Conservative arrogance

[Renfield]

These days they won't tolerate anything being said against their leader. And they are willing to go to extremes to punish anyone who speaks out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030313/143/3ia96.html

Notice how all the Dixie Chicks comments were regarding Bush. To conservatives, attacking him is unamerican, unpatriotic, something that can't be allowed. Of course, conservatives have always said this sort of thing about their opponants, but they didn't use their ownership of the media to censor them. Not in this extreme a way.

It must be nice having your political party OWN the media. Can we put that whole liberal media myth to rest now?

[Tmy]

I applaud the Dixie Chick for bailing on her convictions cause its hurting record sales. Way to stick up for what you believe in!

Silly musicians. Next time stick with safe stances like "terror is bad".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Renfield


It must be nice having your political party OWN the media.


coo-coo, coo-coo

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Renfield
These days they won't tolerate anything being said against their leader. And they are willing to go to extremes to punish anyone who speaks out.


Hmm...seems like the DC forgot who made up their fan base. Actions sometimes have consequences - in the private sector that is. Oh and since when does people calling up a radio station and complaining amount to extremism?

It must be nice having your political party OWN the media. Can we put that whole liberal media myth to rest now?"

Oh puuleeese!!!!!! For every "conservatively" slanted item there is AT LEAST and equal and opposite "liberally" slanted item - I mean do the peace marchers and the latest Hollywood bleeding heart get gobs of coverage or what?

Media are not objective - this much is a given - which way the slant goes is most often a function of the nature of the subject matter coupled w/ the specific medium.

Barkhorn.

[Skeptical Greg]

Sounds to me like they are getting a lot of free publicity..

Probably sell more tickets & records than they would have otherwise..

" there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq "


Well, almost.. If you don't count the thought of the next 30 years without access to colagen..:rolleyes:

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Renfield

Notice how all the Dixie Chicks comments were regarding Bush. To conservatives, attacking him is unamerican, unpatriotic, something that can't be allowed. Of course, conservatives have always said this sort of thing about their opponants, but they didn't use their ownership of the media to censor them. Not in this extreme a way.

I think context is important. Although criticising the leader is acceptible free speech, they weren't resorting to rational thought and dialog. Comments like "I'm ashamed Bush is Texan", in the forum that it was spoken (very anti-war Europe) to me is more serious than a 'joke' or off hand remark.

I haven't seen many articles attacking them, but I have seen articles saying "Dixie Chicks criticize bush.... Radio stations drop songs from playlist". (That neither praises nor criticizes them, just reports the facts.) And while they have the right to make any comments they want, consumers have the right to not buy their records if they choose not to.

I think they may have hurt themselves in the short term. Country musicians and their fans tend to take a pro-war stance. Musicians from other styles of music are often anti-war, but that plays well with their crowd. The Dixie chicks may have alienated a big segment of their fan base, and since I can't see the Berkley crowd warming up to their type of music, they will have to hope that country fans have short memories.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


* snip *

...they will have to hope that country fans have short memories.

No worries there :D

No one seems to remember that Saddam Hussein was an ally not too long ago. Or that Bush Sr. could have eliminated hussein in '92, but didn't. Or that Dubya wasn't actually elected president. Or that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA. Or that Sept. 11 means something totally different to Chileans. or or or...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by kourama


No worries there :D

No one seems to remember that Saddam Hussein was an ally not too long ago. Or that Bush Sr. could have eliminated hussein in '92, but didn't. Or that Dubya wasn't actually elected president. Or that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA. Or that Sept. 11 means something totally different to Chileans. or or or...

Oh no, not these arguments :rolleyes:

1) Hussein was an ally about 15 years ago, when he was in a war against Iran, who was thought to be the bigger threat. Sometimes, you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils
2) Bush didn't eliminate Hussein, partly because he listened to international opinion. And that got us to the situation we're in today
3) Bush was elected president, by the voting rules of the U.S. Recounts in Florida show that Bush would have won the state anyways. Gore has said Bush is the president
4) Bin Laden was trained because he was fighting the soviet union. I doubt anyone knew just what type of person he'd turn out to be. (Even if the U.S. knew, they may still have helped, because like I said, you sometimes have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.)

All these little 'slogans' (Saddam was an ally, Bush was never elected, etc.) sound nice, but they ignore the complex (and often critical) story behind the scenes.

[Bentspoon]

Why does anyone, their fans, the media or the "conservatives" care what they have to say.

I am waiting for definitive opinion from Britney.

Bentspoon

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
3) Bush was elected president, by the voting rules of the U.S. Recounts in Florida show that Bush would have won the state anyways. Gore has said Bush is the president ...I'm sorry, but this is an erroneous statement. If need be, we can discuss this in a different thread. And as to what Mr. Gore says (never mind the unknown context of the statement you attribute to him), that is not really germaine to the discussion.All these little 'slogans' (Saddam was an ally, Bush was never elected, etc.) sound nice, but they ignore the complex (and often critical) story behind the scenes. Indeed.

[Ladewig]

kourama -
Or that Bush Sr. could have eliminated hussein in '92, but didn't.

Segnosaur -
2) Bush didn't eliminate Hussein, partly because he listened to international opinion. And that got us to the situation we're in today

That "partly" was relatively small compared to the Bush adminstration's realization that (A) killing SH and walking out would have lead to bloodthirsty chaos as 12-20 different groups fought for power along with the risk that the winning group might be more anti-American than SH and (B) that killing SH and occupying the country would have cost billions and might destablize the region.

But all that aside, Bush pere's not eliminating SH in 1992 has nothing to do with the coming war being appropriate or not.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Renfield

It must be nice having your political party OWN the media. Can we put that whole liberal media myth to rest now?

You are totally wrong Renfield. The Republican party doesn't own the media! :rolleyes:

The conservatives who own the media, also own the Republican party. ;)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
(snip)
Oh puuleeese!!!!!! For every "conservatively" slanted item there is AT LEAST and equal and opposite "liberally" slanted item - I mean do the peace marchers and the latest Hollywood bleeding heart get gobs of coverage or what?
(snip)
Barkhorn. [/B]

Got any unbiased sources for that claim? Got any biased sources for that claim?

You think the media coverage of the protesters has been positive? Just curious.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Got any unbiased sources for that claim?
Just my opionion. ;)

Got any biased sources for that claim?

Yes - this is from the Left;
http://www.fair.org/

And this is from the Right;
http://www.mediaresearch.org/

You think the media coverage of the protesters has been positive? Just curious.

Well, duhh!!!

Barkhorn.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Oh no, not these arguments :rolleyes:

1) Hussein was an ally about 15 years ago, when he was in a war against Iran, who was thought to be the bigger threat. Sometimes, you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils
2) Bush didn't eliminate Hussein, partly because he listened to international opinion. And that got us to the situation we're in today
3) Bush was elected president, by the voting rules of the U.S. Recounts in Florida show that Bush would have won the state anyways. Gore has said Bush is the president
4) Bin Laden was trained because he was fighting the soviet union. I doubt anyone knew just what type of person he'd turn out to be. (Even if the U.S. knew, they may still have helped, because like I said, you sometimes have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.)

All these little 'slogans' (Saddam was an ally, Bush was never elected, etc.) sound nice, but they ignore the complex (and often critical) story behind the scenes.

Yeah right on!

It just goes to show you that:

> Great nations have no permanate friends,

> Only permanate interests.

I think Clauswitz said that -

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Yeah right on!

It just goes to show you that:

> Great nations have no permanate friends,

> Only permanate interests.

I think Clauswitz said that -

Actually that was English Foreign Minister Lord Palmerston.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[Kodiak]

Who the hell are the Dixie Chicks??? ;)

[KillerBob]

Renfield,

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that while it's perfectly okay for the Dixie Chicks to speak out against Bush, it's not okay for other people to speak out against the Dixie Chicks?

I appreciate the fact that she spoke out on her convictions but she has to realize that they're a COUNTRY music group. A large portion of their listeners will be conservative. She should learn a little more about her listener's demographics.

To not expect a harsh backlash from that group is extremely naive.

[Drooper]

The Dixie Chicks were only faced with the threat of losing their money.

Imagine if they'd faced the threat of losing their civil liberties?

Oh the irony of it all...


Why I am drawn to thoughts of Barbara Streisand lambasting greenhouse emissions and then jumping into her limousine for a 200m trip to a vast, air conditioned, hotel suite?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by kourama


No worries there :D

No one seems to remember that Saddam Hussein was an ally not too long ago. Or that Bush Sr. could have eliminated hussein in '92, but didn't. Or that Dubya wasn't actually elected president. Or that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA. Or that Sept. 11 means something totally different to Chileans. or or or...

I believe you call this argument, "Let me throw a bunch of non sequitars at the wall and hope some stick."

I mean seriously why not mention that American fast food tastes bad...

[kourama]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I believe you call this argument, "Let me throw a bunch of non sequitars at the wall and hope some stick."

I mean seriously why not mention that American fast food tastes bad...

Well, I was giving examples of things that former dixie-chicks fans, who are pro-war seem to have forgotten. Non sequitur?

OK, let's look at relevance:

1) Hussein was an ally:


1) Hussein was an ally about 15 years ago, when he was in a war against Iran, who was thought to be the bigger threat. Sometimes, you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils


Iran was a threat? No kidding? Why? U.S. foreign policy had attempted to subvert the government of that country. This failed because of a massive response by the people of Iran, who went to the extreme of putting in power a religious extremist.

The war against Iraq was support by the U.S. government because they wanted control. When Saddam looked like the best chance of controlling the resources there, they backed him.

It was not a choice between the lesser of two evils. The choice to pick sides was motivated by the lust for power of the U.S. regime.

The U.S. government said that they had no interest in protecting Kuwait or in Iraq's policies towrads it's neighbours, then when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the B.S. hit the fan, and the U.S. regime cooked up stories and evidence to convince the Saudis to allow U.S. troops on their soil.

Establishing a presence there had long been a wish of the U.S. oligarchy, and then they had it.

Whether Saddam was an ally or not was a matter of what secured the most power for the U.S. oil companies. If the Dixie Chicks fans remembered this, they'd perhaps be a little suspicious of Bush's motivations for the war and parhaps not be so pro-war.

2) Bush Sr. could have eliminated hussein in '92, but didn't


2) Bush didn't eliminate Hussein, partly because he listened to international opinion. And that got us to the situation we're in today

Bull. There was a resistance movement in Iraq that was promised support by the U.S. and never received it. U.S. tanks were only a few hours from Baghdad, Schwarzkopf wanted to roll them in. He was not allowed to.

Popular opinion did play a role though: if the U.S. regime installed a government there at the time there would not even have been a pretext of legitimacy. The U.S. needed a bogeyman there, so they waited until Saddam could aquire W.M.D. to justify a pre-emptive strike, which we're seeing now.

The problem is, W.M.D.'s or not, Iraq is not an imminent threat to the U.S. Even if they were, Sept. 11 proved that you don't need W.M.D. to hold a populace in the grip of terror.

If the former Dixie Chicks fans rememebered this, perhaps they would not be so pro-war.

3) Dubya wasn't actually elected president

OK, ya got me on that one. That was bull.

4) Bin Laden was trained by the CIA.

True, but the non-sequitur argument applies. so what are we at 2-2? OK what's the deciding point:

5) Sept. 11 means something totally different to Chileans.

This was a comment about U.S. foreign policy leading to death and destruction. Sept. 11, 1973 was when U.S.-backed Augusto Pinochet overthrew democratically elected socialist president Allende. This vicious ******* caused the deaths and torture of thousands, BUT he was U.S. friendly.

The point here is of the effect of U.S. foreign policy on other nations and people's lives.

The Bush said that the Sept. 11 attacks were because people were jealous of the American way of life. This is utter B.S., it was a response to U.S. foreign policy, and if the former Dixie Chicks fans remember the effects of U.S. foreign policy, and saw sept. 11 in that light, perhaps they would not be so pro-war.

ok, so 3-2, I win. :)

One more point, being against the war is NOT equivalent to being against the troops. Fer chrissakes, if the troops stayed home, they wouldn't be in danger of being hit by Saddam's scuds, would they?

[jj]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Oh puuleeese!!!!!! For every "conservatively" slanted item there is AT LEAST and equal and opposite "liberally" slanted item - I mean do the peace marchers and the latest Hollywood bleeding heart get gobs of coverage or what?

Media are not objective - this much is a given - which way the slant goes is most often a function of the nature of the subject matter coupled w/ the specific medium.

Barkhorn. [/B]

Bullpucky. Look at the conservative attack on Mr. Bill. "Leaks", persecution through false colour of law, continued for 6 years.

Do we see any investigation of Shrub's possible ties to Enron?

None.

The hypocracy and dishonestly of the so-called conservative is appalling and repugnant, and their control of the media likewise. The last presidential campaign was right out of Goebbels.

[patnray]

Media bias (either way) is a myth. Most of the media is controlled by large, conservative corporations...

But their goal is maximizing profits, not promotiong any particular political view point. Thus they report what they think people want to hear and see.

I remember the beginning of the Viet Nam war. The reporting was pro-government and most of the country supported the government. The few who publicly opposed US involvement in the war were portrayed as kooks or anti-american. As the war dragged on and casualties mounted, public opinion changed. Only then did the media show the opposition in a more positive light. And only then did the media start to question the false, rosey picture being painted by the pentagon.

Americans supported the first war with Iraq and the media reported, without question, every story planted by the military because that is what the public wanted to hear.

And so it is today. Opposition to this war has grown much faster than to the Viet Nam war, but the public still mostly supports the war, so the media does not dig very deeply. Thus it was UN inspectors, not the US media, that disclosed the forged documents. The press would have been all over that by the end of the Viet Nam war. But that story doesn't sell very well today. Indeed, the UN inspector's frequent complaints about the faulty, outdated, unreliable intelligence supplied by the US is basically a non-story because the media believe the public does not want to hear it...

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by jj


The hypocracy and dishonestly of the so-called conservative is appalling and repugnant, and their control of the media likewise. The last presidential campaign was right out of Goebbels.

Extremist much??!!:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by patnray
Media bias (either way) is a myth. Most of the media is controlled by large, conservative corporations...

But their goal is maximizing profits, not promotiong any particular political view point. Thus they report what they think people want to hear and see.

And so it is today. Opposition to this war has grown much faster than to the Viet Nam war, but the public still mostly supports the war, so the media does not dig very deeply.


Did you look at the links I provided??

If you think that the protesters haven't gotten gobs of coverage then you are just not paying attention.

I'll state it again - which way the slant goes is most often a function of the nature of the subject matter coupled w/ the specific medium.

Barkhorn.

[pgwenthold]

In an update, USA Today is reporting that protestors have smashed Dixie Chix CDs.

To which I'm sure the Chix are saying, hey go ahead. Go out and buy our CDs and smash them all to pieces if you want.

Now a _real_ protest would be to download their CDs from Napster and _then_ smash them. Would be a lot more meaningful.

Of course, this whole thread reminds me of a comment I heard by Mike Farrell more than 10 years ago: If a celebrity comes out in support of the president, everyone says 'Oh what a great American.' But if they criticize the president, then everyone is up in arms about how celebrities shouldn't be political.

This was back in my much more conservative days, but it really stuck with me how much truth their is to it. And I consider it even more general: if you agree with the president, then you are considered a good American, but if you disagree with the president, you are a bad American ("Love it or leave it.")

As I've aged, I've realized that disagreement with the government is not only ok for an American, it is the right and duty of all citizens to consider the actions of the government and to disagree if that is the way you feel. The right to disagree with the government and to express that disagreement is what America is all about.

[patnray]

All aspects of the issue have gotten gobs of coverage. The mainstream media goes mainly whatever way the wind is blowing. There are niche media outlets catering to particular viewpoints, but even those are reacting to what their audience wants to hear...

[jj]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Extremist much??!!:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

Have any evidence to refute what I said? Go down the page a bit and read the evidence. Oh, wait, then you'd have to back up your absurd accusation.

NO, you don't. You simply call names when you don't like what somebody else says.

I'm a moderate. If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that.

Instead, you went ahead with the "big lie".

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by jj


Have any evidence to refute what I said? Go down the page a bit and read the evidence. Oh, wait, then you'd have to back up your absurd accusation.

NO, you don't. You simply call names when you don't like what somebody else says.

I'm a moderate. If you bothered to do any research, you'd know that.

Instead, you went ahead with the "big lie".

Err...sorry guy but "right out of Goebbels" IS an extreme opinion. And YOUR "refutation" falls far short of high marks in either content or coherence.

And why should I bother to do research on you? What has that got to do w/ anything? Self described moderate huh? You sure don't post like one. :eek:

Barkhorn.

[RandFan]

Segnosaur
3) Bush was elected president, by the voting rules of the U.S. Recounts in Florida show that Bush would have won the state anyways. Gore has said Bush is the president ...

Regnad Kcin
I'm sorry, but this is an erroneous statement. If need be, we can discuss this in a different thread. I'm sorry, been there, done that...to death! If you feel compelled to discuss it then by all means do so. Before you do, you might want to read the excellent arguments and links by Nova Land who is on your side and my gaffs including my mediocre but perhaps adequate rebuttals along with all of the other posters before you launch yet another thread on whether Bush "won" the election.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9520

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13618

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8194

FWIW there is a brand new book out making the argument that if anything there is a right slanted bias if any bias in the media at all.

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465001769/qid=1048033946/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-7365037-5912606)

To all of those who are involved with the ongoing debate please order it along with Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060520841/qid=1048033946/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-7365037-5912606). Personally I have little doubt that there is a left "slanted" media bias (I don't buy conspiracy theories). In any event, read the book and we will take up the matter again. FWIW, I am starting to agree with the many who have hammered away at Colton's book and feel there little substance to it (though there is some).

As to the topic at hand. I don't see how the backlash against the Dixie Chicks has anything to do with Conservative arrogance.

If Martin Sheen has a right to speak out against the President of the United States then it stands to reason that the American people (even arrogant conservatives...oh my) have a right to speak out against the Dixie Chicks.

As a free speech advocate I am against formal boycotts even though they are a protected form of speech. But if people speak out against or choose not to listen to the DC that is all right with me. Personally I like their music and have no plans of crushing my CD's.

I think it in poor taste to go to another country and bad mouth America but I would defend their right to do so. However, I would advise anyone who makes a living selling music to a conservative audience that actions have consequences. If you are prepared to live with those consequences then more power to you. If not, keep your mouth shut. Freedom of speech does not translate into freedom from consequences of that speech.

[Mike B.]

Kourama,

What specific foreign policy aspect of the US did Bin Laden object to?

He is quite specific about it.

Hint: Nothing to do with Pinochet or Kyoto Protocols...

He did not like the fact that "crusader" and "kafir" women were in western armies guarding the holy land "where the prophet received the revelation from Allah."

Is that a justifiable grievance? In order to stop this should we all convert to Islam before we go to the middle east. I mean this is nothing more that Islamo-facism.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
The last presidential campaign was right out of Goebbels.

Which makes it abundantly clear to anyone reading this thread that you have no understanding of Goebbels or his political/propaganda machine (other than it was bad).

Originally posted by jj


The last presidential campaign was right out of Goebbels.

Mind expanding on this? I'm no expert on Goebbels and really want to know what you mean here.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by sundog


Mind expanding on this? I'm no expert on Goebbels and really want to know what you mean here.

I must have a burr up my ass, because this it probably what I should have posted (though I am a WWII ETO aficionado)... :)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm sorry, been there, done that...to death! If you feel compelled to discuss [the outcome of the 2000 presidential election] then by all means do so. Before you do, you might want to read the excellent arguments and links by Nova Land who is on your side and my gaffs including my mediocre but perhaps adequate rebuttals along with all of the other posters before you launch yet another thread on whether Bush "won" the election.What in the world brought that on? Your post seems strangely hostile. I was taking issue with an assertion of Snegosaur's; he stated something as true and I begged to differ. Now if anyone chooses to start one thread or one-thousand on any particular subject you are certainly free to participate. Or not. FWIW, I agree that the incident -- in toto -- has been discussed everywhere (not just in this forum) and at length. It's my resultant feeling that regardless of what anybody might say, minds were made up since day one. Watching everybody but Bush and Gore deal with the Florida recount in real time was a fascinating study in human behavior. Don't get between a dog and his supper dish indeed.

I'm no raving fan of Mr. Gore's (though the treatment he received at the hands of the media and punditocracy was outlandish); frankly, I might've rather seen Sen. McCain go all the way. No, at the heart of my discomfort was/is the stridency of the right and their scorched-earth battle tactics -- unnecessary if one's positions and arguments are clear and thoughtful. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but play fair. (I know, I know - dream on.) FWIW there is a brand new book out making the argument that if anything there is a right slanted bias if any bias in the media at all. What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465001769/qid=1048033946/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-7365037-5912606) Interesting you should mention this, as I've just finished the title. Much of what the author posits I've seen elsewhere, though that makes the thesis no less rational. Anyway, perhaps you yourself should give it a look as your statement:Personally I have little doubt that there is a left "slanted" media bias (I don't buy conspiracy theories).is quite revealing.FWIW, I am starting to agree with the many who have hammered away at Colton's book and feel there little substance to it (though there is some).Colton? Who is this?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by RandFan
FWIW there is a brand new book out making the argument that if anything there is a right slanted bias if any bias in the media at all.

What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465001769/qid=1048033946/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-7365037-5912606)
.

The author of this book recently appeared on The Daily Show. (For a 'comedy' show, they sometimes do a very good job of getting some interesting guests on.)

His analysis: Prior to the 70s, there definitely was a left-wing bias in the media. However, because news reporters were worried about appearing biased, they 'bend over backwards' to give the right-wing side appropriate coverage. So, things are fairly well balanced.

My opinion? There are left-biased and right-biased news sources. And although news sources are often owned by large (conservative) organisations, they tend to be staffed by journalists who have left-bias from their days in college. All in all, things are balanced.