Gene Simons on the War in Iraq [Archive]

Tony

11th April 2003, 02:25 AM

http://www.genesimmons.com/

Woke up this morning to the site of Saddam Hussein's head, torn from its metallic statue base, in downtown Baghdad, being ridden by Iraqi's!!! I saw Iraqi's running through the streets waving American flags.

I also watched with interest how the UN was insisting it had to play the major role in rebuilding Iraq.

And, of course, the French/Chirac led government and, I might add the German government (who only last week on CNN strongly urged that Hussein be removed -- without so much as lifting a finger to do anything about it), insisted that they be allowed to be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.

In jail, bending over for the soap is not a good idea. In life, the words SUCK MY BALLS in response, might be appropriate in this instance.

Further, I would like to add my condolences to all the American and British and yes, the Iraqi families that lost loved ones in this struggle...while the American media (the New York Times, the Washington Post and other "respected" newspapers) routinely trounced the war effort.

My heart goes out to people who suffer. And, although "Might makes Right" does not necessarily follow, in this case it does. Better the good guys be Mighty, than the bad guys.

As for being a Liberal. I am!!! I believe in equality -- for everyone. I believe prejudice is the bane of mankind's existence.

The whole world would have become a Communist World, if American didn't stand up to Russia...don't kid yourself.

And, I believe if you don't have the guts to stand up to injustice, where ever it exists (and that means stopping the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians in WW I and WW II...or the Albanian Serbs in Bosnia...or the tragedies that keep on occurring in Africa...or even the Viet Nam War....Panama...North Korea...the list goes on and on)...

One thing in common with all these events: AMERICA.

America didn't stay and "conquer" ANY OF THESE COUNTRIES.

And, the UN??? It's a sham. It can't even decide what to do about UNANIMOUSLY VOTING THAT HUSSEIN be punished.

Me??? I'm ashamed to be surrounded by people calling themselves Liberal who are, in my opinion, spitting on the graves of brave American soldiers who gave their life to fight a war that wasn't theirs...in a country they've never been to...simply to liberate the people therein.

iain

11th April 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.genesimmons.com/

Nice article, but I would disagree with a few things.

And, I believe if you don't have the guts to stand up to injustice, where ever it exists (and that means stopping the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians in WW I and WW II...or the Albanian Serbs in Bosnia...or the tragedies that keep on occurring in Africa...or even the Viet Nam War....Panama...North Korea...the list goes on and on)...No disrespect to America, but to say that it "stood up to injustice" in Japan, Germany and Italy in WWII is stretching things to breaking point. Despite knowing what was happening in these countries America only became involved in the war when it was itself attacked.

And, of course, the French/Chirac led government and, I might add the German government (who only last week on CNN strongly urged that Hussein be removed -- without so much as lifting a finger to do anything about it), insisted that they be allowed to be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.The US gave the world two options : fight the war on the terms of the US or not at all. France, Germany and the UN were not opposed to war against Iraq but they were opposed to war at this time and in this way (and time will tell who was right).

Me??? I'm ashamed to be surrounded by people calling themselves Liberal who are, in my opinion, spitting on the graves of brave American soldiers who gave their life to fight a war that wasn't theirs...in a country they've never been to...simply to liberate the people therein.Another example of how the reason for war has changed from one of self-defence to one of liberation. It is entirely untrue to state that the war was fought "simply to liberate the people therein".

BillyTK

11th April 2003, 03:00 AM

This from a guy who's famous for having a long tongue and writing some mediocre soft rock hits in the 70s and 80s? :eek:

Has anyone sought Justin Timberlake's opinion on the situation?

iain

11th April 2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
This from a guy who's famous for having a long tongue and writing some mediocre soft rock hits in the 70s and 80s? :eek:

Has anyone sought Justin Timberlake's opinion on the situation? I wouldn't dream of asking Justin Timberlake's opinion : Britney is my political muse.

egslim

11th April 2003, 03:13 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, I believe if you don't have the guts to stand up to injustice, where ever it exists (and that means stopping the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians in WW I and WW II...or the Albanian Serbs in Bosnia...or the tragedies that keep on occurring in Africa...or even the Viet Nam War....Panama...North Korea...the list goes on and on)...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No disrespect to America, but to say that it "stood up to injustice" in Japan, Germany and Italy in WWII is stretching things to breaking point. Despite knowing what was happening in these countries America only became involved in the war when it was itself attacked.

It was Brittan who really stood up against Hitler. They declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland. After the fall of France Hitler wanted peace with Brittain, but the Brittish declined.
Hitler attacked the SU, so they had no choice but to fight.
In the US popular opinion opposed war, after Pearl Harbor the people still didn't care much for the European theatre. Fortunately Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, the French/Chirac led government and, I might add the German government (who only last week on CNN strongly urged that Hussein be removed -- without so much as lifting a finger to do anything about it), insisted that they be allowed to be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US gave the world two options : fight the war on the terms of the US or not at all. France, Germany and the UN were not opposed to war against Iraq but they were opposed to war at this time and in this way (and time will tell who was right).

It was rather arrogant of certain countries to tell the Coalition what to do, without having to share the burden of doing so. I feel it would only have been appropriate to have some 200,000 European troops in the region as well.

a_unique_person

11th April 2003, 03:56 AM

I have to agree, Britney put it better.

Mel

11th April 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by iain
Nice article, but I would disagree with a few things.

No disrespect to America, but to say that it "stood up to injustice" in Japan, Germany and Italy in WWII is stretching things to breaking point. Despite knowing what was happening in these countries America only became involved in the war when it was itself attacked.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We're just always wrong, aren't we?

The US gave the world two options : fight the war on the terms of the US or not at all. France, Germany and the UN were not opposed to war against Iraq but they were opposed to war at this time and in this way (and time will tell who was right).

I agree. Bush's lack of diplomatic skills made it VERY, VERY EASY for countries like France to take the easy way out.

I'm sure the Brits were (and are) equally as disgusted by Bush's way of 'making his case' for war as the French. To their credit, the Brits were able to focus on the real goal (Iraq) and avoid the temptation to behave AS stupidly as Bush.

[/B][/QUOTE]

iain

11th April 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Mel
[B] Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We're just always wrong, aren't we? [b]That certainly wasn't what I was trying to say. The role the US played in the Second World War was critical and, quite rightly, Europe has a debt of gratitude to the US. Far more US soldiers than British soldiers died in WWII and without the US it seems almost certain that Hitler would have won.

My objection was to the specific claim that the US's involvement in WWII was an example of the US standing up against injustice; a claim which I don't believe is supported by the facts.

Mike B.

11th April 2003, 04:31 AM

Mel

11th April 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by iain
That certainly wasn't what I was trying to say. The role the US played in the Second World War was critical and, quite rightly, Europe has a debt of gratitude to the US. Far more US soldiers than British soldiers died in WWII and without the US it seems almost certain that Hitler would have won.

My objection was to the specific claim that the US's involvement in WWII was an example of the US standing up against injustice; a claim which I don't believe is supported by the facts.

Thanks for clearing that up, iain. I wasn't referring to YOU specifically, I'm speaking in generalities.

It seems that even when the US does get credit for doing what's right, we are accused of waiting too long or rushing in too quickly.

When we move to help one country, we are accused of NOT helping 10 others that are in need..... as if that in itself is proof of something negative.

I think my mind is also reeling at what is going on in Iraq since Baghdad fell. This widespread looting and chaos is a very dangerous thing.

IF the coalition does NOT take control and start to police the cities, the Arab world will use THIS as more juicy propaganda against the infidels.

IF the coalition DOES take control.... the Arab world will use this as proof the infidels mean to occupy and control the country for the long term.

If all the democracies of the world were unwilling (very vocally in the case of France) to stand together as a unified voice against the propaganda of Muslim terrorists.... isn't fighting for democracy really a waste of time in the long run?

NullPointerException

11th April 2003, 05:29 AM

This isn't about money, and I for one don't want to be involved in the middle east still when I'm 40. Bringing in other countries removes the imperialist guarding his kill idea from arabs and takes a load off the U.S. and Britian. To fudge them all the same we just make sure none of them touch Iraq's Oil or try and collect leins. That would be the best and most humbling solution.

Mercutio

11th April 2003, 05:39 AM

Iain said:"The US gave the world two options : fight the war on the terms of the US or not at all. France, Germany and the UN were not opposed to war against Iraq but they were opposed to war at this time and in this way (and time will tell who was right)."

well, yes and no...time will tell whether Bush's option worked (and we are left with no option but hoping that his option works), but we can never know whether waiting another month or two would have resulted in more deaths or fewer. We will, if all goes well, hear people saying "see, Bush was right and the anti-war people were wrong." Properly, however, even if he is right (defined by whom?), we cannot know if the doves were wrong. It is the war equivalent of a study with no control group.

iain

11th April 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
Iain said:"The US gave the world two options : fight the war on the terms of the US or not at all. France, Germany and the UN were not opposed to war against Iraq but they were opposed to war at this time and in this way (and time will tell who was right)."

well, yes and no...time will tell whether Bush's option worked (and we are left with no option but hoping that his option works), but we can never know whether waiting another month or two would have resulted in more deaths or fewer. We will, if all goes well, hear people saying "see, Bush was right and the anti-war people were wrong." Properly, however, even if he is right (defined by whom?), we cannot know if the doves were wrong. It is the war equivalent of a study with no control group. Good point. There will, as usual, always be room for people to argue reasonably from all viewpoints. Even if Iraq ends up in chaos, we'll never really know if waiting a few months and building a broader coalition would have been better, worse or made no difference.

Suspected Idiot

11th April 2003, 06:21 AM

(and that means stopping the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians in WW I and WW II...

Hate to break it to you Gene, but the Japanese and Italians were US allies in WW1.

Also, all the figures that i can find state that the British suffered more military casualities in WW2 than the US, although by the end of the war the US had a far larger number of men mobilized.

Tricky

11th April 2003, 06:43 AM

Let's see if I've got this straight:

Left-leaning celebrities making uneducated comments on the war is bad.

Right-leaning celebrities making uneducated comments on the war is good.:rolleyes:

LeFevre

11th April 2003, 07:33 AM

Denise

11th April 2003, 08:02 AM

I don't think he's a nitwit by any means. I may not agree with everything he says, but I really think he might have actually thought out all the arguments pro and con.

While Gene completely surrounded himself with American culture, he never wasted his chance for
education, and in 1970 he graduated from Richmond College with a degree in education and four languages- English, German, Hungarian and Hebrew.

From this website http://www.kissinuk.com/bio/gene.htm

corplinx

11th April 2003, 08:44 AM

Ozzy Ozbourne also released a statement in support of the war. Its assumed to support it even though its mostly grunts and guttural noises.

pgwenthold

11th April 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by corplinx
Ozzy Ozbourne also released a statement in support of the war. Its assumed to support it even though its mostly grunts and guttural noises.

Just ran across a couple of interesting quotes:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do
is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country."
--Hermann Goering

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt

Selected quotes, of course, and unverified.

DrBenway

11th April 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
--Hermann Goering

I move that henceforward, anyone who repeats that tired old Goering war quote be subject to five slaps with a cold halibut.

Is there a second for my motion?

Tony

11th April 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

Is there a second for my motion?

http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/yes.gif http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/yes.gif http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/yes.gif http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/yes.gif http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/images/smilies/yes.gif

pgwenthold

11th April 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

I move that henceforward, anyone who repeats that tired old Goering war quote be subject to five slaps with a cold halibut.

Is there a second for my motion?

I'm sure shooting the messanger is a lot easier than thinking about the message.

Tony

11th April 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

I'm sure shooting the messanger is a lot easier than thinking about the message.

It was already discussed in this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16084&highlight=nazis+are+smarter) thread.

Roadtoad

11th April 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

I move that henceforward, anyone who repeats that tired old Goering war quote be subject to five slaps with a cold halibut.

Is there a second for my motion?

I'll even give you a third...!:D :cool: :cool: :cool:

Mel

11th April 2003, 10:47 AM

Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions, I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

If a celebrity is elected to any political office, these rights can just be reinstated.

a_unique_person

12th April 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

I move that henceforward, anyone who repeats that tired old Goering war quote be subject to five slaps with a cold halibut.

Is there a second for my motion?

Tired and old? It seems to have just been served up fresh and hot.

Shane Costello

12th April 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway:
I move that henceforward, anyone who repeats that tired old Goering war quote be subject to five slaps with a cold halibut.

Is there a second for my motion?

Fourthed, because Goering was a cocaine fuelled buffoon who qualifies as one of history's least insightful individuals.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Mel
Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions, I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

Is there anyone on this board who has argued against anyone else's "right to free speech"? :confused:

For those who seem to have trouble remembering, freedom of expression is not accompanied by immunity from criticism. :rolleyes:

DrBenway

12th April 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'll even give you a third...!:D :cool: :cool: :cool:
Motion carried. I'll keep five halibuts in the freezer for the next occasion. The halibut slap team can be formed ad hoc.

Mel

12th April 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Is there anyone on this board who has argued against anyone else's "right to free speech"? :confused:

For those who seem to have trouble remembering, freedom of expression is not accompanied by immunity from criticism. :rolleyes:

I have no problem with criticizing what any person or group says or does.

My 'concern' is the propensity of people to make light of a celebrity's right to free speech that any other group would expect.

Firstly, it is wrong to assume ALL celebrity's are uneducated &/or stupid. Celebrities are just regular citizens that happen to be famous for one thing or another.

That said, do only educated people have the right to speak out without being summarily dismissed as unworthy of an opinion?

Secondly, the ONLY people that are NOT "uneducated" on any given subject are the people that are privvy to ALL the facts. IMO, that leaves out the vast majority of the general public.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Is there anyone on this board who has argued against anyone else's "right to free speech"? :confused:

For those who seem to have trouble remembering, freedom of expression is not accompanied by immunity from criticism. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mel
I have no problem with criticizing what any person or group says or does.

My 'concern' is the propensity of people to make light of a celebrity's right to free speech that any other group would expect.

Again, I must ask, who has said anything negative about their right to free speech??? Unless you can answer that question, you seem to be stuck in a pattern of mistaking criticism of the content of speech with an challenging the right to speak.

Firstly, it is wrong to assume ALL celebrity's are uneducated &/or stupid. Celebrities are just regular citizens that happen to be famous for one thing or another.

What does this have to do with what I posted?

That said, do only educated people have the right to speak out without being summarily dismissed as unworthy of an opinion?

I don't see how anyone has that particular "right". No matter how educated, if someone has the right to speak out, anyone else also has the right to dismiss them as "unworthy of an opinion". The latter is just another form of freedom of expression.

Mel

12th April 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Again, I must ask, who has said anything negative about their right to free speech??? Unless you can answer that question, you seem to be stuck in a pattern of mistaking criticism of the content of speech with an challenging the right to speak.

What does this have to do with what I posted?

I don't see how anyone has that particular "right". No matter how educated, if someone has the right to speak out, anyone else also has the right to dismiss them as "unworthy of an opinion". The latter is just another form of freedom of expression.

I'm not going to reread every post (at this board and others) on this subject merely to provide names of posters that zeroed in on the "celebrity label."

The ONLY point I was trying to make is that a celebrity is a citizen and just as I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing comments such as "doctors should take care of patients and NOT have political opinions," I do not feel comfortable making sweeping generalizations about celebrities.

There are very few people in any given society that are formally educated in politics.

fidiot

12th April 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Let's see if I've got this straight:

Left-leaning celebrities making uneducated comments on the war is bad.

Right-leaning celebrities making uneducated comments on the war is good.:rolleyes:

That's right. I don't see people like JK or rikzilla telling everyone that Gene Simmons is an uneducated celebrity and should keep his opinions to himself, and I wonder why? Hawks are all over celebrities who voice anti-war opinions, so is this a double standard?

WMT1

12th April 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Mel
I'm not going to reread every post (at this board and others) on this subject merely to provide names of posters that zeroed in on the "celebrity label."

I didn't ask you to. I asked for one example of a poster who was challenging celebrities' right to free speech, which is what you brought up, remember?

The ONLY point I was trying to make is that a celebrity is a citizen and just as I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing comments such as "doctors should take care of patients and NOT have political opinions," I do not feel comfortable making sweeping generalizations about celebrities.

But for some reason you seem to have no trouble making sweeping generalizations about those who criticize them. Who, for instance, has said that doctors (or anyone else) should not have political opinions?

There are very few people in any given society that are formally educated in politics.

You said something like this before. I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with anything I posted.

Mel

12th April 2003, 12:06 PM

WMT1

12th April 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
I didn't ask you to. I asked for one example of a poster who was challenging celebrities' right to free speech, which is what you brought up, remember?

And I clearly said, that here and at other boards, many people's reactions lean towards, 'let celebrities stick to entertaining people and NOT force their personal opinions on other people.'

For some reason, you seem to have a problem focusing on what is actually being asked about. What you also said were some things that seemed to be a response to challenges to their right to free speech, which is what prompted my initial response to you in the first place. Are you ever going to comment clearly, one way or the other, on whether you think anyone has done that?

And I clearly said, I have no reason to hunt down old posts merely to offer you even one name. If you wish to think or even say, I pulled this out of the blue, I have no problem with that.

That's nice, but what you have not "clearly said", one way or the other, is whether you believe anyone has challenged the right to free speech. Because if someone has, I'd kinda like to know who they are too, so I can join you in criticizing them.

But for some reason you seem to have no trouble making sweeping generalizations about those who criticize them. Who, for instance, has said that doctors (or anyone else) should not have political opinions?

Uh oh. I'M the one that used doctors as an example. ("One less opinion I have to 'prove' to WMT1," she wearily replied.)

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you do seem pretty reluctant to back up your statements with much of anything. More than once now you've used quoted statements to characterize the views that trouble you, but you seem unable to actually identify anyone to attribute those quotes to.

Well with all due respect...... none of this really has to do with what YOU said, it really seems to be a tiring game of semantics, isn't it?

No. It's a tiring game of you refusing to be pinned down on something you brought up in the first place - whether anyone has actually challenged the right to free speech.

I offered an opinion about celebrities verbalizing their political beliefs and the way society reacts to that.

You did more than that. You suggested that someone has challenged the right to free speech. Just to remind you ...

Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions, I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

[emphasis mine]

... and ...

My 'concern' is the propensity of people to make light of a celebrity's right to free speech that any other group would expect.

This is the point which prompted my response, and on which I can't seem to get a clarification from you.

We both agree that it is fine to criticize ANY PERSON that opens his/her mouth.

We do not seem to agree that it is NOT fine to use a person's profession (or lack of) as a reason to automatically dismiss their opinion as being less valid than another group.

Just depends on what you mean by "fine". If all you're saying is that this attitude warrants some criticism, then we're in agreement here too. So, what is is you think we disagree on exactly?

In this specific thread.... a person can say Gene Simmons is an idiot OR a genius...... his PROFESSION is besides the point.

Agreed, but I was asking about your comments making reference to the right to free speech. Is there some reason you don't want to specifically address that point?

Tricky

12th April 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
I didn't ask you to. I asked for one example of a poster who was challenging celebrities' right to free speech, which is what you brought up, remember?
Good old Jedi can allways be counted on to provide an example in a case like this.

he said (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16165&perpage=40&highlight=protestors&pagenumber=1)
Originally posted by Jedi Knight:
Everyone who protests the war in Iraq in America on the streets of our cities (especially the Saddomonites in San Francisco), is an ally of Iraq purposely and provides Iraq aid and comfort as US troops fight for their lives to free the Iraqi people.

Something may need to be done about the severe subversion in this country. I don't really know what the remedy should be, but something needs to be done. Maybe a mandatory 1 year in prison would do the trick.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Good old Jedi can allways be counted on to provide an example in a case like this.

Example acknowledged.

Is JK all you were talking about, Mel, or have you run across someone expressing similar views, but who is in danger of being taken seriously?

Tricky

12th April 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Example acknowledged.

Is JK all you were talking about, Mel, or have you run across someone expressing similar views, but who is in danger of being taken seriously?
Uh oh. Are you going to break the news to JK that even people to the right of center don't take him seriously? He will be crushed.:D

Edited to say:
But I don't think you are in danger of being disproven if you say that both the left and right have been guilty of making strawmen and blaming anything bad on the other side. (I was unaware that smoking in restaurants was a liberal vs. conservative issue? I thought is was smoker vs. nonsmoker). I think it would be a good idea if all of us, including myself, made a conscious effort to address only what people here have said, and not what we "think" they think.

Tricky

12th April 2003, 06:55 PM

Oops. Just found another one. Tony apparently advocates killing protestors, as he indicates on the Evil Americans shoot bullets at protestors (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=412830&highlight=real+bullets#post412830) thread. Perhaps he was making a joke, but there is a notable absence of smilies.

Bjorn

12th April 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Oops. Just found another one. Tony apparently advocates killing protestors, as he indicates on the Evil Americans shoot bullets at protestors (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=412830&highlight=real+bullets#post412830) thread. Perhaps he was making a joke, but there is a notable absence of smilies. Crackmonkey, same thread:

Next time they should use napalm. :(

Mel

13th April 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Example acknowledged.

Is JK all you were talking about, Mel, or have you run across someone expressing similar views, but who is in danger of being taken seriously?

As I've said time and again..... I don't make a list of users that have said things that I disagree with.... I'm more interested in discussing the ideas than any particualr person specifically.

As I've said time & again.... these were things I came across at JREF and at Tvtalkshows. I've heard people expressing this 'opinion' on radio talk shows.

IMO, it's a knee jerk reaction to focus on the label "celebrity" and no I don't take comments like these "seriously" at all. First, I would have to believe that people actually BELIEVED that celebrities have no right to speak out. When people use labels in this fashion it is too insignifigant to be taken seriously and that is why I made my original tongue in cheek post. It was not aimed at ANY one (or more) person in particular.

Quotes self:

Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions, I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

If a celebrity is elected to any political office, these rights can just be reinstated.

hammegk

13th April 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by iain

My objection was to the specific claim that the US's involvement in WWII was an example of the US standing up against injustice; a claim which I don't believe is supported by the facts.

Well, we could have joined Germany, huh? That's a fact.

WMT1

13th April 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Is JK all you were talking about, Mel, or have you run across someone expressing similar views, but who is in danger of being taken seriously?

Originally posted by Mel
As I've said time and again..... I don't make a list of users that have said things that I disagree with.... I'm more interested in discussing the ideas than any particualr person specifically.

Very good. (clapping hands)

Now you've made it clear that you can repeat yourself. Unfortunately, what you keep failing to do, time and time again, is answer direct questions in a straightforward manner. In this case, it is relevant to know whether anyone in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech - something you brought up. It's a simple question. Are there others or not? Because if there are not, you seem to want to be discussing at least one idea which is not in serious dispute - the right to free speech. Just think how much this increasingly tedious discussion could be streamlined if you would just address that one, simple point.

As I've said time & again.... these were things I came across at JREF and at Tvtalkshows. I've heard people expressing this 'opinion' on radio talk shows.

And what you keep avoiding, time and time again, is clarifying whether disputing the right to free speech is among the things you've run across in this forum. Since you're the one who brought it up, is there some reason you can't address that simple point?

IMO, it's a knee jerk reaction to focus on the label "celebrity" and no I don't take comments like these "seriously" at all.

That wasn't what I asked. Please read my question again. :rolleyes:

First, I would have to believe that people actually BELIEVED that celebrities have no right to speak out. When people use labels in this fashion it is too insignifigant to be taken seriously and that is why I made my original tongue in cheek post. It was not aimed at ANY one (or more) person in particular.

Does that mean you acknowledge that no one in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech?

(A simple, straightforward "yes", in response to this one question, will go a lot further toward ending this madness than simply repeating the stuff you've already repeated, or answering something other than what was actually asked.)

WMT1

13th April 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Is JK all you were talking about, Mel, or have you run across someone expressing similar views, but who is in danger of being taken seriously?

Originally posted by Tricky
Uh oh. Are you going to break the news to JK that even people to the right of center don't take him seriously?

Where the hell did you get the idea I'm to the right of center? :confused:

But I don't think you are in danger of being disproven if you say that both the left and right have been guilty of making strawmen and blaming anything bad on the other side. (I was unaware that smoking in restaurants was a liberal vs. conservative issue? I thought is was smoker vs. nonsmoker).

I've read the above comments several times, and I'm at a loss. Are they supposed to be in response to something I've said? You included them in a post right after quoting statements of mine, but I'm pretty sure I've made no mention of strawmen, blaming anything on "the other side", or liberal vs. conservative.

I think it would be a good idea if all of us, including myself, made a conscious effort to address only what people here have said, and not what we "think" they think.

Then you're not getting off to a very good start.

Tricky

13th April 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Where the hell did you get the idea I'm to the right of center? :confused:
Well, you're from Texas aren't you? ;)

But I can see I was mistaken. I haven't followed your postings enough to catagorize you, and for that I apologize. I assumed (wrongly) that since you seemed to be defending right-of-center posters who criticized outspoken celebrities, that you were among them. (the criticizers, not the celebrities;))

Originally posted by WMT1
I've read the above comments several times, and I'm at a loss. Are they supposed to be in response to something I've said? You included them in a post right after quoting statements of mine, but I'm pretty sure I've made no mention of strawmen, blaming anything on "the other side", or liberal vs. conservative.
No, it is not because you were mentioning strawmen (or even making them). This was in response to your plea not to make strawmen (i.e. portraying your opponant as being against free speech) and I was agreeing that this is unfortunately a common tactic of people with views all across the political spectrum. (Another thread portrayed anti-smokers as liberal). I actually was trying to say thanks for bringing up the point and that I was glad to see that some right-of-center people agreed with me. Oops.

Originally posted by WMT1
Then you're not getting off to a very good start.
I'll try to do better.
---
edited for attrowshus spelling

WMT1

13th April 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
No, it is not because you were mentioning strawmen (or even making them). This was in response to your plea not to make strawmen (i.e. portraying your opponant as being against free speech) and I was agreeing that this is unfortunately a common tactic of people with views all across the political spectrum. (Another thread portrayed anti-smokers as liberal). I actually was trying to say thanks for bringing up the point and that I was glad to see that some right-of-center people agreed with me. Oops.

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I overreacted a bit. :D

Mel

13th April 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Very good. (clapping hands)

Now you've made it clear that you can repeat yourself. Unfortunately, what you keep failing to do, time and time again, is answer direct questions in a straightforward manner. In this case, it is relevant to know whether anyone in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech - something you brought up. It's a simple question. Are there others or not? Because if there are not, you seem to want to be discussing at least one idea which is not in serious dispute - the right to free speech. Just think how much this increasingly tedious discussion could be streamlined if you would just address that one, simple point.

And what you keep avoiding, time and time again, is clarifying whether disputing the right to free speech is among the things you've run across in this forum. Since you're the one who brought it up, is there some reason you can't address that simple point?

That wasn't what I asked. Please read my question again. :rolleyes:

Does that mean you acknowledge that no one in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech?

(A simple, straightforward "yes", in response to this one question, will go a lot further toward ending this madness than simply repeating the stuff you've already repeated, or answering something other than what was actually asked.)

Unfortunately WMT1, it is YOU who seems to be ignoring what I first said and are intent on putting words into my mouth. It wasn't THAT long a post, I'm pretty surprised that it would have been THIS misunderstood.

I did NOT say that ANY specific or non-specific poster "challenged" anybody's rights to free speech.

I DID say, "Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions......" and in my mind there is a vast difference between these two statements.

Now, if after my original post you managed to (or got ME to) twist my words into something I didn't originally say, I'm going to blame that on the semantics game that you seem to enjoy.

WMT1

13th April 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Mel
Unfortunately WMT1, it is YOU who seems to be ignoring what I first said and are intent on putting words into my mouth.

Stop making excuses. I've done no such thing. Asking you to clarify your position is not the same as putting words in your mouth.

It wasn't THAT long a post, I'm pretty surprised that it would have been THIS misunderstood.

I'm pretty surprised that you are bending over backwards to spin your difficulty answering a simple question as someone else misunderstanding something.

Hell, you even repeated my question in your own damn post, and for some reason you still could not manage a simple, straightforward, yes/no response. Just to remind you, it was:

"Does that mean you acknowledge that no one in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech?"

I did NOT say that ANY specific or non-specific poster "challenged" anybody's rights to free speech.

Telling me what you did not say does not actually answer the question that's been put before you. So let's simplify things a bit:

True or false? - Mel is not aware of anyone in this forum (other than Jedi Knight) challenging anyone else's right to free speech.

I DID say, "Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions......" and in my mind there is a vast difference between these two statements.

Is there some reason you chose to omit the part I was actually asking about? Just to refresh your memory, here's the rest of your statement, the more relevant portion:

... I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

[emphasis mine]

And here's a subsequent statement you made, also relevant:

My 'concern' is the propensity of people to make light of a celebrity's right to free speech that any other group would expect.

The highlighted part of each is what I can't seem to get you to focus on, and answer a simple question about.

Now, if after my original post you managed to (or got ME to) twist my words into something I didn't originally say,

Sorry, but asking you to clarify your position does not equate to twisting your words any more than it equates to putting words in your mouth. Own up to your own problems. Your difficulty answering a simple question about your position is not someone else's fault.

I'm going to blame that on the semantics game that you seem to enjoy.

You've got to be kidding. With all the fancy footwork you're doing to avoid answering a simple, straightforward question about statements you've made, somehow I'm the one playing games? :rolleyes:

Mel

13th April 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

I'm pretty surprised that you are bending over backwards to spin your difficulty answering a simple question as someone else misunderstanding something.

Rather than use the word "difficulty," for the sake of accuracy, I believe refusal should be substituted.

Hell, you even repeated my question in your own damn post, and for some reason you still could not manage a simple, straightforward, yes/no response. Just to remind you, it was:

"Does that mean you acknowledge that no one in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech?"

I don't feel comfortable adding to this "list" of yours since I did not provide the one name (JK) you have already gathered by sources other than myself.

Telling me what you did not say does not actually answer the question that's been put before you. So let's simplify things a bit:

No, it doesn't. And I agree.... making it simple is sure to solve this problem. Hey! Maybe a question that questions what I actually DID say would be a better way to go?? (Just thinking out loud.)

True or false? - Mel is not aware of anyone in this forum (other than Jedi Knight) challenging anyone else's right to free speech.

I'd have to verify whether Jedi Knight actually said what you are now claiming he said. Unfortunately, I'm not interested enough in this "investigation" to even go that far.

Is there some reason you chose to omit the part I was actually asking about? Just to refresh your memory, here's the rest of your statement, the more relevant portion:

"... I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

Ok, ok..... you cornered me. I'M the one that actually made the off the cuff statement that, I (not any other person at the board) think the U.S. Government should strip celebrities of the right to free speech.

Jedi did NOT say, "I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

I'm the ONLY one that said, "I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

Well come to think of it.... since I've already stated that I'm NOT rereading everyone's posts..... it really is within the realm of possibilty that someone MIGHT HAVE said it.

Oh darn! Just when we were so close to resolving this matter. I really hate when that happens!

"You've got to be kidding. With all the fancy footwork you're doing to avoid answering a simple, straightforward question about statements you've made, somehow I'm the one playing games? :rolleyes:

Kidding? Me??!! Never! No way! No kidding.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
I'm pretty surprised that you are bending over backwards to spin your difficulty answering a simple question as someone else misunderstanding something.

Originally posted by Mel
Rather than use the word "difficulty," for the sake of accuracy, I believe refusal should be substituted.

Then perhaps the "don't-ask-me-to-clarify-my-position" forum might be more appropriate for you. This one is about skepticism.

Hell, you even repeated my question in your own damn post, and for some reason you still could not manage a simple, straightforward, yes/no response. Just to remind you, it was:

"Does that mean you acknowledge that no one in this forum (other than JK) has challenged the right to free speech?"

I don't feel comfortable adding to this "list" of yours since I did not provide the one name (JK) you have already gathered by sources other than myself.

I didn't ask you to make a "list" (I'm not sure why you put this word in quotes anyway, I sure didn't use it.). I specifically worded my question in such a way as to exclude JK from anything I was asking you to take a position on. If it helps, simply remove the reference to JK from the question, and see if that makes it easier for you to answer.

Hey! Maybe a question that questions what I actually DID say would be a better way to go?? (Just thinking out loud.)

What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what I did! Do you need for me to repeat your references to the "right to free speech" yet again? :rolleyes:

True or false? - Mel is not aware of anyone in this forum (other than Jedi Knight) challenging anyone else's right to free speech.

I'd have to verify whether Jedi Knight actually said what you are now claiming he said. Unfortunately, I'm not interested enough in this "investigation" to even go that far.

Not necessary. What I'm asking about does not call for you to take a position on JK at all. I specifically worded the question to make it clear I was asking if there was anyone else.

Is there some reason you chose to omit the part I was actually asking about? Just to refresh your memory, here's the rest of your statement, the more relevant portion:

"... I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

Ok, ok..... you cornered me. I'M the one that actually made the off the cuff statement that, I (not any other person at the board) think the U.S. Government should strip celebrities of the right to free speech.

Jedi did NOT say, "I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

I'm the ONLY one that said, "I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech."

Well come to think of it.... since I've already stated that I'm NOT rereading everyone's posts..... it really is within the realm of possibilty that someone MIGHT HAVE said it.

Oh darn! Just when we were so close to resolving this matter. I really hate when that happens!

That's nice, but your increasing reliance on over-the-top sarcasm just seems to be an attempt to spin your refusal to answer a simple, reasonable yes/no question about your position as some kind of problem with the person doing the asking.

You've got to be kidding. With all the fancy footwork you're doing to avoid answering a simple, straightforward question about statements you've made, somehow I'm the one playing games? :rolleyes:

Kidding? Me??!! Never! No way! No kidding.

So, does all this sarcasm mean you actually were kidding? You've become so dependent on using it when it's not called for that it's become virtually impossible to tell.

Mel

15th April 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

So, does all this sarcasm mean you actually were kidding? You've become so dependent on using it when it's not called for that it's become virtually impossible to tell.

You're no slouch in the sarcasm department.

Maybe we should start from the beginning and try to cut to the chase??

My original post was:

Considering the reactions of so many people (here and at other boards) regarding celebrities having the audacity to have political opinions, I think it's high time that the US Government strip all celebrities of the right to free speech.

If a celebrity is elected to any political office, these rights can just be reinstated.

....REACTIONS OF SO MANY (reactions is a pretty vague term. It does NOT describe what people have said or done..... ONLY that they REACTED)

....AUDAUCITY TO HAVE A POLITICAL OPINION (pretty over the top phrase considering this still IS a free country)

....I THINK IT'S HIGH TIME (I think. Me, myself and I)

Tell me EXACTLY where I said ANY person (here or at other boards) made ANY comment about the 'right to free speech?' The ONLY reference to 'free speech' was MY OWN..... thus the use of the phrase, "I think it's high time....."

So.... did anyone (here and at other boards) specifically say 'celebrites should have no rights....'???? It is certainly possible but I am NOT going to read every post on this board (and others) to 'prove or disprove' something I didn't even say in the first place.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Mel
You're no slouch in the sarcasm department.

Yes, but the difference is in knowing when to use it. And relying on it heavily to try to create the impression that your own failure is someone else's fault is probably not the best approach.

Maybe we should start from the beginning and try to cut to the chase??

We could actually do the latter if you would simply answer my question. That's all I've been trying to get you to do.

Tell me EXACTLY where I said ANY person (here or at other boards) made ANY comment about the 'right to free speech?'

I am not aware, nor have I claimed, that you've said that, so why would I be in a position to? Clearing up your position on this was sort of the point of my question, which I have yet to get a straightforward answer to.

The ONLY reference to 'free speech' was MY OWN..... thus the use of the phrase, "I think it's high time....."

So, does this at least mean you admit to being unaware of anyone in this forum who has challenged the right to free speech? (A simple yes or no will suffice, and will put the question to rest.)

So.... did anyone (here and at other boards) specifically say 'celebrites should have no rights....'???? It is certainly possible but I am NOT going to read every post on this board (and others) to 'prove or disprove' something I didn't even say in the first place.

Yeah, you said something like this before, and I responded by pointing out that I had not asked you to. Your indignation is just as misplaced as your sarcasm. At the very least, your earlier statements about the right to free speech suggested that someone might have challenged that right, and those statements certainly made my call for clarification a reasonable one.