Partisans go in endless circles

[Polish3d]

When the Dixie Chicks in 2003 stated that they were "ashamed President Bush is from Texas," Americans, primarily conservatives rebelled against them, refusing to patronize their concerts or purchase their CDs and it caused them substantial loss.

During this time, other Americans, primarily liberals, argued fervently that this was censorship, McCarthyism, and that such behavior was wrong.



In 2009, Rush Limbaugh was part of a group attempting to purchase a partnership stake in the St. Louis Rams. Because of his controversial statements, Americans, primarily liberals, argued passionately against his being able to do so, and his bid was withdrawn. Americans, primarily conservatives, argued fervently that this was censorship, blacklisting, and a new form of McCarthyism, and that it was wrong.

Both sides blatantly hypocritical - both sides obviously in ignorance of their behavior in recent history - both sides clearly motivated not by logic or consistency, but simply by tribalism - supporting their group / side regardless of rationality.

 

[Steeplerot]

Apples to oranges, the rush thing is because he is a racist that players not want to want to play for, the dixie chick thing was about partisan outrage on the reps part.

 

[OCGuy]

You are just figuring out that people who are firmly entrenched with one party or the other are blow-hards?

 

[Polish3d]

LOL. No.

Both are about people making controversial statements with which others disagree. In each case, those who disagreed clamored for censorship, while the supporters cried out that it was wrong.

Then, the cases reversed as did the positions and rationales of both groups.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Apples to oranges, the rush thing is because he is a racist that players not want to want to play for, the dixie chick thing was about partisan outrage on the reps part.

^^^^^^
Here's your confirmation Polish3d.

 

[Praxis1452]

"It's different because we're right and they're wrong" Example below.

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Apples to oranges, the rush thing is because he is a racist that players not want to want to play for, the dixie chick thing was about partisan outrage on the reps part.

 

[n yusef]

Did liberals really think that a boycott of the Dixie Chicks was wrong McCarthyist censorship? Citation please.

Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Polish3d



When the Dixie Chicks in 2003 stated that they were "ashamed President Bush is from Texas," Americans, primarily conservatives rebelled against them, refusing to patronize their concerts or purchase their CDs and it caused them substantial loss.

During this time, other Americans, primarily liberals, argued fervently that this was censorship, McCarthyism, and that such behavior was wrong.



In 2009, Rush Limbaugh was part of a group attempting to purchase a partnership stake in the St. Louis Rams. Because of his controversial statements, Americans, primarily liberals, argued passionately against his being able to do so, and his bid was withdrawn. Americans, primarily conservatives, argued fervently that this was censorship, blacklisting, and a new form of McCarthyism, and that it was wrong.

Both sides blatantly hypocritical - both sides obviously in ignorance of their behavior in recent history - both sides clearly motivated not by logic or consistency, but simply by tribalism - supporting their group / side regardless of rationality.

The Dixie Chicks were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech to criticize the Bushwhacko criminals. Specifically...

During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas" (the Dixie Chicks' home state).

For that, the group was blacklisted from air play by Clear Channel, the largest broadcast chain in the nation, and from other right wing owned media outlets, and they became targets of hate mail and threats, as the Bushwhackos continued to pimp the build up to their illegal war.

There was no "hypocrisy." Dixie Chicks had the guts to speak their minds, they kept their integrity took the heat, and overall, they're ahead of the game for having done so.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addled hate and fear mongering bigoted turd who makes his living pimping his poison to an audience of knuckle dragging degenerate morons. People were genuinely appalled at the thought that he could become an owner of an institution with as high a public profile as an NFL football team. Speaking against him was hardly hypocrisy, either. It was well founded in reason.

In short, your rant is consumate BULLSHIT! Go home and practice.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale of automatic firearms. That fact is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale automatic firearms. This is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale of automatic firearms. That fact is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

Could you restate this? I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Freedom of speech is easy to defend when you agree with what is being said. One of the great things in America is that there is freedom of speech for people who's views you may find abhorrent.

However, as Rush Limbaugh showed recently, what you say has consequences.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale of automatic firearms. That fact is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

Could you restate this? I don't understand what you're saying.

The AR-15 is not and never has been an "automatic firearm". It's just a semiauto rifle, basically this with a body kit.

As someone who tends to lean more Democrat than Republican, I will freely admit that the fear-based Democratic position on guns is as stupid as the fear-based Republican position on gay marriage. I guess that would make me a Libertarian, except that I don't believe that businesses will do what's best for the citizens without regulation.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale of automatic firearms. That fact is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

:laugh:

 

[Craig234]

It's always funny to watch righties who were almost universally silent on wrongs by Republican, and usually supportive of the leaders if not the acts, complain later.

One liberal view:

You left out the essential issue of the right and wrong of the underlying policies. Are the same reactions to Hitler appropriate for the current German leader?

There are many legitimate reasons for opposing Bush's policies and Rush's immoral advocay for bad policies that aren't mirros or the critics of the liberals.

But that's not the point - there is a certain symmetry of right and wrong behavior.

I have no problem with people boycotting the Dixie Chicks, insofar as the principle that they have every right not to financially support people who they oppose.

I say that recognizing that it's unfortunately for democracy to make people standing up for what's right so expensive. It's unfortunate, but I don't see another option.

My objection is to their lousy judgement for siding with Bush against the Dixi Chicks who were right on target, not the idea of the boycott in general.

Frankly, if a music group I like had come out in SUPPORT of Bush, I'd probably boycott them and defend that policy as well.

I think that gives me license to say that boycotting is legitimate for Rush, too, but that's not quite my position.

Frankly, my issue with football is what a waste of time and resources it it, not the politics.

I don't care too much about Rush owning a team. While it's nice to see him frustrated insofar as opposing his advocacy for evil, I don't cite any real principle about the issue.

That's more an issue for the NFL, how they define team ownership. If they try to avoid controversy in owners, so be it, as long as it's applied fairly.

I think it'd be foolish for people toc care a lot about who owns the teams - despite the scandalous marge whatsername Schott? owners of the Reds, and racist loudmouth.

But as far as I'm concerned, let him own a team, as despicable as his speech is, I don't see any real reason for it to interfere with his owning a team.

Now, I care a lot more about the armed forces radio giving his right-wing crap preferential treatment over liberal shows.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale of automatic firearms. That fact is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

Could you restate this? I don't understand what you're saying.

The AR-15 is not and never has been an "automatic firearm". It's just a semiauto rifle, basically this with a body kit.

As someone who tends to lean more Democrat than Republican, I will freely admit that the fear-based Democratic position on guns is as stupid as the fear-based Republican position on gay marriage. I guess that would make me a Libertarian, except that I don't believe that businesses will do what's best for the citizens without regulation.

Auto, semiauto, whatever. I still don't see how this pertains to the topic other than as a caveat to a statement I made.

 

[alchemize]

While most republicans are just blatant idiotic hypocrites and ignore this fact, democrats utilize nuance to explain away their hypocrisies, explaining how they aren't in fact hypocrites in a wall of text, ala craig and harvey.

When no amount of nuance will work, then they just ignore the thread/issue, ala Obama indefinite detentions, etc.

 

[Atreus21]

I think the title of this thread should be, "Watch partisans go in endless circles."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Polish3d
LOL. No.

Both are about people making controversial statements with which others disagree. In each case, those who disagreed clamored for censorship, while the supporters cried out that it was wrong.

Then, the cases reversed as did the positions and rationales of both groups.

Um, no: The Dixie Chicks made truthful statements; Rush Limbaugh lies.

The Dixie Chicks continued to give concerts, even though the right boycotted them. But the DCs have now been vindicated and the right-wing (as usual) proven wrong.

Once the group that wants to purchase the St Louis Rams realized what a liability Limbaugh is, THEY dropped him like a hot potato. The left (as usual) is right about Limbaugh.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Craig234
That's more an issue for the NFL, how they define team ownership. If they try to avoid controversy in owners, so be it, as long as it's applied fairly.

This seems like the real reason for the situation. The Roger Goodell and the NFL don't want another Jerry Jones or a Mark Cuban. And Rush has the potential to be even more outspoken than those two...

 

[Vic]

All partisans are hypocritical tools. The very act of being a partisan requires that one forsake reason and critical thinking in return for the 'safety' of group affiliation. Toe the party line or face exile from the group.

However, Rush Limbaugh is as partisan a hack as they possibly come, so who gives a shit about him? Live by the sword, die by the sword. He's just getting what he's been giving all along. Anyone who can't see that must have their own partisan blinders on.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale automatic firearms. This is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

And like usual, you conservatives fail to realize that people who want to take rights or freedoms away are, by definition, socially conservative/restrictive. Social liberals do not exist in the american political arena because they either get no attention, or they don't live here because it's fucking retarded.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Polish3d



When the Dixie Chicks in 2003 stated that they were "ashamed President Bush is from Texas," Americans, primarily conservatives rebelled against them, refusing to patronize their concerts or purchase their CDs and it caused them substantial loss.

During this time, other Americans, primarily liberals, argued fervently that this was censorship, McCarthyism, and that such behavior was wrong.



In 2009, Rush Limbaugh was part of a group attempting to purchase a partnership stake in the St. Louis Rams. Because of his controversial statements, Americans, primarily liberals, argued passionately against his being able to do so, and his bid was withdrawn. Americans, primarily conservatives, argued fervently that this was censorship, blacklisting, and a new form of McCarthyism, and that it was wrong.

Both sides blatantly hypocritical - both sides obviously in ignorance of their behavior in recent history - both sides clearly motivated not by logic or consistency, but simply by tribalism - supporting their group / side regardless of rationality.

The Dixie Chicks were exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech to criticize the Bushwhacko criminals. Specifically...

During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas" (the Dixie Chicks' home state).

For that, the group was blacklisted from air play by Clear Channel, the largest broadcast chain in the nation, and from other right wing owned media outlets, and they became targets of hate mail and threats, as the Bushwhackos continued to pimp the build up to their illegal war.

There was no "hypocrisy." Dixie Chicks had the guts to speak their minds, they kept their integrity took the heat, and overall, they're ahead of the game for having done so.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addled hate and fear mongering bigoted turd who makes his living pimping his poison to an audience of knuckle dragging degenerate morons. People were genuinely appalled at the thought that he could become an owner of an institution with as high a public profile as an NFL football team. Speaking against him was hardly hypocrisy, either. It was well founded in reason.

In short, your rant is consumate BULLSHIT! Go home and practice.

It wasn't so much a rant as an observation, one which I must say you have subsequently reinforced.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Polish3d
LOL. No.

Both are about people making controversial statements with which others disagree. In each case, those who disagreed clamored for censorship, while the supporters cried out that it was wrong.

Then, the cases reversed as did the positions and rationales of both groups.

Um, no: The Dixie Chicks made truthful statements; Rush Limbaugh lies.

The Dixie Chicks continued to give concerts, even though the right boycotted them. But the DCs have now been vindicated and the right-wing (as usual) proven wrong.

Once the group that wants to purchase the St Louis Rams realized what a liability Limbaugh is, THEY dropped him like a hot potato. The left (as usual) is right about Limbaugh.

Um, no: they both are stating their opinion. Did you post a partisan hack comment intentionally? If so, well done!

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: n yusef
Most liberals I know think that people can spend their money as they please.

Sweet! I've got a few thousand here just waiting for a real AR-15. When does the ban lift in CA?

You're correct, many liberals are against the sale automatic firearms. This is irrelevant to this thread.

Nice attempt to derail.

And, like you, many liberals have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to them.

And like usual, you conservatives fail to realize that people who want to take rights or freedoms away are, by definition, socially conservative/restrictive. Social liberals do not exist in the american political arena because they either get no attention, or they don't live here because it's fucking retarded.

Shouldn't you be in the 9/11 conspiracy thread? Or perhaps emo-wallowing L&R?