Say whatever you like, Bub. You’ve already exposed yourself for the disingenuous semantic game player you are. Keep trying, you won’t get a rise out of me. As I said, fool me once, shame on you…
There won’t be a twice.
SA: Oh, I know…it’s because almost every time you have a big mouth celebrity either telling people what to think, or criticizing Americans for being stupid, or apologizing for America, it’s a liberal who’s doing it! […]
If Britney Spears was the only one proselytizing for the left (or hell, even Christina Aguillera) you wouldn’t be hearing much complaint from the right I’m sure.
In other words, you’re saying that the real reason you’re complaining is not because of the principle but because you don’t like being outnumbered?
If you’re really objecting to celebrity political “proselytizing” on ethical grounds, I would think you’d have to complain about it irrespective of how many people of whatsoever political stripe are doing it. (That’s what I’ve seen some conservative posters such as Jodi do elsewhere on these boards, and while I don’t agree with their opinion I greatly admire their evenhanded application of it.) Otherwise, you’re just flat-out admitting that you’re using a double standard.
Not at all. I’m saying if all there wouldn’t be much of a threat if Spears or Aguillera were cheering for you.
Let me rephrase that. I was racing the cut-off and it shows. What I meant to say was "Not at all. It wouldn’t be much of a threat if Spears or Aguillera were virtually the only ones speaking for the other side.
You ask again about my complaint. It is as I’ve said ad infinitum: It’s about celebrities trying to leverage their celebrity to persuade people to think a certain way or vote a certain way.
Why does no one address this? Instead, it’s why do I think so-and-so; why is it okay for conservatives to do it; what do I think Streisand is doing; why shouldn’t they have a right to do it (as if I were saying they shouldn’t); is Rush an entertainer; etc., etc., etc.
So far, no one has contested–and no one has defended–the type of thinking that politically outspoken celebrities are plainly indulging in, or whether or not this kind of self-impressed, conceited and arrogant way of thinking is really something to be admired and supported, and/or whether or not they have any other conceivable reason for wanting to speak out if not to persuade people by sheer dint of their celebrity.
Thoughts, anyone?
Nobody here does, it seems, other than Grand Keeper of Secrets Apos. Certainly hasn’t stopped people from getting their panties in a bunch over it, though.
So what is the story, Apos? Did you ‘hear’ the purported comment after huffing paint thinner? Did you just plain make it up? Repeating some babble you read elsewhere, and have no idea? Or did you actually hear it yourself?
Whilst I agree with you to a point Starving Artist what is more important to me is is that “artists” are artists and politicians are politicians.
If a politician (an elected one…one I didn’t vote for) says something idotic, I shall bitch and moan and make a ruckus. I shall also point out every crappy thing they ever did before to back up my position. 
If someone I voted for (and plan to vote for again) says something idiotic…well I shall mumble loudly and point out their prior good points and point out that they have plans for further good things.
If an “artist” slags of my man of the moment (well women …in my countries case) , I will snort condescendingly and say that “I never thought much of them anyway” or IGNORE THEIR STUPID ARSES.
If an “artist” agrees with my polly of the moment I might as an aside say “See I always knew he/she was smart” and then I WOULD IGNORE THEIR STUPID ARSES.
They have every right to express their opinion, they just have more people exposed to it. We have every right not to pay a single bit of attention to a word they say.
I know the bloke at the local shop and I discuss politics often…his opinion means just as much as anyone elses. At the end of the day I will vote how I decide to.
I pay slightly more attention to political commentators but I STILL IGNORE THEM.
Well, a bit of googling came up with this , but for all I know this is Apos’ site 
Still no quote though. Did he say this on his show or in an interview? It would help if we knew where to look for this.
I poked around on his site, but you have to be a member to get all the stuff. Not something I would pay to do. Any card carrying paid in full dittoheads care to look for a quote?
As for Starving Artist, let’s be civil please. SA has been taking a lot of punches in relatively good spirits so let’s all try to respond in kind.
Starving, I understand your point about sticking around for people to respond. I just think it’s a bit weak. While they do allow people of opposing views on, they tend to be more “rah rah” pulpits for their particular side. When the opposition does come on, they become far more aggressive at making them look bad then getting the view out clearly. It’s not exactly a fair give and take.
And just to clarify for the home viewers, you are against entertainers such as Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson when they step outside and give their political opinions, right?
You’ve said several times that you don’t think they’re “qualified” to give political opinions, but you only say that because you disagree with what they’re saying. What do you know what they know? You have no idea, and don’t care, how many books, magazines and newspapers they might read. You have no idea, and don’t care, how many speeches they watch/listen to, how many news channels/news magazines/talk shows they watch. You have no idea, and don’t care, how many news/blogs/informational sites they read on the Internet. You have no idea, and don’t care, how many politically aware people they know, hang out with, talk to, debate with.
You have no idea because you couldn’t possibly know, unless you heard them speak and heard what their views are. You don’t care because their views are views you don’t agree with, therefore they are wrong, no matter how they’ve gotten that information.
The question is, what would it take for an entertainer, let’s say Bruce Springsteen, to prove to you that he was well-informed enough to be “qualified” to give his opinion about politics? Is he an ignorant non-entity until he runs for public office?
A lot of these people are probably far better informed than some in their audience. If they know something that maybe others don’t, they want to share it. It’s then up to the person getting the information to check it out further, to confirm and/or get more information so they can make up their own minds. They may or may not do that, but the entertainer isn’t responsible for what the listener does after they leave.
You don’t seem to like the fact that an entertainer might say something like "there were no weapons of mass destruction/Saddam had no ties to 9/11 or al-Qaeda/929 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq for no good reason/any number of other things, and there won’t be a right-winger standing there to give the 'pub side of things. Too bad.
[quote} originaly posted by Brutus
Nobody here does, it seems, other than Grand Keeper of Secrets Apos. Certainly hasn’t stopped people from getting their panties in a bunch over it, though.**
Um… Noone has pretty much mentioned that topic in two pages because the argument with SA is much more interesting. What thread are you reading?
[quote]
originaly posted by Starving Artist
Not at all. I’m saying if all there wouldn’t be much of a threat if Spears or Aguillera were cheering for you.**
Well that is honest anyway. I think you are wrong there too though. Spears fan base comes from the 7 to 19 yo girl set who want to dress, talk, sing like her, hell, want to be her, and the 16 to 20 yo boys who want to schtup her. That boy figure might go higher but after that they don’t admit to it. The girls are highly impressionable. The saving grace is most of them grow out of it before they can vote. I am not sure the males ever actually hear what she says in order to be influenced by her.
Lets look at Striesand’s fan base shall we? Pretty much bottoms out with 40 year olds and those heard it from their parents. Rondstadt is much the same. Somehow 40 to 80 year olds have usualy got a mind of their own, or were never planning on getting one and already have someone they are channeling anyway.
blah screwed up coding. I wish i could figure out why the auto code thing is not working on this computer.
SA, I have yet to see an artist of any political stripe saying “Do this, think this, vote this, because I am who I am and I think you should.” They make the same kind of political commentary that any one here makes: stating a position and giving reasons (good or bad) why they support that position.
If you have a problem with that, it should be with any idiot who goes “well if so-and-so is going to vote for X, s/he is such a good singer/actor/dancer/artist (or is so beautiful, wealthy, cool, etc.) that that must be the way to go!” I don’t know that any such idiot exists, but if they do, I hereby pit them.
But it’s silly to say that anyone who has access to a public forum in which to express their views and influence others for what s/he believes to be the good is behaving inappropriately in doing so.
I found an excellent source, which gives a good story of Rush’s career, to quote what he said. How, Brutus, you never heard this is beyond me, since it was covered by every major media source.
Here you go, dumbass:
On October 10, 2003, Limbaugh admitted to listeners on his radio show that he was addicted to prescription painkillers and stated that he would enter inpatient treatment for 30 days, immediately following the broadcast. He did not specifically mention to which type of pain medication he was addicted. Speaking about his behavior, Limbaugh went on to say:
"I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons. They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.
"They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem. At the present time the authorities are conducting an investigation, and I have been asked to limit my public comments until this investigation is complete."Nice cite, RR, but unfortunately it doesn’t even come close to providing br’er Brutus with what he’s [quite reasonably] asked for. We’re looking for something which corroborate’s that Rush made the specific comment to which the OP refers: that Bruce and Bonnie and the other artists in the Vote for Change tour are “drug addled”.
I googled the phrase (Rush Limbaugh + “drug addled”) and found much material on Rush himself but only one reference to the specific comment in question, from someone else who’d supposedly heard it on the August 5 show. I looked on Rush’ site (the things I do for the SDMB!), and I’m told I’ll have to sign up as a “Rush 24/7 member” to access the archives… If there’s someone willing to do that (and my commitment to fact-finding doesn’t quite go that far), we can possibly dig the real comment up.
Road Rash, you really are a simple little fool.
Your professor charges tuition to be lectured. You can google several reputable sources that provide second hand accounts. If you weren’t such a pussy you could do us all a public service and use your membership to prove otherwise.
I am not a Rush fan, and certainly not a subscriber to his website. Nor is it my responsibility to search for cites for posters not bright enough to do so. But, being the kindly gentleman that I am, I did google, and found only the above mention posting at some dork-ass BBS.
Put up or shutup. So far, the entire premise for the OP sounds like an utter fabrication. Here is your (Apos’, actually, but like a chickenshit coward, he has bowed out of his own party) chance to prove me wrong.
I haven’t been able to find the relevant quote, either, even in a search of Limbaugh’s own website.
Unfortunately, a full search and a full viewing of the text on that site requires that one be a member of the site, and that’s something i’m just not willing to do, especially as it actually costs money to join.
Apos, did you hear this on the radio? Or was it in one of Limbaugh’s syndicated columns? I really don’t have too much trouble believing that he said something like that, but it would be nice to see a quotation or a link.
See, I expect political speech from entertainers. Particularly entertainers like Raitt and Springsteen who have made a career out of folk/rock. Entertainers like Michael Moore who has made a career out of political commentary. Bono who has always been political - in music and in life. I hope they go out of their way to explain themselves outside their music, so their music isn’t contextless. They are storytellers. They are storytellers for the common man. Their art is political. And I sure hope they are informed enough to use it responsibly - whether on the right or the left.
Art can be political. It doesn’t need to be, but it can be and it often is - particularly with singers. And it can become so without intent of the artist. If Yosemite’s big trees were suddenly being logged, our yousemite’s art would suddenly be political. And I would complete respect her if she used her art and her voice to comment.
In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb - artists who create work that is political commentary have a responsibility to add voice outside their art to that work. Art can often be misinterpreted. Politics is no place for “and what does the urinal mean to you?”
SA: It is as I’ve said ad infinitum: It’s about celebrities trying to leverage their celebrity to persuade people to think a certain way or vote a certain way.
Why does no one address this?
Because I don’t have a problem with it. If you think that celebrities shouldn’t use their fame and public attention as a political bully pulpit, I may disagree with your position but I don’t think it’s unethical. As I’ve already said, there are other conservatives around here such as Jodi who espouse such a view, and I can respect that.
What I do think is unethical is if you’re applying a double standard to your position. Saying that your complaining depends on how many of the entertainers in question are promoting views you disagree with is IMHO a double standard.
I completely agree there should be reference to prove it was said before there’s any “debate” about it, but does it really sound a fabrication to you? To me, it sounds no more outrageous/iditiotic than a lot of other stuff he spews. (I have to admit, I only hear about the bad stuff, generally, as it’s debated here and other sites that would criticize him). Does it seem out of character to you? or does it only sound fabricated because there’s nothing to support it?