He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
Actually the Dixie Chick's statements did relate to a group. They said that they were ashamed to admit that the President was from Texas.
That means they alone are allowed to determine what a proper "Texan." is regarding beliefs and actions.
In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.
I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.
No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.
I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).
It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.
My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".
Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
Interesting.
Quote:
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their action
I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.
No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.
I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).
It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.
My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".
Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?
No.
Give people some credit.
Give them also a place to congregate for mass-cd smashing.
Exactly. But so are PETA rallies, gay rights marches, anti-war demonstrations (organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. and other groups of strong, noted political leanings), etc.
So?
People still weren't forced to show up. No one HAD to. They showed up because they wanted to. Just like all the people in my examples above. But yeah, oftentimes in a large situation, there probably is some sort of overall, organizing entity.
There probably has to be, for reasons of logistics, equipment, facilities, permits, etc.
Now that we're done with that tangent, did I address your question? This tangent and my off the cuff comment about CCC has side tracked my brain. Too much red wine last night.
The whole statement, for those who can read and write more than a sentence or two...
Quote:
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Hey Santorum is saying if states don't want sodomy laws and if they want abortion provide that is.... FINE.
Sounds just like what I have reiterated several dozen times. States rights and speaking about this particular case.
He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.
Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
Quote:
Originally posted by Santorum
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
Shawn, take two steps back and just listen (this is VERY clear cut and no tricks or doubletalk involved at all):
Why would you see Clear Channel (a group you believe tilts to the right) organizing some sort of silly CD-smashing thing as wrong or dumb...
BUT you probably aren't too bothered by A.N.S.W.E.R., Not In Our Name or any number of other left-leaning groups "organizing" events and get-togethers?
If big, political-oriented groups "organizing" events or rallies is the thing, then wouldn't you, theoretically - if standards were equally applied by you - a lot of these peace marches and war protests give you the same feeling that you get by having Clear Channel orgazine these radio things? I would think so.
Do you not see the rub here? Seriously?
One group does it = bad.
Another (that just happens to mirror your views) does it = okay.
Basic, simple little things like that are, I'd imagine, what get you in trouble the most. I think that's what trumptman and alcimedes were getting at.
You (and others) seem so eager to bash one side, no questions asked, but the others get a pass and are never held to the same standards or level of questioning or doubt.
That's all I'm saying here. Do you not, intelligent and read as you are, see just that?
Can't you concede that, at the very least, you're going a bit out of your way to see/play one side only?
I think you are.
Not the end of the world, but it gets pretty blatant and I think that's what rankles people the most. If you didn't fight it tooth and nail (pointing out all the bad on one side, ignoring it all on yours), people would probably give you more credit and take what you have to say - and how you say it - more to heart.
Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.
Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.
Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.
That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.
Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.
Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.
He was asked to speak about the case. He didn't suggest that the court be "fired" or "step down" for their speech. That is what others here have suggested. Since the court is likely to rule in the manner he prefers, I don't see how the court is "against" him.
I didn't really speak to the issue of the court because the court has already ruled on this in the past and they are likely to rule along the same lines as their previous precident. They will likely rule that the state does have a right to infringe on privacy issue when it has a compelling interest.
Again I don't equate speculation about the ruling to equal hate speech. I can see the difference. As for this....
Originally posted by Santorum
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions
People are allowed to still have beliefs and disagreements in this country right? I thought my rights ended at your nose. He is speaking about actions. In his state they are currently legal and he stated that if others wanted to make sodomy and abortion legal, that is there perogative though he would disagree with it.
Until he is in someone's bedroom pulling them apart or seeking to have someone arrested, he is just expressing disapproval.
I thought that was still allowed, or did the ministry of correct thinking not send me a memo again?
I have heard homosexuals themselves say that they wouldn't desire homosexuality for their own children and that if the had a choice about who they loved, they would choose to be heterosexual because it is very hard to live outside of the mainstream. This is not because they were necessarily persecuted for who they are, but because they themselves grew up with ideas of what their lives would be like and they had to change their own thinking about themselves.
That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.
well, when reading through the entire text of the interview, i'm at a loss as to what people are getting worked up about. (i still don't have any problem with the original quote).
there has been more than enough information posted in this thread for everyone to make an informed decision. i personally believe that anyone capable of logging on to the internet and posting in a message forum posses the intelligence to understand the information available.
however, that doesn't mean that everyone is necessarily willing to actually read this information, especially if it disagrees with preconcieved notions. everyone can try to explain through examples, quotes etc., but it won't do any good at this point. no one is so blind as a man who won't open his eyes.
The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
I'll accept that position
Even Better.
Originally posted by bunge
Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?
Actually the Dixie Chick's statements did relate to a group. They said that they were ashamed to admit that the President was from Texas.
That means they alone are allowed to determine what a proper "Texan." is regarding beliefs and actions.
Very intolerant if you ask me.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME.
(He says staring blankly at the teleprompter)
Originally posted by bunge
In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.
I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.
No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.
I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).
It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.
My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".
Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?
No.
Give people some credit.
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
Interesting.
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their action
Originally posted by pscates
I kinda think they do, bunge. I'm not aware of Clear Channel banging on doors with guns, forcing Dixie Chicks fans to come out into the front yard and give up their CDs and memorabilia.
No one made or forced anyone to destroy or trash their CDs. People aren't sheep. I'm sure many more Chicks fans kept their stuff. Those that chose to go the other route did so either completely on their own or gathered, en masse, at a radio station to join other like-minded folks.
I very, very seriously doubt that people are honestly making a decision on this matter based on Clear Channel. I'm more inclined to believe that political and worldview issues played the role in their decision, whatever it was. Maybe they had a teenage son in the military? Maybe their husband was a disable vet? Maybe they're passionate Republicans or fans of the President? Maybe they don't like celebrities mouthing off? Maybe they think it was a low-blow or in poor taste (considering the time and location).
It's probably a hundred other reasons too...ALL of them more real and pressing and legit than some radio station.
My favorite station here in town could come on today and go "we hate Tom Petty and we're not playing him and we're going to hold a Petty CD smashing rally today at Miller Park...".
Would I be inclined to give up my Heartbreakers CDs and go along with that?
No.
Give people some credit.
Give them also a place to congregate for mass-cd smashing.
It's all about organization.
So?
People still weren't forced to show up. No one HAD to. They showed up because they wanted to. Just like all the people in my examples above. But yeah, oftentimes in a large situation, there probably is some sort of overall, organizing entity.
There probably has to be, for reasons of logistics, equipment, facilities, permits, etc.
But sometimes people just gather to gather.
It can go either way, I'd imagine.
Originally posted by pscates
I kinda think they do, bunge.
Now that we're done with that tangent, did I address your question? This tangent and my off the cuff comment about CCC has side tracked my brain. Too much red wine last night.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Unedited Section of the Interview
Interesting.
The whole statement, for those who can read and write more than a sentence or two...
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy - you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
Hey Santorum is saying if states don't want sodomy laws and if they want abortion provide that is.... FINE.
Sounds just like what I have reiterated several dozen times. States rights and speaking about this particular case.
He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.
Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.
Originally posted by Santorum
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
I stand by what I said.
Why would you see Clear Channel (a group you believe tilts to the right) organizing some sort of silly CD-smashing thing as wrong or dumb...
BUT you probably aren't too bothered by A.N.S.W.E.R., Not In Our Name or any number of other left-leaning groups "organizing" events and get-togethers?
If big, political-oriented groups "organizing" events or rallies is the thing, then wouldn't you, theoretically - if standards were equally applied by you - a lot of these peace marches and war protests give you the same feeling that you get by having Clear Channel orgazine these radio things? I would think so.
Do you not see the rub here? Seriously?
One group does it = bad.
Another (that just happens to mirror your views) does it = okay.
Basic, simple little things like that are, I'd imagine, what get you in trouble the most. I think that's what trumptman and alcimedes were getting at.
You (and others) seem so eager to bash one side, no questions asked, but the others get a pass and are never held to the same standards or level of questioning or doubt.
That's all I'm saying here. Do you not, intelligent and read as you are, see just that?
Can't you concede that, at the very least, you're going a bit out of your way to see/play one side only?
I think you are.
Not the end of the world, but it gets pretty blatant and I think that's what rankles people the most. If you didn't fight it tooth and nail (pointing out all the bad on one side, ignoring it all on yours), people would probably give you more credit and take what you have to say - and how you say it - more to heart.
Originally posted by trumptman
Scary thing that democracy is to people who prefer thought police and facism.
Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.
Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.
That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.
Originally posted by bunge
Not really. What he wants is to be able to get his way. The Supreme Court is against him, so he's against the Supreme Court. You might not have noticed but the Supreme Court is already part of the democratic process.
Scary thing the entire democratic process is to people who want to impose their beliefs on others.
He was asked to speak about the case. He didn't suggest that the court be "fired" or "step down" for their speech. That is what others here have suggested. Since the court is likely to rule in the manner he prefers, I don't see how the court is "against" him.
I didn't really speak to the issue of the court because the court has already ruled on this in the past and they are likely to rule along the same lines as their previous precident. They will likely rule that the state does have a right to infringe on privacy issue when it has a compelling interest.
Again I don't equate speculation about the ruling to equal hate speech. I can see the difference. As for this....
Originally posted by Santorum
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions
People are allowed to still have beliefs and disagreements in this country right? I thought my rights ended at your nose. He is speaking about actions. In his state they are currently legal and he stated that if others wanted to make sodomy and abortion legal, that is there perogative though he would disagree with it.
Until he is in someone's bedroom pulling them apart or seeking to have someone arrested, he is just expressing disapproval.
I thought that was still allowed, or did the ministry of correct thinking not send me a memo again?
I have heard homosexuals themselves say that they wouldn't desire homosexuality for their own children and that if the had a choice about who they loved, they would choose to be heterosexual because it is very hard to live outside of the mainstream. This is not because they were necessarily persecuted for who they are, but because they themselves grew up with ideas of what their lives would be like and they had to change their own thinking about themselves.
But I suppose they are just homophobes too.
Nick
Originally posted by pscates
Okay, I get it. Clear Channel bad. Fine.
That's not really what I was talking about above (or asked you). But that's okay. I guess that kinda, in an odd, detached kind of way, my question was answered.
If you say so.
(Wrong Thread, 2, 3) anyway. Whoops!
I think it's more Britney vs. Christina in that context...
Damn! That means I have to be Christina (no southern accent)
Alright I have to take a break from the fun here. Sadly I have to write so many papers in just three days.
(Although it shouldn't matter because my career prospects have already been decided...
Just kidding.
there has been more than enough information posted in this thread for everyone to make an informed decision. i personally believe that anyone capable of logging on to the internet and posting in a message forum posses the intelligence to understand the information available.
however, that doesn't mean that everyone is necessarily willing to actually read this information, especially if it disagrees with preconcieved notions. everyone can try to explain through examples, quotes etc., but it won't do any good at this point. no one is so blind as a man who won't open his eyes.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.
Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!
Originally posted by trumptman
(He says staring blankly at the teleprompter)
HA!