Why? Violence against your political opponents, if it’s done consistantly and you’re strong enough, can be an effective way of keeping them from expressing their opinion. What’s stupid about it?
What the fuck do “rights” have to do with this? She can talk about MM and F911 all she wants if she were to go to a rally where that was expected, in a venue that she herself rents, in a newspaper ad that she buys, on a CD that she puts out for people to purchase if they want to do so and about a million other ways.
Someone hired her to sing for an audience and make every effort to entertain that audience. She made statements that she knew for a fact would alienate a large percentage of that audience. That’s fraud. She’s not a brave patriot. She’s a weasel.
Haj
Is this what happens when you elect a president who proclaims himself to be ‘a uniter, not a divider’ - and people think he actually means it?
Sigh. Lost cause. I picture you, strangely, as a bulldog, with a hideously ugly human face, chained to the wall in your mother’s darkened basement, snarling and spitting and viciously attacking anyone who approaches with food or water, and lunging at your own shadow.
What’s stupid about it?
It proves that your position has no merit whatsoever and you know it. Instead of fighting with facts and debating your point, you resort to beating on the opposition. You do this because either there is no merit to your position, or because you lack the intelligence to defend it in civilized manner.
Nice way to insult canines, ass. Now there are baby eating, Satanist, SUV driving bulldogs everywhere that feel dirty now.
The battle cry of the Bush babies:
Apparently this is much ado about nothing. Here’s a description from one concertgoer about what happened (bear in mind this is on NationalReview.com). My guess is that casino president Timmins decided he didn’t like the dedication and, based on Ronstadt’s comments, their relationship was on shaky ground to begin with. Rather than take the heat for his own decision he decides to claim that it was because the audience reacting badly.
And tearing down concert posters was probably more of a favor to the casino than vandalism.
Or because you don’t want to persuade. If you use violence, it doesn’t neccesarily mean that your position lacks merit…the merit of your position becomes irrelevant. People won’t speak up because they’re afraid.
That list has already been debunked on this board, but let’s give you the benefit of a doubt and presume you haven’t seen any of those messages…
…however, by flogging that list, you reveal yourself as a clueless tool who doesn’t even bother to read the shit you’re trying to peddle. It doesn’t take a fifth-grader to see that Kopel’s list is a collection of straw-men and irrelevant points, and doesn’t address (much less contradict) the facts put forth in the movie.
A few examples:
[ul]
[li]Deceit #1: “Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida.”[/li]Uh, no. Moore never says when the rally was held, and no one in the clip was saying Gore had already won Florida. All we see are a bunch of happy Gore supporters under the fireworks, but Kopel infers that Moore is deceiving the viewer, then dings him for it. Straw man!
[li]Deceit #25: “Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection.”[/li]That’s nice, but Moore never claimed otherwise. He only shows a clip of a Secret Service agent claiming that they don’t “usually” guard foreign embassies. At best, you can say the agent was misinformed, but that’s not the same as saying Moore was lying. Straw man!
[li]Deceit #45: “Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes.”[/li]To quote Moore’s interview in Entertainment Weekly, “Who doesn’t know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. … In those 20 seconds I show a child in a barbershop, a young boy flying a kite, a couple getting married. People having lunch at a cafe. Anyone who takes that and says that I’m trying to say that Saddam’s Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot.”
[li]Deceit #46: “According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit nothing but women and children.”[/li]Bullshit! No such claim was made nor suggested. Kopel’s pulling “deceits” out of his ass. Again.
[li]Deceit #57: “Lipscomb is from Flint, Michigan, which Moore calls 'my hometown… In fact, Moore grew up in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint. … Davison, where Moore grew up and attended Davison High School, is comfortable middle class, suburban, and white.”[/li]First, this is irrelevant – Moore saying he grew up in Flint when he grew up in a suburb of Flint is hair-splitting at its finest. Second, the suggestion by Kopel that middle-class suburban whites can’t be advocates for the working class (of any color) is disingenious and stupid. Kopel might as well suggest that only sick doctors can treat patients.
[li]Deceit #59: “As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 9/11”[/li]Whoopie-do. Absolutely, totally, irrefutably IRRELEVANT to the points raised in the movie.
[/ul]
Normally, Brutus, I’d suggest you go read Kopel’s list and use your brain to think about his charges, so you can see how pathetically lame they are. But knowing your political views and posting history, that’d require you to (a) read and (b) think, two tasks which you usually fail at.
Had I been in the audience, I would have applauded her. At the same time, had I been in charge, I might have done just what they did, based on the crowds reaction. After all, had the entire audience cheered her and there been no or only a few complaints it probably wouldn’t have been viewed as a problem.
I do think they overreacted, but I also think she showed poor judgement.
I suspect that the following is probably close to what happened: Linda Ronstadt apparently has a semi-regular gig appearing at the Aladdin. She appears there once a year, four times a year, or whatever. It’s apparently not a long-term contract but a new contract for each appearance. She has continued to appear there even though she increasingly hates the job. She probably gets paid about $100,000 for one appearance (and she’s no longer a top act, making that good money for one night), so she was reluctant to give up the job. But she really dislikes the management. Every time she talks with them about politics, it’s clear that they are very conservative. From what she knows in her few talks with the audience they are conservative too. (It’s my personal observation that frequent gamblers tend to be politically conservative.) The management doesn’t like her either, but as long as she pulls in customers, what do they care about her politics?
So she decided to dedicate a song to somebody that she knows that many people in the audience will dislike. She expects that a few people will walk out. She expects the management to say, “We’re not inviting you back for any more appearances.” That would be just fine for her. She got a bigger reaction than she expected, but so what? The publicity will probably be good for her. Only people looking on this from the outside are unhappy with the results. Linda Ronstadt doesn’t have to work with a casino management that she can’t stand and she’ll probably get good new gigs from the publicity, so she’s happy. The Aladdin can now quit employing a singer whose politics they hated despite the fact that she was a good draw for customers, so they’re happy. They don’t care that some customers destoyed a few things. Those are regular long-term customers, so the Aladdin will make back the money they lost on the destuction in the money these customers gamble away. The customers who did the destruction are happy because they got to act like drunken jerks to a liberal whose politics they hated. Everybody is happy, in fact, except the people posting to this thread.
Guess again, Goofus. I registered Non-Partisan when I was 18 and have never voted for a GOP Presidential candidate in my life. I intend to vote for Kerry this time.
Haj
[To add:]
Waaaiiit… that is a rhetorical question, right?
We can agree to disagree on this point.
Did you read Liberal’s brilliant analogy (in I forget which thread) concerning MLK? It is a perfect example of how someone like Moore can present “facts” in such a way as to create an extremely false impression. Besides, F9/11 isn’t Moore’s first film. Most of his reputation for either playing fast and loose with the facts or just downright lying comes from the work he’s done previously.
True. And many here have done exactly that. However, it was the the response of the audience to Ronstadt’s comments that I was actually speaking to.
That’s all well and good for him, but clearly the audience at Ronstadt’s show views patriotism differently.
I think anyone who calls him unAmerican is the very epitome of American…you know…free speech, differing opinions, etc.?
But aren’t frequent gamblers usually, well… gambling? The shows tend to draw people who are more into shows than gambling, since otherwise they would be on the casino floor rather than at the show, right?
In what way were Rhonstadt’s comments out of character? She’s been on the left since she first became famous in the Sixties. She may not make the papers much lately, but I haven’t seen any reason to think she’s become politically conservative.
I have to wonder who it was the conservatives in the audience thought they were coming to see. I would certainly have expected a political comment or two from LR, and they should have as well. It almost seems like they went to the show just to give themselves an excuse to get angry, like the people who attend rallies just to make a point by walking out when a particular speaker walks onto the dais.
Seriously, I’m sure it is to drum up a little business for his casino. They have been in trouble now since they re-opened a few years ago. They’ve been batting around bankruptcy looking for a buyer, talking about imploding it to build condos there instead, etc etc. Honestly, on our news you hear “Bad news for the Aladdin again today…” more often than almost any other casino. I would not be surprised one bit if much ado was made over nothing to get their name out there in some controversy.
Another person posted earlier that it was a win for Ms Ronstadt. I thoroughly agree. Now she’s not bound to a contract with them and can (even though she’s not top dollar anymore) get something with a better casino, and have a little publicity herself.
From what I understand, the Aladdin has gotten a lot of positive phone calls and telegrams from conservatives, and had many cancellations and protest phone calls from those who disagree. I’m sure the dipshit who has been running the place into the ground is in hog heaven with the publicity.
Wrong.
For any show, a good amount of tickets are held back so that they casino can “comp” them to people who are gambling a lot. People who are very much into gambling see shows all the time.