America/Iraq.............

[Deleted member 2452]

so what you're saying big jim is...

i MUST buy the works of the dixie chicks, or i'm anti first amendment? my friend, you have a convoluted mind there.

all i say further is, i thank god the first amendment is not what you seem to think it is! cause i've always thought sean penn a talentless hack, danny golver a so-so actor, and the dixie chicks? you are welcome to my share! again nothing special.

steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: so what you're saying big jim is...

i MUST buy the works of the dixie chicks, or i'm anti first amendment? my friend, you have a convoluted mind there.

Steve, that is a million miles from what I said and it doesn't take much attention to my post to realise that.

You came across as someone who used to buy products of these people and then deliberately stopped buying them out of vindictiveness, because of their political opinions. I'd direct you to the bit where I said........

If you think Danny Glover is a crap actor or the Dixie Chicks are awful singers (assuming I'm right about them being a girl-band), then feel free to boycott their product. But refusing to buy their product because you consider them to be "being stupid, and saying foolish things..."

Yassee? Nothing whatsoever to do with "i MUST buy the works of the dixie chicks, or i'm anti first amendment? my friend, you have a convoluted mind there." And as I said at the end, I was addressing the collective mind-set that has pointlessly, childishly, petulantly and rather pathetically demonised people like Penn, Glover and whatever the hell her name is from the Dixie Chicks. Hell yes, maybe Penn and Glover can't act for buggery and maybe Ms. Wassername can't sing better than a gelded tom-cat, but that ain't the point. The point is that the robot-right of America has all too willingly led a McCarthy-ist witch-hunt against these people for no other reason than that they choose to express an opinion that is against the party line. THAT is communism/dictatorialism in action, THAT is horrifying, THAT is the very thing that Americans every day deny the exiestence of, when they make the laughable and blatantly untrue statement that America is the free-est country in the world.

all i say further is, i thank god the first amendment is not what you seem to think it is! cause i've always thought sean penn a talentless hack, danny golver a so-so actor, and the dixie chicks? you are welcome to my share! again nothing special.

steve

Steve, you seem to be deliberately mis-understanding my points because you see me as your political opposite. I'm sure a lot of people share your opinion on the talents of Sean Penn and Danny Glover. Equally so, many don't. Again, you're not so much missing the point as throwing it clean down the laundry-chute because you disagree with my political philosophy, and are throwing aimless verbalisms around in an attempt to appear flippant and clever. Whether or not Penn and Glover are talentless doesn't matter. What does is that you would like to see them finished, buried and hammered up the rectum, even if you DID previously enjoy their work; because you see them as limp-wristed liberals at best or communist subversives at worst.

So what exactly do I see the First Amendment as? Just what does this apparently ignorant and disconnected limey see this cornerstone of personal freedom as being?
I see the spirit of the First Amendment to be something that guarantees everyone the right to express their opinion in the way they choose, providing it doesn't harm anyone else (in other words they can vocalise and demonstrate, but not use force or intimidation as terrorists do), without fear of reprisal and persecution. Does that sound so very different from what American schoolchildren are taught to believe in class? It's VERY different from the reality of course. America is awash with Orwellian double-speak and freedom of speech is just one example of that. Having the freedom to be able to say what you like only to have people vindictively harass and destroy you, is NOT freedom of speech in my book. That is exactly what the case is in the United states though, especially in such issues as the War On Terrorism.

Now having said that, I am a person who thinks a person like Michael Moore is a monumental wanker. I don't agree with everything Michael Moore says, but that's not my reason for my low opinion of him. When he made that litle spiel at the awards ceremony, he came across as cheap and pathetic. That wasn't a political demonstration, it was a bloody awards evening. His timing and positioning were incredibly bad and he rightly copped a lot of flack for his ridiculous actions. He may very well have had a cogent political point to make, but he did it in a very unsuitable place and time. I find it hard to believe that someone with his connections and resources couldn't have made his point properly without waffling like that. It's only a shame they didn't have a trapdoor on the stage.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

ah, i have you now jim!

the constitution guarantes rights, and freedoms, without interference from the government! nothing about our fellow americans!

without fear of reprisal and persecution.

that's governmental. the rest of the citizenry are free to heckle, or ignore, or not buy their product!

so jim i'll ask you again, why should entertainers get a free ride? why shouldn't their actions, and the things they say be held against them? why is it we're just suposed to blindly go along and accept their shinanigans?

soory, but your view is the communits one, mine is the one that is in-tune with our system. i am free to speak my mine via my wallet!

steve

 

[Cosmo_ac]

i'm going to have to disagree...

with that last statement Areenacter. in fact, i'd say from reading Jim's posts, his are more american then some of the people born in america have made.

 

[BigJim]

Re: ah, i have you now jim!

the constitution guarantes rights, and freedoms, without interference from the government! nothing about our fellow americans!

without fear of reprisal and persecution.

that's governmental. the rest of the citizenry are free to heckle, or ignore, or not buy their product!

You'll notice Steve, that I italiscised the word 'spirit'. (For emphasis sake.) In other words I think it's beholden on anyone in a free society to honour the same pledges that their government makes. That doesn't mean disagreement is forbidden, just that tolerance and free speech should be afforded to everyone BY everyone. If it's supposed to be moral for a government to act tolerant and allow freedom of speech without reprisal and public demonisation, do you have any idea just how evil it sounds for a citizen to say they're of exactly the opposite persuasion?

so jim i'll ask you again, why should entertainers get a free ride? why shouldn't their actions, and the things they say be held against them? why is it we're just suposed to blindly go along and accept their shinanigans?

I didn't say they should get a free ride. I said they should be afforded exactly the same rights as 'ordinary' citizens. I think entertainers of whatever description, should be judged on their abilities as artists, nothing more. You disagree. You obviously think that having the opposite view to yours is justification for a mass public hate campaign with scenes that havn't been witnessed since 17th century Salem.

You remember the time we had an even more serious disagreement than this, over a subject that is particularly unmentionable? Well how would you have felt if as a result of my strenuous disagreement of your views, I'd have paraded an effigy of you through the streets of your home neighbourhood and shouted through a bullhorn about how everyone should send you to Coventry,(English slang for not speaking to you) refuse to serve you in shops, ignore you in the street and generally treat you and your close family like shit? That is pretty much the behaviour you're condoning and even, dare I say it, encouraging, when it comes to people who have spoken out in America against the war. (And buddy, it pains me to say this because we agree on a LOT of things, but you of all people, in light of our past conversations, should know the dangers of various sorts of intolerance.)

And as for "blindly going along", well you are managing to do that with the government despite it's blatant lies, admitted false media statements (Although we sho believed them ourselves at the time folks, and it don't matter no-how because it was all in a good cause, getting rid of Saddam and all that!)and massive human rights crimes inflicted on civillians in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Go here... http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34077 if you're interested in finding out exactly what I'm talking about.)

soory, but your view is the communits one, mine is the one that is in-tune with our system.
steve

I think it speaks volumes about America that you consider me communist, when I'm aligned with the right of British politics. Since when does a communist (as you postulate me as being) support talking about a controversial point of view in public? Since when does being a communist involve searching your conscience and speaking out against the actions of your government? (As I am surely doing; the British are always alongside our allies, for good or bad, better or worse.) If I wasn't a concientious abstainer (my little protest against the inherant corruption of all politicians), my vote would go for to the Conservative Party. This is the party of Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, currently lead by Ian Duncan-Smith, a former commissioned officer in a Guards regiment of the British Army. The party of (allegedly anyway) zero tolerance on crime, kicking arse whenever some arsehole sticks their head up and invades someone that's a mate of ours, and the party of sceptisism in the face of an increasingly Marxist, European Union. (An organisation that I get as close to truly hating as I'm emotionally capable of.)

Steve, your view is completely outside and beyond anything I've ever heard Americans speak about their country with pride. There is no difference in my mind, between a government stopping someone expressing their views with snatch squads and false imprisonment, and the people of a country acting as unpaid thought-police and encouraging the sort of public vilification that has been taking place in the states against people who dare to be so foolish as to express an opinion that falls outside of BOMB EM ALL AND DESTROY ANY PINKO BASTARD WHO DOESN'T THINK WE SHOULD BOMB EM ALL!!! In fact, I think the people doing it makes it even more abhorrent. It makes me want to weep.

i am free to speak my mine via my wallet!

Sure you are and so am I. But that isn't what we've been talking about, is it? You're supporting speaking your mind through the ruination of people's liveliehoods and personal lives through your own intolerant actions and waging vendettas. Yeah, that really belongs in the land of the free doesn't it? You're supporting burning effigies in the street and having piles of CD's being burned. You're supporting mass-hysteria for no good reason other than pure intolerance. You're basically saying that America isn't a place that people should live in, unless they they have the same views you and George W. Bush do. Well sorry, but that doesn't sound like the U.S.A. publicity campaign to me. It sounds like you believe in a one party state, with one voice and one opinion. When people first went to America it was largely because they found the rest of the world too intolerant of their views and people like yourself who are as extreme in your politics as you are, should remember that. Will you be campainging for people like Sean Penn and Danny Glover to be imprisoned in the event of the next war, so they can't be subversive and commit the crime of expressing a contrary opinion? Will you be saying that people who are so obviously anti-American shouldn't be allowed the privellege of walking the streets freely of your country, so they should be locked in a prison cell? That isn't such a huge stretch from the opinion you're currently evincing. It just seems to me that you radiate hatred and close-mindedness and attempt to dress it up as world-weariness and knowledge. And like a lot of hard-liners, you rip a leaf out of the Joe McCarthy text book and brand anything you don't like as being "communist", because it's from one extreme to the other. You're either black or white, for us or against us, tall or short. There's never any shades of grey and it's waaaaaaaaaaay to simplistic.


Okay, now the political commercial is over, let's get on to the happy-go-lucky part. Thus far Steve we've refrained from personal
name-calling and insults. We've expressed how much we disagree with each other and we've said why we do. I'm sure we'll continue to do that, but let's make sure we do it in the spirit it's been thus far. We'll never agree on politics, not even close. But let's always make sure we disagree in a way that doesn't get us wasting those beers by throwing them in each others faces. Feel free to tell me you think my philosophy is only good for having a world full of limp-wristed liberals, poncing around and taking all the shit the bad-guys of the world like Saddam throw at them and that I'd make an utterly fucking terrible politician, (I'd happily tell you the same) but let's not waste good glasses of Carlsberg on it, eh? 😉

 

[R. Davis]

We're neck deep without a rope! The U.N. can help but the United States still has to fix the problem.

 

[BigJim]

We're neck deep without a rope! The U.N. can help but the United States still has to fix the problem.

The U.N's role is to help, but the situation is that the U.N. couldn't help an old lady across the street, let alone help out the situation in Iraq. It's toothless and innefective.🙁

 

[Deleted member 2452]

jim i finally know what's happening here!

you are confused!
i was too, after reading all your posts. i found my self thinking "what the hell kind of tangent is this boy off on???
in your last post to me you said at the very end " yup, so you are, and so am i, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it?"

YES! that's exactly what I have been talking about, not all the rest of the "stuff" you've been throwing at me. i have strictly been supporting my RIGHT to not buy anything i don't want to!

one last side note though; it's become a real problem here in america, people wanting to interperate what the constitution means, instead of what it says.

steve

 

[BigJim]

Hornswoop me bungo pony!!!

you are confused!
i was too, after reading all your posts. i found my self thinking "what the hell kind of tangent is this boy off on???
in your last post to me you said at the very end " yup, so you are, and so am i, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it?"

YES! that's exactly what I have been talking about, not all the rest of the "stuff" you've been throwing at me. i have strictly been supporting my RIGHT to not buy anything i don't want to!

one last side note though; it's become a real problem here in america, people wanting to interperate what the constitution means, instead of what it says.

steve

That is the LAST TIME I mix brandy, whiskey, paint-stripper, bleach and poteen!!! Mind you, it made a nice three or four pints...

As far as I can tell you wouldn't buy the DC's music anyway, because it ain't your style. I also doubt if you'd mind not buying or renting the LW movies, as you've seen the real thing. Righty-dokey...

You've made your personal views quite clear, but I'm still a bit unclear about how you view the events we've been discussing.
Some questions, just to clarify matters and prevent me from having to do another three hundred circuits of the room, strumming on a banjo and shouting "Bibble!!!" in a very loud voice.

1/ Even though you wouldn't buy their music anyway, do you support (in principle) the mass public hysteria that has ruined the DC's? Do you support the anonymous threat calls made to CD stores and radio stations? Do you support the mass CD-burnings that have taken place in public? In short, do you approve of forceful coercion on the part of private citizens againt people whose political opinions differ from theirs?

2/ Do you support similar reactions in the film business against people like Sean Penn and Danny Glover for the same reasons?

3/ Do you agree in principle, to mass pressure groups (as opposed to individuals) breaking the First Amendment in spirit and organising themselves in such a way as to cause the threat of the loss of livliehood or the personal happiness (through continual harassment) to any individual based on their political opinions; especially when those opinions are perfectly legal and not in the least subversive to the internal stability of the structure of the United States?

I think you're right about the constitution. In a way it's sad that such a thing has to exist, because it's existence implies that people can't live happily with each other, without some sort of directing force controlling them. I think when people start living within the spirit of what the common bloke intended the constitution to be, then we'll be a step closer to paradise on Earth.


Okay, I'm off for a drink, before I manage to sound any more like a frikking lawyer.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: Hornswoop me bungo pony!!!

That is the LAST TIME I mix brandy, whiskey, paint-stripper, bleach and poteen!!! Mind you, it made a nice three or four pints...

As far as I can tell you wouldn't buy the DC's music anyway, because it ain't your style. I also doubt if you'd mind not buying or renting the LW movies, as you've seen the real thing. Righty-dokey...

You've made your personal views quite clear, but I'm still a bit unclear about how you view the events we've been discussing.
Some questions, just to clarify matters and prevent me from having to do another three hundred circuits of the room, strumming on a banjo and shouting "Bibble!!!" in a very loud voice.

1/ Even though you wouldn't buy their music anyway, do you support (in principle) the mass public hysteria that has ruined the DC's? Do you support the anonymous threat calls made to CD stores and radio stations? Do you support the mass CD-burnings that have taken place in public? In short, do you approve of forceful coercion on the part of private citizens againt people whose political opinions differ from theirs?

do i support boycotting the dixie chicks? yes, they are shite. do i support cd burning, threats, "forcefull" coercin? hell no!
i am against any form of burnings. look at what the catholic priests did to the inca libraries, and the great works of the greeks, and roman scholars. all that great knowledge lost due to idiocy, and fear.
i say let the dixie's talk, the more they do, the more they show their ignorance.


2/ Do you support similar reactions in the film business against people like Sean Penn and Danny Glover for the same reasons?

see above answer. the real problem is not the actors (sure they have undeserved egos, but who wouldn't when they get millions a year for "acting") but the media who seem to give them the podium to speak from. as if being an actor has imbued them with superior insight.

3/ Do you agree in principle, to mass pressure groups (as opposed to individuals) breaking the First Amendment in spirit and organising themselves in such a way as to cause the threat of the loss of livliehood or the personal happiness (through continual harassment) to any individual based on their political opinions; especially when those opinions are perfectly legal and not in the least subversive to the internal stability of the structure of the United States?

interesting question ,and a little confusing. i'll point to the democrat political party's smear tactics against judicial nominiees.
how about the abortion rights groups getting a law passed that says anti abortion people CAN NOT protest against abortion.
now am i for infringing on anyone's freedom of speach? yes, the american nazi party.

I think you're right about the constitution. In a way it's sad that such a thing has to exist, because it's existence implies that people can't live happily with each other, without some sort of directing force controlling them. I think when people start living within the spirit of what the common bloke intended the constitution to be, then we'll be a step closer to paradise on Earth.

the constitution was, and is a great document. it defines what a person can expect w/o government interference. saddly it's been misinterpreted to mean from other citizens. our founding fathers believed a lot more in the peoples ability to get along, and settle disputes w/o resorting to government, and lawyers. my how low, and far we've come.


Okay, I'm off for a drink, before I manage to sound any more like a frikking lawyer.

don't get me started about lawyers! i'd hang them, and the drug dealers first! i'll join you in that drink now... wait, i already drank this last weekend, enough to float a whale(ww2 re-enacting weekend).

steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Hornswoop me bungo pony!!!

don't get me started about lawyers! i'd hang them, and the drug dealers first! i'll join you in that drink now... wait, i already drank this last weekend, enough to float a whale(ww2 re-enacting weekend).

steve

Heh heh, I remember those days! My first eevr hangover came on the Saturday morning of my first ever ACW re-enacting weekend. I was 17 and all the hardened buggers there were pissing themselves laughing at me pausing from a forced march to vomit copiously over a wall and onto the roof of someone's car.

do i support boycotting the dixie chicks? yes, they are shite. do i support cd burning, threats, "forcefull" coercin? hell no!
i am against any form of burnings. look at what the catholic priests did to the inca libraries, and the great works of the greeks, and roman scholars. all that great knowledge lost due to idiocy, and fear.
i say let the dixie's talk, the more they do, the more they show their ignorance.

Oh God, don't get me started on the RC Church destroying records of Amerindian civilisations! I've just finished Fingerprints Of The Gods by Graham Hancock and it was enough to make me weep!😡

And yes, it's patantly obvious we've been talking at cross purposes. I thought you were coming down on the side of knob-ends who acted like thought police and and sure that people who had an alternate opinion on things should be silenced and have their livliehoods taken away from them.

see above answer. the real problem is not the actors (sure they have undeserved egos, but who wouldn't when they get millions a year for "acting") but the media who seem to give them the podium to speak from. as if being an actor has imbued them with superior insight.

Heh heh. You didn't happened to read my comments on Michael Moore did you? If I'd been there that night, I'd have quite happily forgotten my more peaceful tendencies and lamped the twat in the teeth with a fire extinguisher. The man has less class than the excretory gland in a skunks arsehole.

interesting question ,and a little confusing. i'll point to the democrat political party's smear tactics against judicial nominiees.
how about the abortion rights groups getting a law passed that says anti abortion people CAN NOT protest against abortion.
now am i for infringing on anyone's freedom of speach? yes, the american nazi party.

Hmmm. I've heard quite a bit on the abortion issue. I think people should have the right of protest, but only to a certain degree. That degree stops at damage to public and private property or putting people involved in the debate in physical or emotional danger.

As for the ANP, well that is one organisation I'd give all the free speech they want. The reason being, the more people get to hear them, the more people get to laugh at them and the sputum that passes for their opinions. Give them all the rope they ever want or need, and let the wankers hang themselves with it.

the constitution was, and is a great document. it defines what a person can expect w/o government interference. saddly it's been misinterpreted to mean from other citizens. our founding fathers believed a lot more in the peoples ability to get along, and settle disputes w/o resorting to government, and lawyers. my how low, and far we've come.

I think citizens should think about things a lot more than they do. I've said this before and I'll say it again, private citizens should act withing the spirit of the constitution. That means with things like the Second Amendment, only owning a reasonable amount of guns and ammunition, rather than a basement full of Armageddon.

don't get me started about lawyers! i'd hang them, and the drug dealers first! i'll join you in that drink now... wait, i already drank this last weekend, enough to float a whale(ww2 re-enacting weekend).

Drugs and lawyers, the bane of civilisation and both beloved of leading families in British and American politics. Ugh! I think lawyers is something we're ALWAYS going to agree on.