Linda Rondstadt fired for supporting Michael Moore! What about freedom of Speech?

[Agathon]

The fact that you, Ming, have tilted at windmills for most of the thread seems to have escaped you. I'm not ignoring anything, I've pointed out that your argument is beside the point.

I don't care if people disagree with me, they can come up with an argument if they do. So far you haven't even addressed my argument and have spent the thread accusing me of something I have explicitly denied.

So, sorry, you lose.

[Ming]

I leave it to others to decide... I'm confident that they will see things as they are

[Agathon]

Run away then. As GePap pointed out, you didn't even address my argument.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Agathon
The fact that you, Ming, have tilted at windmills for most of the thread seems to have escaped you. I'm not ignoring anything, I've pointed out that your argument is beside the point.

I'd have to agree, since, like a windmill you seem to move a lot of hot air.



ACK!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Run away then. As GePap pointed out, you didn't even address my argument.

I did... you simply ignored it. I can't help that

[DinoDoc]

I wonder why someone who argues against people exercising thier speech rights feels like his defending them at the sametime. Is this one of those destroy the village to save it things?

[Ming]

He just doesn't understand it... he can't see the trees in the forest

[Jaguar]

Clearly Ming has won.

[JohnT]

Ming: has the power of banning.

Agathon: can be ignored, if need be.

Ming wins!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And yet he didn't have to resort to censorship in order to do so.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
The reason Republican actors are discriminated against is because they are terrible actors.

To be a good actor you need a high degree of empathy with other human beings: not the Republican strong point.

Actually a better indicator of acting potential is a personality disorder, typically the inability to set / recognize boundaries. Hence the tendency for actors to marry serially and get overly involved with every weepy left-wing cause that comes along. They don't just think of the children, they are the children, and the crying mothers, and the do-gooder hero simulataneously. For every great actor who can usually summon the determination / mental health / discipline to perform up to Hollywood's inexacting standards for actors, there are probably 20 great actors who can't keep it together.

Of course that is only one type of acting, people like John Wayne, Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Arnold make a living by playing a popular character type over and over. This is still acting for the most part, as in real life these guys don't kill 25 others in 15 minutes. But in this case the characters created by this sort of actor tend to be closer to their real personnae. Probably this is in part a case of the actor's deep personality moving toward his popular persona to some degree as it becomes associated with him.

This group tends to be much more stable emotionally and tend to have far more successful personal lives and business interests. They also vary quite a bit in their acting ability, but few of this type are so skilled that they are going to be compared with DiNiro in their ability to completely disappear within a character, (a skill which in some cases can be more of a distraction than benefit).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MosesPresley

BILL PRESS

For release 7/22/04

NO FREE SPEECH FOR LINDA RONSTADT OR WHOOPI GOLDBERG

By Bill Press

Tribune Media Services

...........

Ronstadt's not the only performer on the left to be silenced.

.........

© 2004 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Silenced? Lee Harvey Oswald was silenced alright, in these instances these celebs were handed an oversized megaphone to toot their own political horn. They're so vain, I bet they think this thread is about them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ming: has the power of banning.

Agathon: can be ignored, if need be.

Ming wins!

That's the only way the Right can win.

[Agathon]

What a joke. Of course the typical rightwingers are going to agree with Ming. That makes them just as irrational.

Would anyone else like to continue the argument since Ming has bailed?

I repeat: it is one thing to boycott Shell Oil because the company is killing Nigerians, and another to boycott Shell Oil because their CEO expresses a political preference for George Bush. In the first case the aim is to prevent the company from doing something that you think is wrong. In the second case the aim is to prevent someone saying something you think is wrong.

Similarly, boycotting the Dixie Chicks because you think their music is an evil influence on children (!) is different from boycotting it because their singer says that she doesn't like George Bush. In the first case your aim is to prevent harm coming to children, whereas in the second case your aim is to prevent someone saying something you disagree with.

The first kind are justifiable boycotts, the second kind are an odious attempt to prevent free political expression.

[Agathon]

did... you simply ignored it. I can't help that

Unfortunately, you did not. I don't think you even understand how it works. At least you showed no sign of doing so.

And I did not ignore anything you said, I just pointed out that it's besides the point of my argument. If anything you resorted to crude and unjustified empirical generalizations.