Stand up for yourselves, people

The BBQ Pit
1

I think W is a moron. I am embarrassed he is a North American, let alone a Texan. I know he didn’t get the majority of the votes. I think the war is fucking stupid, only to end the lives of countless soldiers AND civilians for no gain other than fuelling anti-western sentiment. Oil is the reason for the war, and a poor one at that. Any war plan that involves the collapse of the military and the instant uprising of the populace to support you, a foreign invader, is just fucking stupid.

I can say this all. In addition, I will not apologize. Why, then, can’t the Dixie Chicks, or more importantly Peter Arnett stand up for themselves when they say it (or something equally controversial)? They have the compulsion to say something clearly rooted in their worldview, expressing what they believe to be true, but they don’t back themselves up when shit hits the fan.

If you are happy to be maintaining the status quo, great, keep your head down and your mouth shut. But for fuck sakes, if you challenge the norm and make a comment, don’t back down when people object. That’s a fact of life when you are expressing a view not shared by everyone else. But by back tracking, and worse yet, apologizing, you are a fucking joke. Nothing makes you look more like an ignorant reactionist than saying something and then back peddling as soon as somebody calls you ‘un-American’.

Get a fucking spine or get off the soapbox.

2

Just saying amen to your last two paragraphs, and that one sentence hanging there too.

3

I was disappointed when Ms. Dixie backed down as well. (I did hear some coverage of the Peter Arnett debacle, but not the part where he allegedly backed down, too.)

And I agree with you. Hell, I thought Trent Lott should have stuck to his guns–IMO, what he said made him an asshole, but at least he’d have been an honest asshole if he hadn’t tried to backpedal.

That said, I think that the sheer gobs of vitriol that the Chicks (and, no doubt, Mr. Arnett) have been subjected to probably came as a surprise to them, given the freedoms they enjoyed previous to all this mess. And I have to admit that if my highly lucrative career were on the line, I might backpedal, too.

4

Because the Dixie Chicks stand to lose upwards of $10,000,000 if they don’t keep their mouths shut.

Because Peter Arnett stands to lose upwards of $1,200,000 if he doesn’t keep his mouth shut.

And because they both made the baby Jesus cry.

5

I am embarrassed he is a North American, let alone a Texan.

Hmmm, OP displays amazing ignorance concerning nation-states, territorial integrity and autonomy.

I know he didn’t get the majority of the votes.

OP displays apparent mental disconnect when advanced political systems are discussed.

I think the war is fucking stupid, only to end the lives of countless soldiers AND civilians for no gain other than fuelling anti-western sentiment.

Overly broad and simplistic.

Oil is the reason for the war, and a poor one at that.

Again, OP displays appalling ignorance of world economic realities and the current supply/demand structure as it relates to the continued healthy availability of reasonably priced oil. This in addition to vastly over-simplifying and exaggerating the role a steady oil supply plays in this context.

Any war plan that involves the collapse of the military and the instant uprising of the populace to support you, a foreign invader, is just fucking stupid.

Analysis from ignorance. Satisfies BBQ PIT minimum for vitriol.
I can say this all. In addition, I will not apologize.

Bravery across the border. It is to laugh.
Why, then, can’t the Dixie Chicks, or more importantly Peter Arnett stand up for themselves when they say it (or something equally controversial)? They have the compulsion to say something clearly rooted in their worldview, expressing what they believe to be true, but they don’t back themselves up when shit hits the fan.

Unlike the OP, IRL you pays to play.

If you are happy to be maintaining the status quo, great, keep your head down and your mouth shut.

Thanks for your equal opportunity free speech advocacy.

But for fuck sakes, if you challenge the norm and make a comment, don’t back down when people object. That’s a fact of life when you are expressing a view not shared by everyone else. But by back tracking, and worse yet, apologizing, you are a fucking joke. Nothing makes you look more like an ignorant reactionist than saying something and then back peddling as soon as somebody calls you ‘un-American’.

Or perhaps the apology and contrition is the more mature response, revealing a belated recognition that hot-headed, impulsive rhetoric is neither welcome nor productive.

Get a fucking spine or get off the soapbox.

I suggest a better axiom: Know your audience. Know your stuff.

6

Arnett doesn’t seem to have said anything that “senior Republican government officials and party leaders” aren’t saying, albeit anonymously: http://www.msnbc.com/news/893141.asp

The problem seems to be not so much what Arnett said (which one would certainly be hard-pressed to characterize as “hot-headed, impulsive rhetoric”), but that he said it on Iraqi television.

7

Man, I totally forgot about baby Jesus :wink:

ps. more disjointed, ambiguous responses in the pseudo 3rd-person, please.

8

Bick! You’re back! :smiley: Dood, where the hell you BEEN? Had to go look it up–October 2001. Eh?

[Morticia Addams (smiling fondly): “Screams in the night…”
Gomez: "…can only mean one thing…
Morticia: “He’s home…”]
:smiley:

9

Explain please.

10

Aw, Ducky, you remembered! :smiley:

“Don’t call it a comeback… I’ve been lurking for years.”

I decided to get involved again today when I read this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172988

You can see I still don’t know how to code links very well… hopefully I haven’t lost my knack for pissing Dopers off… :wink:

11

Does this mean that NaSultainne thinks that Kylen thinks that North America is a nation? That would be stupid.

Note: G.W. Bush was born and raised on the continent of North America. He’s a North American. He’s also a U.S. Citizen and has been a resident of the state of Texas. I hope this helps.

12

Sigh OP seems to believe that W owes some allegiance to residents outside and beyond the territorial borders of the U.S.

He is not a legal citizen of any entity remotely known as “North America”. His birth certificate, education and immunization records, driver’s license, passport and most importantly, Presidential authority are in no way consistent with “North America”. This is a geographical identification, not a political one. He was not elected by residents of “North America” already designated as citizens of nations other than the U.S.

The OP might as well have taken personal affront at W based on his standing as a resident of the Northern Hemisphere, the planet Earth, and humanity.

13

Oh for fucks’s sake NaSultainne! You and everyone else here knows what the OP means. What the hell are you getting so worked up over that for?

14

Whoa. Hold on a second. I just realized the OP is from Canada. Which means that the North America comment was completely justified. We’re allowed to have national pride, why not continental pride?

15

Allow me to retort, lest I be considered a hypocrite for not backing myself up.

I did not state, imply, or infer that GWB owes some allegiance to residents outside and beyond the territorial borders of the US. I said that I am embarrassed that he is from North America. As I am from North America, a very much real political construct (Norad and Nafta come readily to mind), I am embarrassed that the leader of a country so closely allied with my country (single largest trading partner, largest source of tourist revenue and vast cultural influence) is committing acts that I see as very heinous. To people who have left the confines of “the entity remotely known as ‘North America’”, in an international light North America very much exists. Much as “Europe” or “Asia” exist to us and our media. Therefore, I believe that my comment validly reflects my sentiments.

Next, with regards to my “apparent mental disconnect when advanced political systems are discussed” - Gore got more votes. Period. A majority of the minority of Americans that voted in 1999 voted for Al Gore. Fact. The system of electoral colleges employed federally within the US meant that while Gore got the popular nod (by a small margin) Bush won the election per the law of the land. Nevertheless, he did not get a majority of the vote. Again, I believe my comments to be accurate.

Carrying on, “Overly broad and simplistic,” with reference to my opinion on the results of the invasion of Iraq. Quite the verbose reply. When a reporter of Arnett’s apparent calibre and background can criticize the war policy, suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq are occurring directly and are attributed to the war, and when a US soldier grenade-attacks his colleagues, I am basing my opinion on facts and current world issues. Or perhaps you wanted me to add “unfettered U.S. access to Arab Oil” to the list of war outcomes?

** Again, OP displays appalling ignorance of world economic realities and the current supply/demand structure as it relates to the continued healthy availability of reasonably priced oil. This in addition to vastly over-simplifying and exaggerating the role a steady oil supply plays in this context. ** Actually, I am very aware of the world economic realities as they relate to oil. I am aware that, based on the opinion of leading experts in the employ of major oil companies, a decline in world oil production is inevitable. And as the current government seems willing to ignore its own people and scientists when it comes to ANWR and other matters of energy policy it is easy to see how I might feel that invading a country with established oil reserves, where you already have troops, under the auspices of fighting terror (even though the leaders of the invasion have stated that there is no relation between Iraq and terror could be seen as maybe a little suspect.

A series of one-off replies lacking in everything but malice follow, until the final note: **Or perhaps the apology and contrition is the more mature response, revealing a belated recognition that hot-headed, impulsive rhetoric is neither welcome nor productive. **

Feel free to heed your own words.
Of course, I did simplify my OP. This is The Pit after all, and not GD or GQ. I intended my post to be as raw as my emotions on the subject, aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator that is wont to use profanity and cheap shots rather than articulate speech to prove a point. And judging from your replies to my post, NaSultainne, I have reached my target market. And when you try to use big, complicated words to make your point, try to ensure that it isn’t just you that thinks they are big and complicated.

16

I haven’t even worked up a sweat over this, dearie. I just find it rather, egotistical, shall we say, that every tom, dick and kylen around the world seems to think that by appealing to some grand perceived aura of association (We can too complain about Bush 'cause we’re like all, like, breathing air don’t you know!) gets rather wearisome. Bush is doing what he believes to be in the American national interest. If that conflicts with Canada, then Canada will have to deal with it, dude.

Should any and all dopers choose to voice their opinions of Bush, have at it. Just don’t presume that you stand on rank when it comes to determining our national policy.

17

Could it be, NuSultainne, that perhaps these people realize that Bush’s actions affect the entire world, not just the United States? (The correct answer is yes, in case you can’t figure it out.)

18

Wait–you mean there’s a world outside of the United States?! :wink:

19

Wow - wishfull thinking - Bush elected in '99 - that would mean the end is in sight. I meant to say 2000, lest I get piled on for inaccuracy.

20

Or vomit.