There's a chill wind blowing across America..

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Robbins



Let me state up front that most here would know that I am fairly conservative. However I always seek new views, and information. I was examining the Green Party website and came across the following article.



The I thought back to the similarities between it and the speech given about not speaking at Cooperstown.



Chill Wind



It is interesting to me because the are, in my view, fairly similar yet one was before and another after 9/11.



It raises some interesting questions.



1. Is Robbins just paranoid and thinks everyone is out to oppress him and his views.



2. Has political discourse become so battle oriented that we can read no difference in reactions to opposing a war and opposing a candidate?



3. Are the Democratic and Republican parties just two birds of a feather?



Any other thoughts and questions are welcome, but it wandered through my mind and I thought I would put it to yours.



Nick

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    2. Has political discourse become so battle oriented that we can read no difference in reactions to opposing a war and opposing a candidate?



    Naqoyqatsi
  • Reply 2 of 20
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    [flame suit]



    well, with the resignation of Ari Fleischer from White House Press responsibilities, maybe Americans won't have to "watch what they say" as much as they were warned to under his watch.



    [/flame suit]
  • Reply 3 of 20
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    demos and repubs similar birds. co-evolved with lots of similar species, subtle differences. may not matter. can mate. same species? biologists have yet to decide.
  • Reply 4 of 20
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    yes, Ari Fleischer was certainly the mastermind of the Bush administration.



    Give me a break. He's a press secretary--important job, great perks but he never made policy.
  • Reply 5 of 20
    enaena Posts: 667member
    I saw that live on CSPAN---waiting to see RUMMY, of course.



    I thought it was okay to suppress free speech. What is Robbins talking about? Weird. Absolutely weird. If it was okay for his wife to have Dr. Laura's TV show THROWN OFF THE FREAKING AIR it should be okay not to go see his movies.



    But then it might just be the little alien spaceships flying around in his head.
  • Reply 6 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    When every hollywood dip shit turns every mic that's put infornt of their face into a soap box for their anit-Bush/anti-American/anti-War statesments is it any wonder that people don't want them around events that have nothing to do with any of that? No.





    Oh and freedom cuts both ways here people.
  • Reply 7 of 20
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Quote:

    Oh and freedom cuts both ways here people.



    How so?
  • Reply 8 of 20
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    How so?



    ...because people who get someone's TV show cancelled really don't have any business talking about freedom of speech---it's nonsensical.
  • Reply 9 of 20
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    ...because people who get someone's TV show cancelled really don't have any business talking about freedom of speech---it's nonsensical.



    no that statement is nonsensical. i can demand that a show be removed from tv, that is my free speech right. i can be sucessful at that. that tv show on the other hand can lambast me for my attempt. that is their free speech right. it is those that actually removed the program that were exercising censure...
  • Reply 10 of 20
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    no that statement is nonsensical. i can demand that a show be removed from tv, that is my free speech right. i can be sucessful at that. that tv show on the other hand can lambast me for my attempt. that is their free speech right. it is those that actually removed the program that were exercising censure...



    OH, GIVE ME BREAK!!!!







    Arguing for censure and actually doing the censure aren't morally equivalent? Then hate speech would be "legal".
  • Reply 11 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    How so?



    Freedom of speech and freedom of association. I have a right not to do business with people I don't want to. Robins has a right to say what he wants. Others have a right not to invite him to events.





    It's so simple why it is so hard?
  • Reply 12 of 20
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 13 of 20
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Ed Healy, in the Press Enterprise (Riverside, Calif.) on April 19, 2003, wrote: "... Tim Robbins ... complaining that he and Sarandon have been deprived of their First Amendment Rights ... It appears that the shoe is on the other foot and they don't care for it. Three years ago Sarandon was part of a left-wing Hollywood militia that organized to vilify Laura Schlessinger and destroy her fledgling television show because of statements she made ... I guess silencing differing opinions and destroying livelihoods is only allowed if you belong to the anointed left."





    --and this chill wind is blowing because....





    SNIFF







    ....they didn't get invited to the Baseball Hall of Fame? AND someone's teacher SAID something? And the Dixie Chicks need a remedial course in brand management?







    These sh!theads went out and coerced the advertisers of Dr. Laura's show to not pony up the cash when the ratings WERE CLEARLY THERE. The public is being denied what they want because Sarandon---who is an actor and producer and not outside the influence-peddling community in Hollywood---banded together with others and used their influence---which goes WAY beyond "free speech" to put the whammy on someone's career.
  • Reply 14 of 20
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    IMO, Robbins makes a valid point about the difference if it's a top down policy from Executive Branch and/or corporate puppeteers



    Ari articulated that to chillingly intimidating effect with remarks that set an anti-free-speech tone, politicizing debate and attempting to tie dissenting opinion to treason



    and Robbins' 9/11 comments about that being a seminal moment,

    or Tipping Point to use Malcolm Gladwell's phrase, also ring true.

    fork in the road. branching of the multiverse. path not taken.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by curiousuburb





    Ari articulated that to chillingly intimidating effect with remarks that set an anti-free-speech tone, politicizing debate and attempting to tie dissenting opinion to treason







    Actually his words were taken out of context and misquoted over and over. If you hear/read what he said it's clear what he said was that public figures, eg Bill Mahr, should think twice and speak once in the aftermath of 9-11 when the US is on a knife edge after a major terrorist strike.



    But I'm sure you didn't care to understand that. Ari didn't set the tone but rather you and others like you twisted the truth to set the tone you wanted. Robins et al can nail themselves to the cross much easier that way.
  • Reply 16 of 20
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Actually his words were taken out of context and misquoted over and over. If you hear/read what he said it's clear what he said was that public figures, eg Bill Mahr, should think twice and speak once in the aftermath of 9-11 when the US is on a knife edge after a major terrorist strike.



    But I'm sure you didn't care to understand that. Ari didn't set the tone but rather you and others like you twisted the truth to set the tone you wanted. Robins et al can nail themselves to the cross much easier that way.




    i'm sorry you were unclear then and now.



    don't misconstrue my alleged reaction to support your misunderstanding.



    i've been a journalist and done press corps briefings with UK Cabinet Officials (in HK).

    the regulars in the press corps can smell blood, and they can tell which way the wind blows.

    i watched the press conference in question and heard the gasp from the press corps. commentaries in canadian and european press noted its oxymoronic interpretation of the first ammendment with or without Bill Maher



    journalists everywhere have noted varying skill levels amongst press staff at managing official opinion. recent memory holds another era when Washington sought to limit opinion which did not conform to some official line based on fear...



    chill atmosphere then too
  • Reply 17 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by curiousuburb

    i'm sorry you were unclear then and now.



    don't misconstrue my alleged reaction to support your misunderstanding.



    i've been a journalist and done press corps briefings with UK Cabinet Officials (in HK).

    the regulars in the press corps can smell blood, and they can tell which way the wind blows.

    i watched the press conference in question and heard the gasp from the press corps. commentaries in canadian and european press noted its oxymoronic interpretation of the first ammendment with or without Bill Maher



    journalists everywhere have noted varying skill levels amongst press staff at managing official opinion. recent memory holds another era when Washington sought to limit opinion which did not conform to some official line based on fear...



    chill atmosphere then too




    uh huh Pardon me if I'm not impressed. Your ilk are looking more like used car salesmen to me every day.
  • Reply 18 of 20
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 19 of 20
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 20 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AirSluf

    But they have a real hard time with the truth. I have a really hard time believing that integrity means much in that business anymore. It's a different day than those of Murrow and Cronkite.



    Now it's playing to AOL/Time/Warner and Rupert Murdoch (Fox). Wait, entertainment, news, ratings, what? I'm getting confused here, are they creating it or merely reporting it.



    Geez, one of the few professions left with less credibility than a government spout of propaganda.






    OH PLEASE. You talk about truth and then fail to mention the NYT. Single Fox out? Head out your ass please.
Sign In or Register to comment.