Dems Refuse To Release Tape Of Hatefest

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by rollwave+12 July 2004 - 20:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (rollwave @ 12 July 2004 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@13 July 2004 - 00:51
Maybe in your town/city, the economy is great.&nbsp; In my community, house sales are up, alright...but not for the people who have lived here a long time.&nbsp; You know who buys all these houses?&nbsp; People come up from NYC, drop a bundle, outbid each other, thus, driving the assessments sky high.&nbsp; We can&#39;t afford a house, and we should be able to
Great economy?&nbsp; Tell that to all the minimum wage earners out there, who can&#39;t support their families on the take home pay.
Economy great?&nbsp; Tell that to all the uninsured, who can&#39;t afford to see Dr.&#39;s, let alone specialists.
Yup, the economy sure is better...for a tiny percentage&nbsp; of people..the ultra rich.

Housing sales are going through the roof nationwide. In my town, houses are selling as fast as they can build them, and most are 300K and up. That&#39;s because interest rates are low--thank you Ronald Reagan-- and people have more money to spend because they are sending less to the government. As far as health insurance goes, what exactly is Kerry going to do about it? Why didn&#39;t Clinton use his huge IQ and fix the problem in his 8 years? Hmmm? Know why? Because liberals want the issue to run on every 4 years. Same thing they do with poverty. Besides, that&#39;s a bogus issue being ginned up by the Dems because they have no other issue. Some people don&#39;t have health insurance because they are uninsureable or they are in college and don&#39;t need it. I know many that fit into both camps. [/b][/quote]
if im not mistaken, clinton created the biggest surplus ever, and then bush walks in and creates the biggest deficite ever. I rest my case.

[Biggles]

As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the convention or whatever was funny?

Over here it is not uncommon for the political parties to have a revue as a fringe event usually replete with celebrities. Although not official, the party leaders are normally present and laugh heartily at the jokes. As with most revues the jokes are rarely kind to the opposition.

Talking of values did not Mr. Chenney encounter some difficulty using words not often emited from the pulpit.

My own view is that Mr Chenney was perfectly at liberty to say what he said and likewise if the Democrats wanted to poke fun at Bush in private fund raiser then so what. Is private no longer private?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 July 2004 - 15:07
Talking of values did not Mr. Chenney encounter some difficulty using words not often emited from the pulpit.

My own view is that Mr Chenney was perfectly at liberty to say what he said and likewise if the Democrats wanted to poke fun at Bush in private fund raiser then so what. Is private no longer private?

Biggles-

Cheney apparently uttered an expletive directed at Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor in a man-to-man sotto voce exchange between the two, while the Senate was not in session.

Leahy had recently excoriated Cheney (in a public statement) over his Halliburton history in a rather scathing and accusatory manner, and then greeted Cheney in a "Hail-thou-fellow-well-met" fashion as they passed each other; Cheney told him to "go fuck" himself, apparently.

This exchange was not intended to be any other than what it was; a statement of ire in response to offense.

It was not uttered in an attempt to solicit a campaign contribution from Mr. Leahy, nor were there cameras present to record his words for posterity.

To those who feel the use of such language sullied the "Hallowed Halls of Congress", I would direct you to remember the goings-on in the Oval Office several years ago.

QUOTE: AlexH
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 July 2004 - 21:13)
We are all very well aware how the lives of these Hollywood people resemble ours, right?

I&#39;m sure we all feel the same way.....


Oh, come on j2&#33; Everyone bags the crap out of actors. Are you saying that the people who rose from waiting tables and pouring beers to living in a mansion in Hollywood are acting too l33t?

Would you say, Alex, that humble beginnings are the reason for what is probably a 95%+ liberal political voting stance in Hollywood?

If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.

If I am correctly parsing your apparent use of cyber-speak in assuming l33t means "elite", the answer to your question would be YES.

Also, if (by your statement) I can assign to you an empathy shared with Whoopi Goldberg, then you, too, are an elitist.

[Biggles]

I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Chenney&#39;s passing remark did little to make the good gentleman feel inclined to dip his hand in his pocket.

I recall also that the various tapes released during the Watergate scandal suggested that Nixon had a fairly robust vocabulary.

It is also true that over here the Alastair Campbell diaries exhibited equally colourful traits.

Such language is commonplace and I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought our representatives are somehow above such things.

My personal favourite antidote to such fancies is Sir Les Paterson.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 July 2004 - 20:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 July 2004 - 20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Would you say, Alex, that humble beginnings are the reason for what is probably a 95%+ liberal political voting stance in Hollywood?

If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.

If I am correctly parsing your apparent use of cyber-speak in assuming l33t means "elite", the answer to your question would be YES.

Also, if (by your statement) I can assign to you an empathy shared with Whoopi Goldberg, then you, too, are an elitist. [/b]

I did not say that humble beginnings always result in left wing beliefs. However I can understand why many people who started from such end up with liberal attitudes.

With actors especially, a liberal view point is an easy place to arrive at. You study a character or a profile, or a real person so much because it is your job to pretend to be someone else. Doing that for exteded periods makes it very easy to empathise with other people, and so when one sees so many people who are hurt or angry with their political leaders, who make policies that affect so many more people, it is understandable that you get quite upset yourself.

Can you think of any other professions that gets flamed as much as actors and musitians for expressing their plitical beliefs? Is the extent of free speech simply to criticize others for expressing themselves? Why has no-one said "Whoopi, I don&#39;t care what you think", or just ignored her comments completely?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If humble beginnings uniformly result in such attitudes (as reflected by our honorable Hollywood brethren), perhaps you could explain to me why I am not a liberal.[/quote]

I&#39;m afraid it&#39;s a 1 in 20 chance. It&#39;s not your fault.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ve been through this specific thing so many times before, Alex.

I would be the last (although I&#39;m sure any actor would disagree) to deny anyone their right to free speech, but, when you&#39;re a celebrity(&#33, that right seems to automatically include a microphone and a built-in audience, or, at the very least, a fawning media to act as a willing conduit for whatever escapes the lips of, say, a Whoopi Goldberg.

Typical instance:

A while back (1985), Congress convened hearings to consider the extraordinary difficulties facing farming families during times of rural recession.

To provide testimony on behalf of the farmers, committee members were treated to the wise words of actresses Jessica Lange, Sally Field, Sissy Spacek, and, of course, Jane Fonda.

The first three gained their empathetic and vicarious expertise (your favorite kind&#33;) having portrayed farmer&#39;s wives in a movie; nobody seems to be sure why Jane Fonda was invited, but she seems to be accepted as an expert in any area she chooses.

What supreme and superior empathy they must have to be chosen to appear before the committee, when surely a few farmers would have appreciated a short sojourn so that they might escape the barn and take in the sights aborning in our nation&#39;s capital-how downright magnanimous of these gracious women to stand in for the poor farmers, huh?

[Rat Faced]

Jessica Lang lobbied congress about Government Forclosures of farming land.

She was so concerned she raised the money to help Produce the film "Country", which she starred in.. ie: Her "expertise" was there before she ever starred in the movie.


Sissy Spacek grew up with the rural farmers, and her father was the Wood County Agricultural Extention agent with Texas A&M University from 1946 until 1975. I would be more surprised if she didnt know anything about the subject, and its hardly surprising shes interested...


Jane Fonda has always had an interest in "Community" work, of all sorts. Shes done nothing else for years...it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that this would be of interest, although I thought most of her work was with Children. There again, i suppose even Farmers in rural recession have kids?


I have no idea why "The Flying Nun" would be selected, but im sure shes probably involved in some type organisation and was representing them...


Its common to get patrons for charitable organisations, and for those patrons to speak on the behalf of those organisations.. I would have thought that these organisations would wish to contribute to any Congressional Hearing that concerned them... I know ours would at any Government enquiry or consulatation exercise....

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+13 July 2004 - 11:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 13 July 2004 - 11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude™@13 July 2004 - 00:03
All I am saying is we are in a time when any allegation can be made, even the most ridiculous, and instead of being backed up by fact it is backed up by some half baked, crackpot rant or fuzzy math statistics.

I say again: what if the Republicans did what the left are planning openly and sabotaged the Dem convention? Bloody murder would be cried. When did the left decide it was my concience?

Can I have my own opinions that differ a little bit or does that not fit with the scheme of things others perceive? And to say we live in a totalitarian (well actually it was facist) state is a joke. Other than lame attempts at airline security my life hasn&#39;t changed all that much, cept they now ask your name for bus tickets.

That is my problem: it is treated as if only the left is right, and all others are wrong, and you are an idiot if you don&#39;t know.

Heh.

What happens if these people wake up one day and are wrong?

-SJ™

SJ pull up a chair and stay a while.

But be careful with an attitude like that it won’t be long before Busyman says that you are one of Bush’s sheep. [/b][/quote]
The problem, Hank, is I at least try to see things from more than one angle.

I try to weed out bullshit.
Like: sarinwasfoundiniraqbushwasrightallalongbullshit

I don&#39;t blindly follow one thing.

I am not a Democrat.

For instance, some of my views on welfare reform would be considered Draconian.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 July 2004 - 17:32
Jessica Lang lobbied congress about Government Forclosures of farming land.

She was so concerned she raised the money to help Produce the film "Country", which she starred in.. ie: Her "expertise" was there before she ever starred in the movie.


Sissy Spacek grew up with the rural farmers, and her father was the Wood County Agricultural Extention agent with Texas A&M University from 1946 until 1975. I would be more surprised if she didnt know anything about the subject, and its hardly surprising shes interested...


Jane Fonda has always had an interest in "Community" work, of all sorts. Shes done nothing else for years...it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that this would be of interest, although I thought most of her work was with Children. There again, i suppose even Farmers in rural recession have kids?


I have no idea why "The Flying Nun" would be selected, but im sure shes probably involved in some type organisation and was representing them...


Its common to get patrons for charitable organisations, and for those patrons to speak on the behalf of those organisations.. I would have thought that these organisations would wish to contribute to any Congressional Hearing that concerned them... I know ours would at any Government enquiry or consulatation exercise....

So, then-

You buy the line?

Special patronage must be sought; the farmers aren&#39;t good enough actors to carry off a performance before Congress?

Whatever "expertise" possessed by the Hollywood Four, how could it weigh against real farmers?

Were the celebs on hand to impress the Representatives, who hold the purse strings (never mind whose money is in the purse), and not the public, who merely spectate?

See, if you&#39;re seeking proper patronage, you have people like Magic Johnson, who actually has HIV, or Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson&#39;s disease, Rat.

There are plenty of farmers who could more properly have testified in the place of four actresses.

If Congress were disposed to help the farmers only after listening to the frothings of those four, perhaps the farmers weren&#39;t sufficiently needy, or so, at least, one might gather from the circumstances.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@14 July 2004 - 13:57

I would be the last (although I&#39;m sure any actor would disagree) to deny anyone their right to free speech, but, when you&#39;re a celebrity(&#33, that right seems to automatically include a microphone and a built-in audience, or, at the very least, a fawning media to act as a willing conduit for whatever escapes the lips of, say, a Whoopi Goldberg.

And now the problem seems to be that the powers that be don&#39;t want the event splashed all over the media.
It was after all, a private affair.
First you excoriate celebrities for publically expressing an opinion, then they are called to task for not doing so.
All the while ( yes, I am aware this is at least the second time we&#39;ve been through this...) you say they have the right to any opinion they wish, just not the right to broadcast it.
Well, this time they aren&#39;t broadcasting it...you should be happy.