Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Sports should be sports. I hated the boycotting of the Olympics. I'm not a big fan of the decision to not have Robbins/Sarandon there but, equally, I despise Robbins' remarks as self-centered (it's ok if he has opinions but if someone doesn't share the same views that person cannot speak up nor act against them peacably?)
Sports should be sports. I hated the boycotting of the Olympics. I'm not a big fan of the decision to not have Robbins/Sarandon there but, equally, I despise Robbins' remarks as self-centered (it's ok if he has opinions but if someone doesn't share the same views that person cannot speak up nor act against them peacably?)
The beauty of a capitalist system is that ownership equates to commitment to the system which means that those who own the media will insure that only what they want to hear will be heard and what they want to hear is what supports their stake in the system. Probably why the ancient Jews set a time period of so many years where everything was returned to the common pot and people all started over from zero. The reason the minority was protected from the majority in our system originally was that, as is always true, the people who could actually think, the Founding Fathers, in this case, knew that they were a minority. Until we arrive at a day when a total effort is given to discovering the truth and rooting out illusion, knowers will always be a minority.
Yeah, that's very intelligent of you.... tell someone they are wrong but give no rebuttal or any kind of explanation.
That's so easy to say... "wrong".
Stick to the topic at hand, idiot. We are talking about anti-war protesters vs. pro-war protesters. Do you see any reason why one group would be comprised of all wealthy people while the other is all poor people? I don't. I think you lean on the anti-war side, and therefore want to disagree with all evidence that counters your views. Of course you can't logically explain it or rationalize it in any way, since your argument has no firm base to stand on, but since you still disagree and want others see things the way you do, you listen to their argument and say "wrong" without any further explanation.
You are in the minority. Last time I checked, the US population was about 70% for the war, 30% against it. I don't know how you can ignore or twist around facts like that. Those who are against the war are outnumbered by more than 2:1. Your viewpoint was heard, but simply overruled by a larger group. Get over it.
That is just freedom of speech you Neo Neanderthal-Pseudo-patriot! If you were not mesmerized by John Ashcroft you would see that!
Who would have politisized the event? Not the organizer. You know damn well that those idiots would have spouted off their anti-war views without regard to the nature of the event. The cancellation was a prevention of politisization, not an act of it.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Yeah I do. However at the Oscars Sarandon didn't make a peep about her views regarding this war. I doubt that Robbins would have too. Like all debate there is a time and a place for it and I think they would understand that thew BHOF isn't one of those places.
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Janeane Garofalo show "under fire"
ABC said targeted for boycott if it airs series with anti-war activist
Janeane Garofalo show
She has the right to say silly things and all the people that she pissed off have the right to write letters.
I'm curious to see where this leads.
Also:
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also feel the love!
OMG! This must be the doing of John Ashcroft!
Prime example of action and reaction. If you open your mouth, you need to be prepared to put your foot in it!
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I term isn't reaction, it's Knee Jerk ActionOriginally posted by: arcitech2
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Janeane Garofalo show "under fire"
ABC said targeted for boycott if it airs series with anti-war activist
Janeane Garofalo show
She has the right to say silly things and all the people that she pissed off have the right to write letters.
I'm curious to see where this leads.
Also:
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also feel the love!
OMG! This must be the doing of John Ashcroft!
Prime example of action and reaction. If you open your mouth, you need to be prepared to put your foot in it!
The problem is that being against the war is not the same as being a racist or a molester. But a bigger problem is that Tim Robbins is a great actor, and I don't see how his views on the war have anything to do with his performances in films like Shawshank Redemption. I don't see why people cannot just accept that others disagree with them politically and move on. If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, change the channel. Don't go around writing to studios and trying to intimidate them into not letting anyone you don't want to listen to speak in the first place. Someones political views in their free time should not be held against them in their careers. Otherwise you get MacCarthyism.
Unless those people use the celebrity and "face time" generated by their careers and outside functions to spout their political views without being asked.
I have no problem with Tim Robbins or his dingbat wife calling a press conference and venting their sleens on whatever subject they want. I do oppose people like them using public events to do the same. What's more, why is it that celebrities are allowed to say anything they want without having to worry about damaging their careers? Surely they realize that it is we who make their careers possible and that if they piss enough of us off we will quit supporting them.
Tim Robbins could go to his place of employment and spout the most vile, anti-american diatribe to the press or anyone else within earshot and expect there to be 0 consequences. I dare say if I did the same thing at my place of employment I'd be shown the door. In quick order.
Just as celebrities have their right to speak out, so do their audience. If a celebrity becomes so unpopular that they no longer have a significant fan base, then the problem becomes self correcting.
I am sure that the studios would rather hear that BEFORE they spend the money to make a movie that no one will attend.
If I find an artist's activities so contrary to my values that I do not want to support them, then how in hell is that McCarthyism?
You also seem to forget that many of those caught up in the black list era REALLY were anti-American full blown communist that REALLY WERE doing what they could to harm this country.
Now you can argue with the methods in place at the time, but these were not a bunch of "fine Americans" that just happened to have a differing point of view, they really were subversives in the classical definition of the word.
They were not pushing the limits of loyal dissent, they were actively agitating for a form of government that would have abridged almost (if not) all of the rights you now enjoy.
His place of employment is on the set of his movies. I don't remember hearing any vile anti-american diatribes in Shawshank Redemption.
Now if you think America would be a better place if employers asked you about your political views before hiring, I don't agree with you. That's how it was in USSR. You had to be a good loyal communist before you could move up in your career. You wouldn't be able to teach math to kids unless you were a Communist Party member, for fear you would subvert the kids. What does Math have to do with Communism? About as much as war in Iraq has to do with Baseball.
I think that we (the queens we) are confusing Tail Gunner Joe with the anti-communist movement in general, that is frequently called McCarthyism.
I agree in that Joe McCarthy got drunk with power (and in many cases just drunk) and went WAY over the line. That does not mean however that the threat was not just as real.
There were REAL communist penetrations in the US Government and particularly in the State Department.
That was a very strange episode in American history.
I haven't even said which side I am on, or what my views are. And I didn't need to offer a rebuttal, you gave it yourself. Your statement was WRONG, period, and I needed to twist nothing around to prove it. For someone who likes to take jabs at my intelligence you sure do like to make a lot of baseless assumptions and accusations. Get that stick out of your ass.
And so you don't have to make an ass out of yourself anymore, I'm thankful that the war has gone well, but I am still not convinced the reasons the Bush League gave for fighting this war were the right ones, or that in the long run we will be better off for fighting it. I'm not anti-war, I just want to be damn sure that if we are fighting one, we HAVE to be.
I gave no rebuttal to my own argument. The sentence that you tried to use against me was one that started "Unless you intentionally skew the results...."
I see you sidestepping it, trying to dodge my question. Once again, instead of offering ANY explanation at all, you simply said I'm "Wrong, period".
You're a fool. If you want to argue with me, you're going to have to form an argument to rebut what I said. But as it is now, you're looking like somone who cannot form a valid argument of your own.
Did you just make this up or what? I heard that one marine died and 20 were injured. I heard that 4 were injured in suicide bombing.
did you hear casualty, which means dead or injured? Because I have not seen those numbers anywhere.
Freedom of speech is stupid, if flavio disagrees with the subject matter.
Ok, i'm clear on that now.
Here, have an eye-roll, I made it just for you.
What you said: Ok, with that said, 70% of the population will surely be louder, have more money, and have more connections that a group less than half its size.
Rebuttal: by seeding the 70% group with poor people and hand picking wealthy, well connected people and placing in the 30% group
Is that clear enough for you?
Like I said in my previous post:
Unless you intentionally skew the results by seeding the 70% group with poor people and hand picking wealthy, well connected people and placing in the 30% group, you are on average going to be in a better position with 70% on your side. Yes, you can produce false results if you desire to, but that would not be an accurate statistic by any means whatsoever.
So you are deliberately choosing a completely unrealistic scenario that will never happen and are throwing away all reality. Great.
When someone sets out to do a study, if they want to do a valid, objective study they must first figure out criteria they want to measure, they must take steps to ensure that the data is not flawed, and then they must blindy conduct the study without letting any outside factors flaw the results. On the other hand, if someone is corrupt and already knows the answer that they want to prove, they can attempt to construct a study that appears to be objective yet still arrives at their pre-determined, desired conclusion. This would not be a valid study, but is frequently used for marketing something that does not hold up favorably in a legitimate test. This is what you are doing now by suggesting that you can seed the groups to make your point appear right. Too bad it's not valid.
Your reasoning is very poor, and your argument stands on extremely loose ground. I feel like I'm arguing with a kid here... I can explain reality to you but you're just going to say "nuh uh!". There is nothing I can say, no matter how well worded or reasonable that will make you agree with me. You will simply continue arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
To steer this debate back on topic, we were talking about the makup of anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters. Anti-war protesters make up about 30%, and the pro-war protesters make up about 70%. You said that the 70% (the pro-war protesters) will not have a louder voice, more money, and more connections than the smaller group, for reasons unknown to anyone on Earth. Please provide me with some proof to support your weak argument.
Edit:
On second thought, don't. I now consider you worthless and your opinion no longer matters to me. I choose to surround myself with intelligent people and you simply do not make the cut. There are those who strongly disagree with me yet can still provide a well thought out and compelling argument. You cannot. You just argue, with no thought behind it. You're a rebel without a clue.... lots of persistence but no brains. Although your views don't seem right-wing your intellect seems the same as many brainless hard-core religious people I've talked to. There's something blocking you from thinking straight. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but your stupidity leaves no doubt in my mind where you stand in the grand scheme of things. I will continue conversing with those who matter, but as for you, you are now voiceless. There's the cream of the crop, and then there's the scum at the bottom of the pool. Welcome to my ignore list.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
Wrong, capitalism doesn't allow for someone to put off potential profits in the hopes that these moves will "support their stake". While your scheming to increase your stake your competitors will swoop down and capture your assets.
If the profits are there someone will hire these boneheads.
Personally, Robbins and Sarandon seem to be liberal automatons. Garofalo's criticisms seemed to be measured and well thought out.
I never questioned the validity of any specific statistic, only your assertion that the majority of people will always have the majority of money and influence. And as you've stated multiple times already, that is not always the case, in contradiction to your first statement, where you said it 'surely' was. You are the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing, and not only with me, but with yourself. You were wrong, I called you on it, and hell, you've even admitted it. Now get over it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter