And then we can truly thank God.
And then we can truly thank God.
gster said:
WS- Ignore the gnat, he's used to it and he's not worth any of your time or consideration, IMHO.
Gary
Gary
Danny said:
WS,
Well, see I think both sides can say what they want, where I have the problem with is when they seem to pick a topic, push for it all they want, and then don't follow it themselves. This can be said for anybody on any side of the fence. I don't see the problem when one sees a problem, follows through with what they say, and really tries to make a difference though.
I don't keep any lists about anyone on any particular side, just I don't treat what a celebrity says as being absolute authority. Much like, I don't take what a preacher says as being the absolute authority either. I look at many issues, and try to decide who would be the best to vote for.
I think that is what Dubya was trying to say, and Debate may have been trying to say also. That basically, the problem with a celebrity endorsement is there is going to be those who will do what that person says just because of who that person is. Which is why I throw preachers in that same category. They are entitled to say what they want, but they aren't the authority I use to decide who I vote for or what I vote on. I myself with all the information I've read make the final decision on who and what I vote for.
Well, see I think both sides can say what they want, where I have the problem with is when they seem to pick a topic, push for it all they want, and then don't follow it themselves. This can be said for anybody on any side of the fence. I don't see the problem when one sees a problem, follows through with what they say, and really tries to make a difference though.
I don't keep any lists about anyone on any particular side, just I don't treat what a celebrity says as being absolute authority. Much like, I don't take what a preacher says as being the absolute authority either. I look at many issues, and try to decide who would be the best to vote for.
I think that is what Dubya was trying to say, and Debate may have been trying to say also. That basically, the problem with a celebrity endorsement is there is going to be those who will do what that person says just because of who that person is. Which is why I throw preachers in that same category. They are entitled to say what they want, but they aren't the authority I use to decide who I vote for or what I vote on. I myself with all the information I've read make the final decision on who and what I vote for.
Nathan said:
Of all the churches I have attended and preachers I have known, most of the so called
political" discourse is about things we believe as Christians.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a preacher telling us who does and who doesn't support abortion or who does or doesn't support homosexual marriage.
political" discourse is about things we believe as Christians.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a preacher telling us who does and who doesn't support abortion or who does or doesn't support homosexual marriage.
Nathan said:
I like what Ann Coulter said a few weeks back:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?ar...
"Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill."
I love Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?ar...
"Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill."
I love Ann Coulter
Dubya said:
Uh, as I've said in several posts I don't support ANYONE who uses their fame to push an agenda upon their fans. Right or Left wing. I see no hypocrisy here. It is an abuse of power. If someone based their political leanings on the voices of Kid Rock, Adam Sandler, or Kelsey Grammar I'd want to slap them just as much as if they'd blindly followed their minister, Sheryl Crow, or the Dixie Chicks.
I've posted several times regarding flames, cussing, and attempts to make others feel unwelcome. Please do not do it again.
This is a forum. EVERYONE (even the Dixie Chicks) are entitled to their own opinion. I respect your opinion, please respect mine. You are welcome to correct me if you think I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no need to flame or get upset and there is DEFINITELY no reason to tell me to "shut the fuck up" (STFU).
If everyone agreed, we would have a very boring, very linear society. Don't you agree? EXPECT that someone out there is going to disagree with ANYTHING you post.
~Dubya
I've posted several times regarding flames, cussing, and attempts to make others feel unwelcome. Please do not do it again.
This is a forum. EVERYONE (even the Dixie Chicks) are entitled to their own opinion. I respect your opinion, please respect mine. You are welcome to correct me if you think I'm wrong, but there is absolutely no need to flame or get upset and there is DEFINITELY no reason to tell me to "shut the fuck up" (STFU).
If everyone agreed, we would have a very boring, very linear society. Don't you agree? EXPECT that someone out there is going to disagree with ANYTHING you post.
~Dubya
Dubya said:
As I've ALSO said, there is a difference between LEARNING about something and simply doing it because "they said so".
Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator, Dale Earnhardt Jr. is a race car driver. Which one, despite each of our own individual opinions of the person, has the better chance of KNOWING something about the political theater?
Anderson Cooper is someone who's in the know and whose opinion is based on fact, despite whether or not you agree with those opinions. The Dixie Chicks are Country Singers who spend most of their time travelling around the world singing in front of millions of people, writing songs, recording songs, or signing autographs....probably NOT someone whose opinion you should hold in high regard with respects to POLITICS.
The Dixie Chick and Dale (or Kelsey Grammar, or Adam Sandler, or *insert a person from the list here*) are not in the trenches in Washington, they are regurgitating the information they pick up from CNN or FOX News or wherever, slapping an opinion on it and calling it fact to people who don't even make the effort to watch the news. Taking their skewed opinion as fact is inappropriate and they are abusing their power.
~Dubya
Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator, Dale Earnhardt Jr. is a race car driver. Which one, despite each of our own individual opinions of the person, has the better chance of KNOWING something about the political theater?
Anderson Cooper is someone who's in the know and whose opinion is based on fact, despite whether or not you agree with those opinions. The Dixie Chicks are Country Singers who spend most of their time travelling around the world singing in front of millions of people, writing songs, recording songs, or signing autographs....probably NOT someone whose opinion you should hold in high regard with respects to POLITICS.
The Dixie Chick and Dale (or Kelsey Grammar, or Adam Sandler, or *insert a person from the list here*) are not in the trenches in Washington, they are regurgitating the information they pick up from CNN or FOX News or wherever, slapping an opinion on it and calling it fact to people who don't even make the effort to watch the news. Taking their skewed opinion as fact is inappropriate and they are abusing their power.
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
Public people have the same rights to voice their opinions as I do. It's a right given us by our Constitution.
There is no proof that any public person is less well informed than any other person.
Aren't there public people in the political field who are stating their opinions on things UNpolitical? Aren't there politicians who voice their opinions on the entertainment industry? Does that politician to know as much as the entertainer? Should we find fault with the politician who voices his opinion? Would your statement that they are, "Taking their public position to deliver their skewed opinion as fact is inappropriate and they are abusing their power," be true of them?
Does a medical doctor who happens to be a U.S. Senator get to watch a video of a comatose woman and give a medical opinion to a public forum that should be as respected as the medical doctor actually examining the patient? So since he was in the trenches of Washington and this was made a political issue, is it right or an abuse of power?
Do these public people who happen to be in the political theater know science better than scientists? Do they know everything about all the topics they both debate and make laws concerning?
If you are going to use the argument that Rush knows more than Dale Jr. in the political theater, WHY would the Senator's knowledge of stem cell research as compared to the doctor who does the research not be questioned? And yet, the Senator is a public person with a public stage and a wide audience for his opinion. Is he abusing his power?
Cheryl Crowe may have a larger stage and bigger audience when she states a political opinion but she has that same larger stage and bigger audience when her words deserve ridicule as in the "one square" statement.
People's opinions and actions usually prove who they are and whether or not they have credibility or deserve respect. Most people defer to the expert in a field, consult them, study and learn. Some don't. Those "some" are represented in ALL areas of life -- from every kind of public person to every one of us.
And unless we are THE expert in whatever we have an opinion of aren't we also, "regurgitating the information" we have heard/read/studied... Further aren't there always experts on each side of any and all issues?
I'm having trouble seeing why you think it's fine for some to voice opinions but not others. And why you get to decide who is and isn't informed, who does and doesn't know what they're talking about (see your example of Rush vs. Dale Jr.), and who should and shouldn't try to sway others to their opinions.
The Right To Free Speech only applies if you think the person is informed, knows what they're talking about and should speak? Or perhaps you're just picking on public people who happen to be in the entertainment field?
There is no proof that any public person is less well informed than any other person.
Aren't there public people in the political field who are stating their opinions on things UNpolitical? Aren't there politicians who voice their opinions on the entertainment industry? Does that politician to know as much as the entertainer? Should we find fault with the politician who voices his opinion? Would your statement that they are, "Taking their public position to deliver their skewed opinion as fact is inappropriate and they are abusing their power," be true of them?
Does a medical doctor who happens to be a U.S. Senator get to watch a video of a comatose woman and give a medical opinion to a public forum that should be as respected as the medical doctor actually examining the patient? So since he was in the trenches of Washington and this was made a political issue, is it right or an abuse of power?
Do these public people who happen to be in the political theater know science better than scientists? Do they know everything about all the topics they both debate and make laws concerning?
If you are going to use the argument that Rush knows more than Dale Jr. in the political theater, WHY would the Senator's knowledge of stem cell research as compared to the doctor who does the research not be questioned? And yet, the Senator is a public person with a public stage and a wide audience for his opinion. Is he abusing his power?
Cheryl Crowe may have a larger stage and bigger audience when she states a political opinion but she has that same larger stage and bigger audience when her words deserve ridicule as in the "one square" statement.
People's opinions and actions usually prove who they are and whether or not they have credibility or deserve respect. Most people defer to the expert in a field, consult them, study and learn. Some don't. Those "some" are represented in ALL areas of life -- from every kind of public person to every one of us.
And unless we are THE expert in whatever we have an opinion of aren't we also, "regurgitating the information" we have heard/read/studied... Further aren't there always experts on each side of any and all issues?
I'm having trouble seeing why you think it's fine for some to voice opinions but not others. And why you get to decide who is and isn't informed, who does and doesn't know what they're talking about (see your example of Rush vs. Dale Jr.), and who should and shouldn't try to sway others to their opinions.
The Right To Free Speech only applies if you think the person is informed, knows what they're talking about and should speak? Or perhaps you're just picking on public people who happen to be in the entertainment field?
WSClark said:
Interesting W, you write a commentary that was clearly a slam on liberal celebrities and entertainers, and then you caution the liberal side of the equation not to get "upset." Nathan, "Debate" and you take a few shots at liberal celebrities for their anti-war and environmental concerns because they are not qualified, in your view, to make such comments, yet you feel that we should defer to Limbaugh and Coulter.
Ann Coulter is a lawyer by training. Rush Limbaugh is a college drop out that worked as a disc jockey. He has no background in science or politics.
I am a private citizen with a business background. I have no science background or inclination, so I defer those debates to people with that expertise. When it comes to politics, however, I do have a great deal of expertise. I am an involved citizen. My opinions are not formed by exposure to CNN or Fox, as you so casually dismiss, but through extensive personal research from multiple sources. When it comes to political issues, I would match my level of knowledge with Rush Limbaugh's any day.
You are unhappy with the flaming, Dubya, but you fail to realize that there are posters that have come over here from WE Blog with the sole intention of of causing trouble. There are individuals that post from the right side of the equation that are respectful. I may disagree with Danny and RM at times, but they never cross the line. They have earned and are extended their due respect.
I expect people to disagree with me at times. That is the purpose of the debate, but when the attack artists show up to play their games, I respond accordingly.
Ann Coulter is a lawyer by training. Rush Limbaugh is a college drop out that worked as a disc jockey. He has no background in science or politics.
I am a private citizen with a business background. I have no science background or inclination, so I defer those debates to people with that expertise. When it comes to politics, however, I do have a great deal of expertise. I am an involved citizen. My opinions are not formed by exposure to CNN or Fox, as you so casually dismiss, but through extensive personal research from multiple sources. When it comes to political issues, I would match my level of knowledge with Rush Limbaugh's any day.
You are unhappy with the flaming, Dubya, but you fail to realize that there are posters that have come over here from WE Blog with the sole intention of of causing trouble. There are individuals that post from the right side of the equation that are respectful. I may disagree with Danny and RM at times, but they never cross the line. They have earned and are extended their due respect.
I expect people to disagree with me at times. That is the purpose of the debate, but when the attack artists show up to play their games, I respond accordingly.
Nathan said:
Dubya,
It is pointless. WS Clark is going to continue to be a very rude foul mouthed (or typing) individual no matter what you say to him.
It is his nature.
He can try to blame it on trouble makers or what not, but it is pretty much anyone who disagrees.
Liberals have a hard time seperating an attack on thier argument with an attack on themselves.
Any time I try to tell one of them that what they said is wrong, they go off on one of their little tantrums telling me to STFU or that I have no right or they say they are just going to ignore me.
I think if you were to examine the posting you will see that there are few if any as rude or vile as WS Clark.
It is pointless. WS Clark is going to continue to be a very rude foul mouthed (or typing) individual no matter what you say to him.
It is his nature.
He can try to blame it on trouble makers or what not, but it is pretty much anyone who disagrees.
Liberals have a hard time seperating an attack on thier argument with an attack on themselves.
Any time I try to tell one of them that what they said is wrong, they go off on one of their little tantrums telling me to STFU or that I have no right or they say they are just going to ignore me.
I think if you were to examine the posting you will see that there are few if any as rude or vile as WS Clark.
Nathan said:
Linda,
It is kind of common sense when you compare Rush to Dale.
One of them has spent their entire life racing cars and one of them has spent his entire life talking about politics.
What more do you need to say one is probably more knowledgable than the other in regards to race cars vs politics?
It was an analogy for heavens sake.
It is kind of common sense when you compare Rush to Dale.
One of them has spent their entire life racing cars and one of them has spent his entire life talking about politics.
What more do you need to say one is probably more knowledgable than the other in regards to race cars vs politics?
It was an analogy for heavens sake.
Dubya said:
My commentary was perhaps overzealous. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever said anyone should not be allowed to express their opinions. In fact, I've been TRYING to say that every single person DOES have the right to express their own opinions. I have apparently been unsuccessful in this, so PLEASE, express away! I don't know how much more straightforward I could say it.
Linda, I think the Senators knowledge SHOULD be questioned with regards to anything he/she makes a decision on.
There are and SHOULD be experts on each side of an issue. Those experts are not people like Dale Jr.
Would you look to a homeless man for advice on your financial investments? Would you trust a lawyer with medical advice for your baby? Would you take information as truth about the ozone from your engine mechanic? Are you going to listen to your overweight state Senator when it comes to winning the big marathon?
I'm not saying these people don't have the right to talk to you about their opinion on these matters. They ABSOLUTELY DO. YOU have the obligation to dissect this information, research it, and determine for yourself what YOUR opinion on the matter is and whether or not what you have been told is true.
Correct?
I guess all that I am saying is that people in these entertainment positions (whether they are RIGHT OR LEFT) take advantage of the fact that people are going to listen and follow them regardless of whether or not what they are saying is factual. So many people take what these entertainers say as gospel that I *ME*MYSELF* consider it an abuse of their power over their fans.
A senator, a lawmaker, a political analyst is in the position they are in because they have taken (do take) the time to become knowledgable in their field. If they are not knowledagble, they are not doing their job. Just like if Dale Jr. isn't always improving on the race track, always improving his engine...he's not doing his job.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, Linda. We, each and everyone of us, have a right to voice our opinion. That's what makes this a great country to live in.
---------
WS, I used Limbaugh as an example; not as someone I like or respect, merely someone who is acknowledged as a right-winger. Same with Anderson Cooper on the Left.
I am unhappy with the perceived need to cuss and flame rather than arguing and debating politely. I have done nothing to you; I have never attacked your views, never attacked you personally, never. I have faithfully posted your submissions without question here regardless of whether or not I agree with the content, and IF I have ever disagreed with your position, I (believe I) have stated my opinion to the contrary and moved on.
The two examples in my post were not used because they were "obviously liberals", they were used because they were good examples of people speaking (and influencing) before they think. Natalie even came back later and apologized for disrespecting the President, despite their differing views on the war.
I apologize if my views upset you; my attempt was to be more satirical than inflamatory.
People shouldn't believe the President just because "he said its so"; we have an obligation to find out if what he's saying is true and put his ass in to the fire if it's not. The same should be true of anyone else in a position to influence people...and unfortunately that is not the case.
~Dubya
Linda, I think the Senators knowledge SHOULD be questioned with regards to anything he/she makes a decision on.
There are and SHOULD be experts on each side of an issue. Those experts are not people like Dale Jr.
Would you look to a homeless man for advice on your financial investments? Would you trust a lawyer with medical advice for your baby? Would you take information as truth about the ozone from your engine mechanic? Are you going to listen to your overweight state Senator when it comes to winning the big marathon?
I'm not saying these people don't have the right to talk to you about their opinion on these matters. They ABSOLUTELY DO. YOU have the obligation to dissect this information, research it, and determine for yourself what YOUR opinion on the matter is and whether or not what you have been told is true.
Correct?
I guess all that I am saying is that people in these entertainment positions (whether they are RIGHT OR LEFT) take advantage of the fact that people are going to listen and follow them regardless of whether or not what they are saying is factual. So many people take what these entertainers say as gospel that I *ME*MYSELF* consider it an abuse of their power over their fans.
A senator, a lawmaker, a political analyst is in the position they are in because they have taken (do take) the time to become knowledgable in their field. If they are not knowledagble, they are not doing their job. Just like if Dale Jr. isn't always improving on the race track, always improving his engine...he's not doing his job.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, Linda. We, each and everyone of us, have a right to voice our opinion. That's what makes this a great country to live in.
---------
WS, I used Limbaugh as an example; not as someone I like or respect, merely someone who is acknowledged as a right-winger. Same with Anderson Cooper on the Left.
I am unhappy with the perceived need to cuss and flame rather than arguing and debating politely. I have done nothing to you; I have never attacked your views, never attacked you personally, never. I have faithfully posted your submissions without question here regardless of whether or not I agree with the content, and IF I have ever disagreed with your position, I (believe I) have stated my opinion to the contrary and moved on.
The two examples in my post were not used because they were "obviously liberals", they were used because they were good examples of people speaking (and influencing) before they think. Natalie even came back later and apologized for disrespecting the President, despite their differing views on the war.
I apologize if my views upset you; my attempt was to be more satirical than inflamatory.
People shouldn't believe the President just because "he said its so"; we have an obligation to find out if what he's saying is true and put his ass in to the fire if it's not. The same should be true of anyone else in a position to influence people...and unfortunately that is not the case.
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
"So many people take what these entertainers say as gospel that I *ME*MYSELF* consider it an abuse of their power over their fans."
I respect your opinion (as stated above)!
I think many people other than entertainers -- including Rush, politicians, authors, preachers (the list is endless) ALSO spout opinions that are not fact. And they have an audience who may take what they say as gospel.
I'm unable to blame the messenger when the fault lies with the listener. I'm reading that you are able to blame some of the messengers.
I respect your opinion (as stated above)!
I think many people other than entertainers -- including Rush, politicians, authors, preachers (the list is endless) ALSO spout opinions that are not fact. And they have an audience who may take what they say as gospel.
I'm unable to blame the messenger when the fault lies with the listener. I'm reading that you are able to blame some of the messengers.
WSClark said:
I would respectfully disagree, Dubya. Further on down the thread, several of you took Sheryl Crow to task for traveling with four buses, three semi-tractor trailers and six cars, etc.
How would expect a major music star to travel on tour? A VW Van?
The Rolling Stones touring unit travels with FORTY semi tractor trailers! I am sure that Toby Keith or Alabama travels with a similar party as does Sheryl Crow. Every major music star HAS TO move significant volumes of personnel and equipment. You don't do that with a U-Haul trailer.
Yes, Dubya, you have been respectful of my opinion and have graciously provide a forum here. I have thanked you numerous times for this and have gone out of my way to encourage others to post here also.
That having been said, if you read back through the thread, there is a distinct anti-liberal bias and you actively took part in that. One of the participants is obviously from the WE Blog and his purpose here is strictly to cause trouble, as it was on the other forum.
I think I have said enough in my defense. I will close with this from your post.
"I apologize if my views upset you; my attempt was to be more satirical than inflamatory."
One man's satire is another man's insult.
How would expect a major music star to travel on tour? A VW Van?
The Rolling Stones touring unit travels with FORTY semi tractor trailers! I am sure that Toby Keith or Alabama travels with a similar party as does Sheryl Crow. Every major music star HAS TO move significant volumes of personnel and equipment. You don't do that with a U-Haul trailer.
Yes, Dubya, you have been respectful of my opinion and have graciously provide a forum here. I have thanked you numerous times for this and have gone out of my way to encourage others to post here also.
That having been said, if you read back through the thread, there is a distinct anti-liberal bias and you actively took part in that. One of the participants is obviously from the WE Blog and his purpose here is strictly to cause trouble, as it was on the other forum.
I think I have said enough in my defense. I will close with this from your post.
"I apologize if my views upset you; my attempt was to be more satirical than inflamatory."
One man's satire is another man's insult.
Nathan said:
I don't think you liberals would get the point if it was shoved into your backside.
THE POINT:
Here you have a liberal driving around in her motorcade of trucks, buses, and cars, telling us to only use one sheet of toilet paper.
It is called irony.
Kind of like Al Gore telling us to use low energy lightbulbs when his home electtical bill is more than 10 times the national average.
THE POINT:
Here you have a liberal driving around in her motorcade of trucks, buses, and cars, telling us to only use one sheet of toilet paper.
It is called irony.
Kind of like Al Gore telling us to use low energy lightbulbs when his home electtical bill is more than 10 times the national average.
Dubya said:
WS, I hear ya. I'm not pretending to be a liberal, and you are definitely right about satire.
For the record, I am what I would consider "moderate"; fiscally conservative, and socially moderate to liberal depending on the subject.
~Dubya
For the record, I am what I would consider "moderate"; fiscally conservative, and socially moderate to liberal depending on the subject.
~Dubya
lindainks55 said:
Seldom do I harp on anything posted. I am certainly doing exactly that this time. Not to make any opinion less or more valid, but to bring attention to disagreement and interpretation.
We ALL agree about everyone having the right to state their own personal opinions.
We ALL agree there are some people who believe what they hear from someone they admire or trust (whether or not what they heard is based on fact).
Then the disagreements begin --
--who is well informed?
--how do we KNOW when a statement is or isn't based on good solid information?
--why can't a race car driver be well informed on political issues?
--why can't a politician be well informed on driving a race car?
--who might be abusing their public position and the faith placed in them or power they may have over others?
I hope we can agree that the list of disagreements could be LONG and endless. One disagreement (at least) for each topic and for each person.
And doesn't it ALL come right back to personal opinion? Don't we trust, respect or admire people's opinions who are closer to those we hold? And don't we also disrespect, disbelieve and hold in less regard those opinions different than ours?
It isn't right for WSClark to say "STFU."
It isn't right for Nathan to say "WSClark is going to continue to be a very rude foul mouthed (or typing) individual no matter what you say to him. It is his nature."
Those two men took their opinions and turned them into actions.
Somehow we should all be able to disagree, state our opinions and accept that what is our opinion isn't anothers. But that ALONE doesn't make anyone smarter, better, right or better informed. It just makes it easier or more difficult to identify with that person. We're comfortable with and understand more easily the person who holds opinons like our own. It makes more sense to us. We're less comfortable and don't understand the person who hold opinions that differ. They don't make sense to us.
Maybe we all need a course on cyber ethics. Here's one site that has some good info.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php
I'll bet everyone can find other sites that would be interesting and helpful.
We ALL agree about everyone having the right to state their own personal opinions.
We ALL agree there are some people who believe what they hear from someone they admire or trust (whether or not what they heard is based on fact).
Then the disagreements begin --
--who is well informed?
--how do we KNOW when a statement is or isn't based on good solid information?
--why can't a race car driver be well informed on political issues?
--why can't a politician be well informed on driving a race car?
--who might be abusing their public position and the faith placed in them or power they may have over others?
I hope we can agree that the list of disagreements could be LONG and endless. One disagreement (at least) for each topic and for each person.
And doesn't it ALL come right back to personal opinion? Don't we trust, respect or admire people's opinions who are closer to those we hold? And don't we also disrespect, disbelieve and hold in less regard those opinions different than ours?
It isn't right for WSClark to say "STFU."
It isn't right for Nathan to say "WSClark is going to continue to be a very rude foul mouthed (or typing) individual no matter what you say to him. It is his nature."
Those two men took their opinions and turned them into actions.
Somehow we should all be able to disagree, state our opinions and accept that what is our opinion isn't anothers. But that ALONE doesn't make anyone smarter, better, right or better informed. It just makes it easier or more difficult to identify with that person. We're comfortable with and understand more easily the person who holds opinons like our own. It makes more sense to us. We're less comfortable and don't understand the person who hold opinions that differ. They don't make sense to us.
Maybe we all need a course on cyber ethics. Here's one site that has some good info.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php
I'll bet everyone can find other sites that would be interesting and helpful.
Nathan said:
Linda,
Honestly, it doesnt bother me all that much what people do or say on this blog or any other.
I understand that it is a blog and there are going to be rude foul mouthed people. I just dont let it bother me.
However, what I will not do is watch as people like you try to pretend to be above the fray.
You have been just as vile with your remarks towards me as WS Clark has been.
I suggest you take that cyber ethics link and read it yourself.
Or perhaps in your emails about ignoring me with WS Clark you two could possibly discuss his constant telling people to STFU.
Because, right now my comment about him is right on the money because it is not that hard to see that he constantly resorts to that type of posting with practically anyone who disagrees with him.
Honestly, it doesnt bother me all that much what people do or say on this blog or any other.
I understand that it is a blog and there are going to be rude foul mouthed people. I just dont let it bother me.
However, what I will not do is watch as people like you try to pretend to be above the fray.
You have been just as vile with your remarks towards me as WS Clark has been.
I suggest you take that cyber ethics link and read it yourself.
Or perhaps in your emails about ignoring me with WS Clark you two could possibly discuss his constant telling people to STFU.
Because, right now my comment about him is right on the money because it is not that hard to see that he constantly resorts to that type of posting with practically anyone who disagrees with him.
WSClark said:
You are only here to cause trouble, Nathan. You know it, Linda knows it and I know it. You lurk about and then make nasty comments when it suits you. You are a known troublemaker, troll and flamer. You did it all the time on WE Blog and your only reason for coming over here is to satisfy your desire to bait liberals.
Get over yourself.
If you want to add something productive to the discourse, fine. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
And yes, ignoring you isn't against the rules. No one is obligated to play your games.
Get over yourself.
If you want to add something productive to the discourse, fine. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
And yes, ignoring you isn't against the rules. No one is obligated to play your games.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
Cause trouble? LOL.
Is that what you say when someone doesn't agree with your liberal views?
You post crap about the Mission Accomplished statement asking for conservatives to reply. When we finally do you say I am coming over here to cause trouble?
I probably wouldn't have bothered to come to this site at all until my father showed me your little blog basically demanding Conservatives answer.
If I recall correctly, you didn't even bother to address our comments either.
So please go back to your little fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you should be told to STFU and anyone who disagrees with you is just here to cause trouble.
Cause trouble? LOL.
Is that what you say when someone doesn't agree with your liberal views?
You post crap about the Mission Accomplished statement asking for conservatives to reply. When we finally do you say I am coming over here to cause trouble?
I probably wouldn't have bothered to come to this site at all until my father showed me your little blog basically demanding Conservatives answer.
If I recall correctly, you didn't even bother to address our comments either.
So please go back to your little fantasy world where anyone who disagrees with you should be told to STFU and anyone who disagrees with you is just here to cause trouble.
WSClark said:
I replied to your fathers statement, Nathan. He chose to claim an al Qaeda - Saddam Hussein connection. I pointed out that there was no point in discussing anything with him if he chose to ignore the fact that the Pentagon has recently released a report stating with equivocation that there was no connection.
What point is there in having a debate if facts are to be ignored.
You were regularly a troublemaker and troll on WE Blog. Your reputation proceeds you. We know all about you. You can claim your innocence, but everyone from WE Blog knows better.
There is no point in debating anything with anyone that willfully chooses to ignore facts.
Therefore, no debate with Nathan and his Daddy.
What point is there in having a debate if facts are to be ignored.
You were regularly a troublemaker and troll on WE Blog. Your reputation proceeds you. We know all about you. You can claim your innocence, but everyone from WE Blog knows better.
There is no point in debating anything with anyone that willfully chooses to ignore facts.
Therefore, no debate with Nathan and his Daddy.
WSClark said:
No facts? Did the Pentagon report disavow a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda or did they not?
Simple question, one that you should be able to answer.
EVEN BUSH has said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Is your hero a liar?
Those are facts - prove a connection to 9/11 and Saddam.
Simple question, one that you should be able to answer.
EVEN BUSH has said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Is your hero a liar?
Those are facts - prove a connection to 9/11 and Saddam.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
First of all, no one was trying to prove a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.
Neither my father not I have made that point.
So I have no clue as to why you are bringing that up.
The report said there was no substantial connection.
First of all, no one was trying to prove a connection between 9/11 and Saddam.
Neither my father not I have made that point.
So I have no clue as to why you are bringing that up.
The report said there was no substantial connection.
Nathan said:
Dear Clark,
I read your little rant, clumsily disguised as a series of questions. At first I thought I’d just ignore it like many of your irrational posts. But then, I thought why not set the record straight! After all, you did ask!
So lets dissect this little rant shall we? First a thought or two to ensure you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think that with your demonstrated attitude in this post and others you will get much from my reply. I think your mind is closed. I respond mainly, like many others on the BLOGs, to get something off my chest, not to address your questions. I will merely use your questions as a way to proceed. I believe that your questions and the way you ask them are more indicative of your very biased attitude rather than your curiosity.
“Some will take exception to my comments, but I truly want an answer.”
You have every right to make any comment that you like. When they become abusive and personal, like many of yours do, I will generally ignore them. When I do take exception to your comments most of the time I will just ignore them, in fact I’ll ignore everything you say for days afterward. So go ahead and ‘comment’ all you want!
“ I want an answer from the right wingers.”
OK! I wear the label ‘right winger’ with pride! Although you use it as a term of derision, I’m proud of the work and effort it takes to have an informed ‘right wing’ opinion!
“I want an answer from the conservatives.”
Again, OK! Conservative is another term I gladly identify with! I’m always amazed at how easy the liberals on the BLOGs can allow themselves to totally miss the point of a conservative post by merely resorting to name calling like, “neo-con”, “right winger”, etc. The number of BLOGers that think that just because you are a conservative, or Christian, or republican you aren’t really smart enough to post an intelligent response amazes me! .
“I want an answer from the Bush lovers.”
Well, a true conservative has always been a little disappointed in Bush. He wasn’t my first choice for the republican nomination in 2000, but, oh well, he was running against Al Gore for heavens sake! When Bush came out with his phony “compassionate conservative” crap it completely turned me off. It’s like saying conservatives really weren’t compassionate until he came along!
I realize that it was merely a campaign slogan to fool the dumbest amongst the great-unwashed moderates, the ‘undecided’, and the dumbest among us. But for me, I thought it was caving in to the old democratic propaganda that would have you believe that conservatives are ‘mean spirited, and their policies are ‘cruel’.
If you want to be a conservative leader, a man that will advance conservative policies, you don’t start off by accepting the liberal bullshit propaganda of your opponents.
Don’t love him. I respect him. I think he has been presidential to a fault. I think that he believes presidential politics should be above the petty bickering and childish BS the democrats constantly bombard him with. I think he should control the debate better. I still think he is twice the man that Al Gore or John Kerry are and a much better president overall than any of the democratic hopefuls that we’ve seen in the last twenty years.
“In March of 2003, you called me a traitor. You called me un-American. You called me a coward. You said that I was appeasing terrorists. You said I was betraying my country. You told me to leave America.”
Dear Clark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn’t know you in 2003. I suppose it’s merely a rhetorical question, but since you make specific charges that I know nothing of I’ll just answer in general terms.
I don’t think you or anyone else on the BLOG are traitors. I think that many of the democrats in congress are traitors. I think that people like you that believe what they say are merely dupes. I think that many of you are too lazy to educate yourselves on the reality of living in a world that has a global terrorist network determined on many levels to destroy our life as we know it. I also believe that the majority of the left-wing-idiots that post their venomous anti American comments on these BLOGs are, in fact, in an insignificant minority in the country. I don’t believe that an irrational hate for a president is a policy for getting things done.
“Now, the War on Iraq is not going like you said it would.”
So what? What war has ever gone as expected? What does that have to do with anything? You either need to go to war or you don’t. The overwhelming bipartisan opinion of congress was that we needed to go to war. War is serious stuff. If you vote to go to war you are obligated to do every thing in your power to win it as soon as possible with the minimum loss of OUR lives. The democrats have generally done every thing in their power to undermine the president at every turn. In that sense, I’m sure the war hasn’t gone as the president hoped or expected.
Your "Mission was not Accomplished."
When I see some one use the old “Mission Accomplished” mantra I know that I’m either dealing with an incredibly disingenuous politician or one of his dupes. I assume that you are referring to the famous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
I have not addressed this democratic lunacy much in the past. It’s merely propaganda. When President Bush made his address on the Abraham Lincoln it bothered the democrats a lot. Here we have a very strong president making a strong speech on an aircraft carrier during a very successful period of the war. We had toppled the Iraqi regime! Quicker and with less loss of life than had been predicted or expected, by either side! The democrats had to get their spin machine in high gear! Lets see how we can turn this into a lie! How do we get the dumbest amongst us to believe that this was really something it wasn’t? First we have to avoid the substance and the reality! Mission accomplished? There’s something we can spin and lie about for political gain! And with the help of the willing media they reduced a glorious homecoming and a military victory that is unsurpassed in modern warfare into a shameful sound bite.
The mission was accomplished. The mission was accomplished on several levels. The mission of the Abraham Lincoln was accomplished. Its mission was to supply air support for our troops. Its mission was to provide real time aerial intelligence. Its mission was to destroy Iraq’s ability to wage war. Then and now, we control the air in the Mideast! Its mission was to support the larger mission, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
If, in your twisted, little, hate filled world you don’t think the “mission was accomplished” you must first allow the definition of ‘mission’ be perverted by the democrats. You must allow them to define mission as ‘winning’ the war. Then you must allow them to convince you that any definition of ‘winning’ can’t exist. You have to be stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated on several levels to fall for the “Mission Accomplished” propaganda the democrats have used. When a liberal uses the “Mission Accomplished” BS I know he is either disingenuous or a fool.
“The civil war I predicted has become reality. You have created more terrorists and made America less safe. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Iraq was not a supporter of terrorism.” ‘
More liberal Bullshit. Really Clark? Every one of your statements above are lies. They are liberal talking points that have no basis in truth. None. I hesitate to even address my thoughts on these propaganda statements of the left because I honestly believe that you believe them. However, just because you are sincere in your beliefs, doesn’t mean liars aren’t fooling you. So, even though you didn’t pose these idiotic statements as a question, because you have erroneously stated them as facts I will address them to clear the air.
What is your definition of “civil war”? You predicted it? You believe it? Bull Shit. What ever it is that you believe is going on in Iraq, it is not a civil war. The intelligent observers of the insurgent’s actions there don’t believe it is a civil war. The Iraqis don’t believe it is a civil war, furthermore, the democrat leadership and liberal media doesn’t even believe it is a civil war. Only the dumbest amongst us believe what is happening or going to happen is a civil war. They willingly fall the liberal catch phrases such as “quagmire”, “civil war”, and other ridiculous phrases not based on fact because they are either too lazy to try and understand what is actually going on; unable to remember any events in the past prior to GWB; or have such an irrational hate for GWB that they will never be able to participate in the debate in a logical, thoughtful manner.
“You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.”
Right. What an incredibly stupid statement. How incredibly stupid would someone have to be to believe such nonsense? How far do you want to go back in history to try and understand the violent history between the Christian and Muslim cultures? Should we only go back as far as the Clinton years and blame him for our problems today because he sat by and allowed attack after attack by Muslim extremists with no consequence? Should we go back only as far as Bush senior and blame him for not ‘finishing the job in ’91? Maybe we should blame Reagan because he did nothing to retaliate when the Marine barracks was bombed. Maybe we have this problem today because Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to kidnap and hold hostage our embassy people for days. Did things go south for us when the Marines landed at Tripoli? Or maybe, the radical Islamic terrorists are still annoyed with Christians in general because of the Crusades!
Nope, we only have to go back as far as GWB taking office with the help of Supreme Court if you are a liberal! He had eight months in office and all he did was plan ways to steal oil and help his rich buddies! Good Grief. “You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.” What an incredibly stupid, short sighted, history ignoring statement.
George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.
“There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Another liberal mantra not based in reality. So what? Everyone believed he had WMDs. He wanted WMDs. He had programs in place to manufacture WMDs. All the democratic leaders thought he had WMDs. The intelligence agencies of every western country thought he had WMDs. He had used WMDs on his own people in the past. But when we invade Iraq, with overwhelming success, the libs can only come up with ‘Bush lied, people died” How incredibly stupid.
Oh, buy the way, Saddam had WMDs!
“There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.”
So what? Saddam was supporting al Qeada! Saddam was working with al Qeada! There is tons of evidence that proves Saddam and Ben Laden were allies against so-called ‘American aggression’. Books have been written about the connection! Furthermore, we invaded Iraq because they had consistently ignored the terms of the cease-fire established after the first Gulf War. We were at war with Iraq all of the Clinton years! They ignored all of Clinton’s ‘tough talk’. They ignored 17 UN resolutions. They were ignoring GWB. Saddam had bought off the members of the UN Security Council with his oil for food dollars. So, the facts on little piece of the liberal democrat propaganda program: “There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.” Remain: It’s irrelevant. It’s also a lie.
“You lied to us.”
No Clark, your inability to recognize the truth does not make us liars. No Clark, your ability to ignore any facts that disprove your narrow-minded world-view does not make us liars. No Clark, your irrational hate for Bush, your contempt for conservatives, your disdain for any opinion that does not fall in line with the democratic propaganda does not make us liars. It merely shows you for the fool you and other liberals are.
Amazing, how the whole premise of your post is a lie and you attempt to use it to say, “You lied to us.”!
“Now the right wing expects us to fall in line and support the war that we have always been against. Now they want us to be good little American. Now they want us to resist the temptation to protest. Now they want us to follow the right wing course and forget that we told you so.”
No Clark, we have come to expect very little from you! We don’t think you are traitors, you would actually have to do something to be a traitor! You would have to do more than just bitch and moan on a BLOG. The democratic leaders that undermine our president every step of the way are traitors. The libs on this BLOG are merely dupes.
“Now you want us to shut up and not ask questions.”
Well it would be nice if you had the ability to ask a question without a false premise. It would be nice if you really asked a question with a sincere desire to know and try to understand the opposing viewpoint. It would be nice if you could ask a question without undisguised contempt of the person you are asking. It would be nice if you could enter the debate with even a very basic understanding of history. However, if your rant that started this little thread is any example you are not capable of any meaningful debate.
“So tell me – why should I shut up now? Why should my voice be silenced now? If I was un-American then, what are you now?”
By all means Clark, keep posting! You make reasonable people look good! When you get on a roll I can just ignore your hate filled meaningless rants. You make up a very small majority of the American people. You’re irrelevant in the grand scheme of things!
“Why should I forgive your accusations of treason now?
Tell me why.”
Never accused you, I don’t need nor do I beg your forgiveness!
You may be proud of your little rant but in truth it is merely nothing more than a litany of democratic talking points. It shows that you have fallen for political spin at its lowest level. It shows that you are basically incapable of an original thought or opinion. Your questions are insulting to anyone that loves his country. It shows that like your liberal spin-doctors you are guilty of the very things that you are accusing conservatives of.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Hank
Posted By Hank Price | 4/7/07 5:48 AM
I read your little rant, clumsily disguised as a series of questions. At first I thought I’d just ignore it like many of your irrational posts. But then, I thought why not set the record straight! After all, you did ask!
So lets dissect this little rant shall we? First a thought or two to ensure you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think that with your demonstrated attitude in this post and others you will get much from my reply. I think your mind is closed. I respond mainly, like many others on the BLOGs, to get something off my chest, not to address your questions. I will merely use your questions as a way to proceed. I believe that your questions and the way you ask them are more indicative of your very biased attitude rather than your curiosity.
“Some will take exception to my comments, but I truly want an answer.”
You have every right to make any comment that you like. When they become abusive and personal, like many of yours do, I will generally ignore them. When I do take exception to your comments most of the time I will just ignore them, in fact I’ll ignore everything you say for days afterward. So go ahead and ‘comment’ all you want!
“ I want an answer from the right wingers.”
OK! I wear the label ‘right winger’ with pride! Although you use it as a term of derision, I’m proud of the work and effort it takes to have an informed ‘right wing’ opinion!
“I want an answer from the conservatives.”
Again, OK! Conservative is another term I gladly identify with! I’m always amazed at how easy the liberals on the BLOGs can allow themselves to totally miss the point of a conservative post by merely resorting to name calling like, “neo-con”, “right winger”, etc. The number of BLOGers that think that just because you are a conservative, or Christian, or republican you aren’t really smart enough to post an intelligent response amazes me! .
“I want an answer from the Bush lovers.”
Well, a true conservative has always been a little disappointed in Bush. He wasn’t my first choice for the republican nomination in 2000, but, oh well, he was running against Al Gore for heavens sake! When Bush came out with his phony “compassionate conservative” crap it completely turned me off. It’s like saying conservatives really weren’t compassionate until he came along!
I realize that it was merely a campaign slogan to fool the dumbest amongst the great-unwashed moderates, the ‘undecided’, and the dumbest among us. But for me, I thought it was caving in to the old democratic propaganda that would have you believe that conservatives are ‘mean spirited, and their policies are ‘cruel’.
If you want to be a conservative leader, a man that will advance conservative policies, you don’t start off by accepting the liberal bullshit propaganda of your opponents.
Don’t love him. I respect him. I think he has been presidential to a fault. I think that he believes presidential politics should be above the petty bickering and childish BS the democrats constantly bombard him with. I think he should control the debate better. I still think he is twice the man that Al Gore or John Kerry are and a much better president overall than any of the democratic hopefuls that we’ve seen in the last twenty years.
“In March of 2003, you called me a traitor. You called me un-American. You called me a coward. You said that I was appeasing terrorists. You said I was betraying my country. You told me to leave America.”
Dear Clark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn’t know you in 2003. I suppose it’s merely a rhetorical question, but since you make specific charges that I know nothing of I’ll just answer in general terms.
I don’t think you or anyone else on the BLOG are traitors. I think that many of the democrats in congress are traitors. I think that people like you that believe what they say are merely dupes. I think that many of you are too lazy to educate yourselves on the reality of living in a world that has a global terrorist network determined on many levels to destroy our life as we know it. I also believe that the majority of the left-wing-idiots that post their venomous anti American comments on these BLOGs are, in fact, in an insignificant minority in the country. I don’t believe that an irrational hate for a president is a policy for getting things done.
“Now, the War on Iraq is not going like you said it would.”
So what? What war has ever gone as expected? What does that have to do with anything? You either need to go to war or you don’t. The overwhelming bipartisan opinion of congress was that we needed to go to war. War is serious stuff. If you vote to go to war you are obligated to do every thing in your power to win it as soon as possible with the minimum loss of OUR lives. The democrats have generally done every thing in their power to undermine the president at every turn. In that sense, I’m sure the war hasn’t gone as the president hoped or expected.
Your "Mission was not Accomplished."
When I see some one use the old “Mission Accomplished” mantra I know that I’m either dealing with an incredibly disingenuous politician or one of his dupes. I assume that you are referring to the famous “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
I have not addressed this democratic lunacy much in the past. It’s merely propaganda. When President Bush made his address on the Abraham Lincoln it bothered the democrats a lot. Here we have a very strong president making a strong speech on an aircraft carrier during a very successful period of the war. We had toppled the Iraqi regime! Quicker and with less loss of life than had been predicted or expected, by either side! The democrats had to get their spin machine in high gear! Lets see how we can turn this into a lie! How do we get the dumbest amongst us to believe that this was really something it wasn’t? First we have to avoid the substance and the reality! Mission accomplished? There’s something we can spin and lie about for political gain! And with the help of the willing media they reduced a glorious homecoming and a military victory that is unsurpassed in modern warfare into a shameful sound bite.
The mission was accomplished. The mission was accomplished on several levels. The mission of the Abraham Lincoln was accomplished. Its mission was to supply air support for our troops. Its mission was to provide real time aerial intelligence. Its mission was to destroy Iraq’s ability to wage war. Then and now, we control the air in the Mideast! Its mission was to support the larger mission, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
If, in your twisted, little, hate filled world you don’t think the “mission was accomplished” you must first allow the definition of ‘mission’ be perverted by the democrats. You must allow them to define mission as ‘winning’ the war. Then you must allow them to convince you that any definition of ‘winning’ can’t exist. You have to be stupid and allow yourself to be manipulated on several levels to fall for the “Mission Accomplished” propaganda the democrats have used. When a liberal uses the “Mission Accomplished” BS I know he is either disingenuous or a fool.
“The civil war I predicted has become reality. You have created more terrorists and made America less safe. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. Iraq was not a supporter of terrorism.” ‘
More liberal Bullshit. Really Clark? Every one of your statements above are lies. They are liberal talking points that have no basis in truth. None. I hesitate to even address my thoughts on these propaganda statements of the left because I honestly believe that you believe them. However, just because you are sincere in your beliefs, doesn’t mean liars aren’t fooling you. So, even though you didn’t pose these idiotic statements as a question, because you have erroneously stated them as facts I will address them to clear the air.
What is your definition of “civil war”? You predicted it? You believe it? Bull Shit. What ever it is that you believe is going on in Iraq, it is not a civil war. The intelligent observers of the insurgent’s actions there don’t believe it is a civil war. The Iraqis don’t believe it is a civil war, furthermore, the democrat leadership and liberal media doesn’t even believe it is a civil war. Only the dumbest amongst us believe what is happening or going to happen is a civil war. They willingly fall the liberal catch phrases such as “quagmire”, “civil war”, and other ridiculous phrases not based on fact because they are either too lazy to try and understand what is actually going on; unable to remember any events in the past prior to GWB; or have such an irrational hate for GWB that they will never be able to participate in the debate in a logical, thoughtful manner.
“You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.”
Right. What an incredibly stupid statement. How incredibly stupid would someone have to be to believe such nonsense? How far do you want to go back in history to try and understand the violent history between the Christian and Muslim cultures? Should we only go back as far as the Clinton years and blame him for our problems today because he sat by and allowed attack after attack by Muslim extremists with no consequence? Should we go back only as far as Bush senior and blame him for not ‘finishing the job in ’91? Maybe we should blame Reagan because he did nothing to retaliate when the Marine barracks was bombed. Maybe we have this problem today because Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to kidnap and hold hostage our embassy people for days. Did things go south for us when the Marines landed at Tripoli? Or maybe, the radical Islamic terrorists are still annoyed with Christians in general because of the Crusades!
Nope, we only have to go back as far as GWB taking office with the help of Supreme Court if you are a liberal! He had eight months in office and all he did was plan ways to steal oil and help his rich buddies! Good Grief. “You have created more terrorists and made America less safe.” What an incredibly stupid, short sighted, history ignoring statement.
George Bush is the first American president that has come up with a change in foreign policy that will change the way we react to terrorists. It scares the liberals. For the democrats in congress and the willing dupes that vote for them, Bush is scarier than a suicide bomber.
“There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Another liberal mantra not based in reality. So what? Everyone believed he had WMDs. He wanted WMDs. He had programs in place to manufacture WMDs. All the democratic leaders thought he had WMDs. The intelligence agencies of every western country thought he had WMDs. He had used WMDs on his own people in the past. But when we invade Iraq, with overwhelming success, the libs can only come up with ‘Bush lied, people died” How incredibly stupid.
Oh, buy the way, Saddam had WMDs!
“There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.”
So what? Saddam was supporting al Qeada! Saddam was working with al Qeada! There is tons of evidence that proves Saddam and Ben Laden were allies against so-called ‘American aggression’. Books have been written about the connection! Furthermore, we invaded Iraq because they had consistently ignored the terms of the cease-fire established after the first Gulf War. We were at war with Iraq all of the Clinton years! They ignored all of Clinton’s ‘tough talk’. They ignored 17 UN resolutions. They were ignoring GWB. Saddam had bought off the members of the UN Security Council with his oil for food dollars. So, the facts on little piece of the liberal democrat propaganda program: “There was no link between Saddam and 9/11.” Remain: It’s irrelevant. It’s also a lie.
“You lied to us.”
No Clark, your inability to recognize the truth does not make us liars. No Clark, your ability to ignore any facts that disprove your narrow-minded world-view does not make us liars. No Clark, your irrational hate for Bush, your contempt for conservatives, your disdain for any opinion that does not fall in line with the democratic propaganda does not make us liars. It merely shows you for the fool you and other liberals are.
Amazing, how the whole premise of your post is a lie and you attempt to use it to say, “You lied to us.”!
“Now the right wing expects us to fall in line and support the war that we have always been against. Now they want us to be good little American. Now they want us to resist the temptation to protest. Now they want us to follow the right wing course and forget that we told you so.”
No Clark, we have come to expect very little from you! We don’t think you are traitors, you would actually have to do something to be a traitor! You would have to do more than just bitch and moan on a BLOG. The democratic leaders that undermine our president every step of the way are traitors. The libs on this BLOG are merely dupes.
“Now you want us to shut up and not ask questions.”
Well it would be nice if you had the ability to ask a question without a false premise. It would be nice if you really asked a question with a sincere desire to know and try to understand the opposing viewpoint. It would be nice if you could ask a question without undisguised contempt of the person you are asking. It would be nice if you could enter the debate with even a very basic understanding of history. However, if your rant that started this little thread is any example you are not capable of any meaningful debate.
“So tell me – why should I shut up now? Why should my voice be silenced now? If I was un-American then, what are you now?”
By all means Clark, keep posting! You make reasonable people look good! When you get on a roll I can just ignore your hate filled meaningless rants. You make up a very small majority of the American people. You’re irrelevant in the grand scheme of things!
“Why should I forgive your accusations of treason now?
Tell me why.”
Never accused you, I don’t need nor do I beg your forgiveness!
You may be proud of your little rant but in truth it is merely nothing more than a litany of democratic talking points. It shows that you have fallen for political spin at its lowest level. It shows that you are basically incapable of an original thought or opinion. Your questions are insulting to anyone that loves his country. It shows that like your liberal spin-doctors you are guilty of the very things that you are accusing conservatives of.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Hank
Posted By Hank Price | 4/7/07 5:48 AM
WSClark said:
"Saddam was supporting al Qeada! Saddam was working with al Qeada! There is tons of evidence that proves Saddam and Ben Laden were allies against so-called ?American aggression?."
Perhaps you should read the commentary before you post it, Nathan.
The Pentagon says that there was no operational connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Who should I believe, you and your father or the Pentagon?
End of debate.
Perhaps you should read the commentary before you post it, Nathan.
The Pentagon says that there was no operational connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Who should I believe, you and your father or the Pentagon?
End of debate.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
That was one small point of an entire page worth of posting.
I'll let my father come and discuss this one point because he is the one better versed in it.
It was never my argument.
I suppose you will just ignore the rest about your little mission accomplished crap?
Oooooo forgot about all that heh?
End of Debate.
That was one small point of an entire page worth of posting.
I'll let my father come and discuss this one point because he is the one better versed in it.
It was never my argument.
I suppose you will just ignore the rest about your little mission accomplished crap?
Oooooo forgot about all that heh?
End of Debate.
WSClark said:
As I said, what is the point of debating if one willfully chooses to ignore facts?
And I have already informed your father that I have absolutely nothing to say to him.
And I have already informed your father that I have absolutely nothing to say to him.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
At least I am actually discussing it with you instead of telling you to STFU or simply say I am ignoring you.
You are making progress. Now maybe you can email your little pal Linda and tell her how it is not that hard to actually engage in a discussion with someone whom disagrees with you!
At least I am actually discussing it with you instead of telling you to STFU or simply say I am ignoring you.
You are making progress. Now maybe you can email your little pal Linda and tell her how it is not that hard to actually engage in a discussion with someone whom disagrees with you!
WSClark said:
And Dubya, read Nathan's comments about bringing a gun the the WV Blog meet on the open thread. He is hoping to have a concealed carry permit by then so he can have a gun on him.
He wants to be able to bring a gun to a social event.
Great.
He wants to be able to bring a gun to a social event.
Great.
Loading....