Bobo not like cranberries. Make Bobo mouth all pucker up. Sometime Wampyre think Bobo want kiss. That silly.(that joke.)
Bobo not care for Cranberries singing group. Him not have anything against Irish people. Just dont like some kind music no matter what country from. Bobo bring up Sinead to make fun Sinead, not make fun of Irish.

Blah....thats what all of this stuff sounds liek. I just think the Chixie Dix...or whatever they are called, are hot, but I would never listen to their music. (I'd disembowl myself before I listened to country LOL ...but thats just my 2 cents).

~SDC~

Stardom is not a deflector shield where one can selectively broadcast a message or image using the media and not get any return fire. Public figures do not enjoy the same expectation to privacy as "normal" citizens who are not standing up with any megaphones and trumpeting some message. There are some celebrity types who understand this. Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh know they annoy a lot of people and do not care if some folks disagree with them. (But I will concede that radio talk show hosts may have a different mindset because they receive immediate response to their comments from the listeners while the celebrities of the music industry and Hollywood have to wait to see how their message is received.) Now, I will not call the Dixie Chicks the modern day version of Jane Fonda going to Vietnam and practically aiding the enemy, but it was unreasonable to take such a strong position and not expect any backblast. For the record, I think Jane Fonda was in a class all by herself when it came to that kind of trouble. The Dixie Chicks are just loud noise in the crowd in comparison and not into playing human shields or anything really radical like that as far as I know.

Americans have a strong tradition of disagreement with their leaders, but we also have a sense of when these leaders are doing something for the public good or not. Bill Clinton is a good example. Folks may have not liked the Monica affair, but the President was doing his "day job" and his deeds on the side did not seem to disturb us too much. We collectively told him that he was naughty, but gave him a pass in the end (and Hillary got a huge book deal). Now, on the other hand, the whole sorry mess of Spiro T. Agnew and then Richard Nixon was really wretched. President Nixon only had his political empire in mind and was actively trying to use federal agencies and even the power of his office over the Justice Department to cover up for his misdeeds. The American people did not think the President at the time had any of our public interest in mind.

UCLA Vince: LMAO even though I disagree. Bush, SR was the worst ever. Dubya not even close to his ineptitude. Despite his totally cocaine fried brain, Dubya is at least smart enough to know to let everyone else run things all the while memorizing just enough of what everyone writes for him to say just to get by.

That's a laugh. Clinton was the teleprompter master. The reason why Bush stumbles sometimes in his speeches is because he isn't using cues or teleprompters as much. I know you guys don't like him, but I do, and he's just what our country needs right now.




~SDC~

I boycott products and services when they are shoddy or when I have no use for them.

This whole "I deeply respect your right to disagree but now I'm going to try to ruin you economically." line of thinking is laughable coming as it does from the "land of the free, home of the brave."

I guess that's where the "bravery" comes in.

In dictatorships they lock you up or kill you if you disagree with them.
In the bastion of democracy they merely try to ruin you economically.

See the difference ?


I'd like to give you my honest opinion and say what I really think but I have a business to run.


Elrikk

~SDC~

Vern: Clinton actively participated in writing his own speaches. Bush has admitted, he does not all that much. That is the reason he stumbles, not the absence of a teleprompter. Like I said, at least he's smart enough to let everyone else run things and come along for the ride. Of course that has its drawbacks as well.

evryone has the right to criticize us .do you know why? because we FOUGHT for our independance. now lets think about this for a moment....if wars dident happenrights would be denied and we would still be under englands control.o wait but even england wouldent exsist because they were conquerd by the Roman empire.however we have independance which leads to our RIGHT of free speech.with that said those who buy their record also have the right not to buy them,we have the right to call them sluts and they can go broke for all i care.they have the right to criticize us and we the right to critisize them.now heres a question i will leave you with if they were north korean and criticized their country do you think they would still be alive?

coffeefreak:

As incoherent as your post was ( =P ), I thought it important to respond.

Yes, they would still be alive if they had criticized North Korea. They wouldn't have gone home. Seldom does a person leave that country planning on coming back, what with the state of economics there.

Pontius,
I appreciate your opinion that Bush is just along for the ride, but I think it's wrong. However, if it were true, one of the qualities of a good leader is the ability to recognize and facilitate the abilities and qualities of other people. Many "good" leaders have surrounded themselves with a competent staff which has in turn made them look good, and allowed them to accomplish a great deal.

Elrikk,
It's good that you have your own criteria for buying products or services. We applaud you. Others have different criteria. For instance, some people won't buy products made by slave labor or made in sweat shops. But hey, if it's good quality, it good for you. Some people don't buy things because of the companies practices and it's affects on the environment, but only quality matters right? Some people don't buy products because animals were killed or harmed in making or obtaining the product, but only quality matters, right? Some people don't buy things from companies or corporations that have unethical business practices, but as you say, that's not your concern.

Again I will say, if I can't refuse to buy music based on actions or words by an artist, how can I refuse to buy them just because I don't like the lyrics? Either way, the result is the same, they aren't getting my money.

I'm guessing that you do actually have other expectations from goods or services that go beyond simple quality or need, because I bet your a decent person at heart.

~SDC~

Bobo say people getting hot in underwears. Seem not about Dixie Chicks. seem about allkind political thoughts. Bobo only ape but even ape know nobody win when politics talking. Now allkind talk of presidents. Bobo see lots talk of who good who bad. Big waste of time. Bobo say everybody hate president if not their voting. When Bush father president allkind say him stinky. Bobo hear same thing when Clinton president. Now Bush son stinky. Bobo say him think if Moses come back and be president allkind people say him stinky too. Everybody alltime complain about president or politics. never end. never right. never win. Maybe ok if make people happy to complain. Bobo also think ok to complain in free country. Better than country where cant. Still seem silly to Bobo in place to talk games. But Bobo not as smart as allkind other people. Bobo wish him as smart as allkind people who smarter than government.Then Bobo not have to live in cellar.

Citizen vernmeister2u on 5/2/2003 at 8:13:59 PM pontificated;

/QUOTE ON

Elrikk,

It's good that you have your own criteria for buying products or services. We applaud you. Others have different criteria. For instance, some people won't buy products made by slave labor or made in sweat shops. But hey, if it's good quality, it good for you. Some people don't buy things because of the companies practices and it's affects on the environment, but only quality matters right? Some people don't buy products because animals were killed or harmed in making or obtaining the product, but only quality matters, right? Some people don't buy things from companies or corporations that have unethical business practices, but as you say, that's not your concern.

Again I will say, if I can't refuse to buy music based on actions or words by an artist, how can I refuse to buy them just because I don't like the lyrics? Either way, the result is the same, they aren't getting my money.

I'm guessing that you do actually have other expectations from goods or services that go beyond simple quality or need, because I bet your a decent person at heart.

/QUOTE OFF

(Elrikk bows humbly before the applause. Waives cheerfully.)

But seriously folks this isn't really necessary.

1) Never saw a "slave produced" product that had real quality; cheaper maybe, but quality, I think not.

2) Except for the smaller companies (which usually produce a quality product ie. Stardock et al.) Most companies are owned by still other companies which in turn are owned by still other companies which in turn . . . well I'm sure you get the idea. I respect your attitude towards monitoring your spending as you do and sincerely wish you luck. (no sarcasm intended.) You will need it.

3. Animals should be treated well. That is why my son is not getting a hampster. But I am not going to start a boycott of pet stores. (although I personall think they are mostly abysmal.

4. I have nothing against you not buying any particular artist's production but there have been some really weird people that have produced some really fine art. Not reading (or listening, or watching, or using) the works of a particular person because you don't like some of their opinions seems a bit petty no matter how noble the purpose. Now if you don't actually like the product, well that makes sense.

If a slave labour scientist (?) who previously had worked for a cosmetic company that tested their product on animals, brings out a cure for cancer, produced by a company that pollutes our environment, I will probably use it. (Bad Elrikk. . . bad . . .bad) But I agree that it would better if it were produced uisng free labour by the person who started P.E.T.A and being produced by a drug company that doesn't pollute. Not likely though.

And lastly (but not leastly) yes, I am a "decent person at heart"; just one that doesn't want to go to war with any and everyone who I disagree with about something, particularly someting as trivial as their opinion about George W. Bush.

Elrikk

~SDC~

Elrikk,

Thanks for your reasoned response.

Well, again I clarify, I have no wish to go to war with the Dixie Chicks either. The only reason I started this thread was to get opinions on their "free speech" defense, or rebuttal, whichever you prefer. I still have all 3 CD's, their 1 DVD, and "Home" (their latest album) occupies a regular spot in my car disc changer.

When the topic sort of shifted to people's opinion of the silliness of the reason people chose to boycott them, that was away from my original query.

At any rate, I DO understand why some were offended, considering the totality of the circumstances, not just the content of what was said. I do agree that monetary support (or lack thereof) is an effective way for the "People" to reinforce what they believe to be, for lack of a better word, responsible speech. Not giving monetary support is a perfectly acceptable form of informal sanctions.

Bobo, I'm not hot or upset. I just write with "intensity" sometimes, and I generally try to give most people the benefit of the doubt. I try to be very accepting of a variety of personalities, generally only turned off by brash, abrasive or rude people. The kind of people who can't just present their argument, but also have to call names and sling insults.

~SDC~

Citizen vernmeister2u;

The funny thing about all this (from my point of view) is that I don't particularly know much about the Dixie Chicks. Don't have any of their records and probably wouldn't recognise them in a small room; but I have to defend the proposition that economic boycotts are a form of war.

For example the U.S. had an embargo against Cuba since I was a kid. They are doing this because they don't agree with the gov't there (although US big buisness is falling all over itself trying to get into China where similar and worse is going on.) Anyway, after all the years of embargo various US political types like to use the poverty there to prove their point about Communism. They imply that if it wasn't for their evil form of gov't that their conditions would be so much better. I often wonder how good the US economy would be if the rest of the world was suddenly cut off as a market.

I think that the battle with Castro would have been won years ago except for that embargo. If they were free to trade with, and have tourism from, the US there probably would have been a cultural victory long since. Hurting people physically, economicly or any other way does nothing to prove one's point of view more correct. It just makes the opposition shut up and often times doesn't even accomplish that.

I knew I could bring this back to GalCiv somehow. (but Cultural Victory?)


You closed some remarks to Bobo with the following

/QUOTE ON

I try to be very accepting of a variety of personalities, generally only turned off by brash, abrasive or rude people. The kind of people who can't just present their argument, but also have to call names and sling insults.

/QUOTE OFF

"Can't just present their argument but also have to call names or sling insults." To which one could add "or call for a boycott of their way to earn a living." It all just a matter of perspective really but I would much rather you called me names.

Keep on truckin'

Elrikk



~SDC~

Elrikk,

Disagreeing with a point of view, and not supporting those with that point of view is different from imposing the boycott to prove which side is right or wrong. I don't believe fans that changed their position on the DC's did so because they thought they providing evidence to make their case. They did it out of disagreement. In the US, spending money, or not spending money is viewed as another form of expression of speech in many ways.

It all comes down to this, I won't contribute money to the Democratic party, because I don't agree with many of the political platforms of that party. If that means I'm at war with the Democratic party, well so be it, but I don't see it that way. I know of no one, not to say there isn't someone, that contributes money to two opposing parties.

If I chose not to give money to someone or some group who is of a certain political persuasion because I know, or at least I'm fairly certain that they will in turn contribute to an organization who ideals I would rather not see forwarded, chances are I won't support them either. Ben and Jerry's comes to mind. I'll deny myself the pleasures of their delicious ice cream, because it's more important to me that in the bigger picture I don't support them in their attempts to free someone I believe is a murderer. I believe that is a very reasonable position, you may disagree. You may not like that, you may think it's wrong, but I disagree, and that's just the way it is. Supporting a product or service, regardless of it's quality, is secondary to me if I think it will in turn support an agenda that may be harmful or wrong in the bigger picture.

I believe this is something we will just continue to disagree on. And incidently, I don't agree that an embargo of a foreign nation is an accurate analogy of boycotting a country singing group, not even in principle, but your mileage may vary.

With regards to this however,

"Can't just present their argument but also have to call names or sling insults." To which one could add "or call for a boycott of their way to earn a living." It all just a matter of perspective really but I would much rather you called me names."

One couldn't add that as it wouldn't be accurate. I was referring to me and my preferences. It is accurate for you. I have no problem with someone denying me money or support in my endeavors if they disagree with me philosophically, politically, or whatever. I may not be happy about it, but I understand and accept it. I'm not hypocritical in that respect. And though I am in a civil service position, there are many who I have to work with directly who don't support me. Some don't pay taxes, some won't contribute to Police Benevolence Associations, some won't petition Council to raise their taxes so I can be paid better, all because they don't like the police. And yet, I provide my services to these people as pleasantly and with as much quality as I do my paying customers.

I would still expect the same, even if I were in the private sector, as I will be some day.

As you said, Keep on truckin'... quaint old term, still effective.

Vern

~SDC~

I agree with you, vermeister2u. Free speech does not encompass fan base effects of that right. They need to take what they get if that is what they really think. Goot zo! Goot zo! (Sorry 'bout the Dutch, but that's my second language, and I use it more than English )

Bobo like Dutch too. Him not hate Dutch like Austin Power father. Bobo say" God made der world but de Dutch made de Netherlands. An so fort like dat dere."

Vern,

A political party's product IS its ideas. So to not contribute to those with whom you disagree is precisely to not buy IT because you don't like IT. No problem with me on that.

One man deciding for himself to not support a company because that company actively supports something that he is seriously against seems harmless enough on its face. Noble even.

A few men, banded together to pickett said company for the same reasons becomes, in my opinion, slightly less so.

And a senate that actually starts to threaten the livlihood of those who disagree with them is just another thug's blacklist.

Where we draw the lines in this ever deepening spiral into thought control is of course up to each individual but I see dreary days ahead.

You said;

"I believe this is something we will just continue to disagree on. And incidently, I don't agree that an embargo of a foreign nation is an accurate analogy of boycotting a country singing group, not even in principle, but your mileage may vary."

My milage seems to vary. The whole McCarthy against Hollywood misfortune shows me where this whole economic boycott thing can lead.

"Well sir. You seem remarkably well qualified for this job. All we need now is for you to fill out this questionaire. It's standard stuff; you know, just the standard political correctness form. Shouldn't take more then a few hours. We're sure you'll fit right in."

(a few hours later)

"Sorry sir, but the position has been filled."

"Please. Pleae tell me. Where did I go wrong ?"

"Well we aren't really supposed to tell, but just this once. You have been found to support policies contrary to the best interest of the US free enterprise system. Specificly you should never have installed that Linux partition back in college."


Hell of a life comming down the pike.


Mike (aka Elrikk)


PS. Alway hoped that I would live long enough for the expressions of my youth to become considered "quaint." Made my day.

But because of the vast differences in our philosophies I must insist;

. . . . . . . "NO SOUP FOR YOU!"


~SDC~

Elrikk,

You said,

"And a senate that actually starts to threaten the livlihood of those who disagree with them is just another thug's blacklist."

And that changes the whole thing. THEN it is a free speech issue when the government becomes involved in imposing sanctions against someone (or group), and I would totally agree that is wrong. I would be right next to you in the picket line.

In the case of the DC, there has been no governmental action involved, thus, this situation is not applicable. We WERE talking about the actions of other private citizens.

So you're the soup nazi....

"Do you really think the world is going to end?"

"Yes, in just under 2 minutes."

"Isn't there anything we can do about it?"

"No."

"Well I always thought we were meant to put a paperbag over our head or something."

"You can if you like."

"Will it help?"

"No."

"Last orders please!"

Ahhh.... a classic.

The world is a much more interesting place when people have vast philosophical differences... do we agree on that?

~SDC~

Bobo,

I thought Slartibartfast made the Netherlands... he was particularly fond of all the Fjords.

LOL

Vern

~SDC~

Freedom of expression was ok for the Soup Nazi but not for his customers.

His tireless fight stands almost alone in the annals of Rugged Individualism. There he was standing alone against the vast hoards of misbehaving customers; but like Howard Roark and John Galt before him he knew where his real power lay. He had a talent. He could make a really great bowl of soup. I can just imagine his reaction to an attempt to boycott his soup bar.

. . . "Boycott This !!! " . . .(Ah the beauty of the modern tongue.)

Ayn Rand would have been proud. Wouldst we were able to have seen "Atlas Slurped."


Elrikk


PS. I still tend to side with Elaine on this one though.

. . . . . . . . "NEXT!"


PPS. The blurring of the line between "Rugged "Individualist" and "Petty Dictator" was intentional and for satiric purpose only. Any resemblance to posters living or dead is purely concidental. No "Soup Nazis" were harmed during the filming of this post.

~SDC~

Vern-Bobo say maybe so. But that not what Dutch say. Bobo also thinking not many fjords in Holland. Holland much flat. Only hills not much higher than point of Bobos head.

It all comes down to this, I won't contribute money to the Democratic party, because I don't agree with many of the political platforms of that party. If that means I'm at war with the Democratic party, well so be it, but I don't see it that way. I know of no one, not to say there isn't someone, that contributes money to two opposing parties
_______

With all due respect Erik, look at any major political action committee. You'll see that most contribute heavily to both parties. Some contribute to one more than the other. But most give at least something to both. And why wouldn't they? A bought Democrat is as good as a bought Republican. Bought is bought after all.


Quoting Vern:
Pontius,
I appreciate your opinion that Bush is just along for the ride, but I think it's wrong.

Factual statements can be right or wrong. Opinion is just opinion. It can be well reasonned, shallow, based upon emotion, values, or any other thing. If it reaches conclusions based not upon evidence, it is logically invalid, but it is neither right nor wrong. It's just an opionion.

You disagree with my opinion based upon Bushes own words and that of his advisors. That doesn't make my opinion wrong.
Oh but why bother. Your arrogance prevents you from learning anything.

Citizen PontiusBruinPilot;

Not sure here but I think all of your remarks are directed at Vern.

Unless there is a post from an Erik (that I missed) I think you might be attributing something to me (Elrikk) that actually came from Vern.

Elrikk


~SDC~

Pontius,

Yes, Elrikk is correct, I made those comments, not him.

You said;

"Oh but why bother. Your arrogance prevents you from learning anything."

See, now that's factually inaccurate. The fact that I'm typing this shows I have learned to read, type, and form sentences. Hence, I can learn. My lack of agreement with you makes me neither arrogant nor unable to learn.

I will concede your point that many people contribute to both parties for political favor. I should have been more clear. I dont' think people who generally give money because they believe in a particular cause would give money or support to an organization which opposes that cause. For instance, I doubt many pro-lifers donate money to pro-choice efforts. Aside from that, I did not preclude that people do that, I said I didn't know any people that did and threw in a disclaimer.

Being relatively firm in one's beliefs is not arrogance, and shouldn't be confused as such.

Now, where I will be arrogant, simply because you made this a personal thing, is in saying you know nothing of me, what I have done in life, or pretty much anything about me other than a few posts. For you to draw such personal conclusions about me is quite presumptious, and provides a tiny bit of evidence about how poor you may be at judging character.

Relax man, have a beer or play GalCiv, but if you continue personal insults I just won't respond to them any more.

~SDC~