Concerts for Change

[Metal Vendetta]

[Pissin' Poonani]

Ooh! Clever!

[snarl]

The bottom one is more terrifying!

[Dead Head]

Dr. Fox connection?

[Metal Vendetta]

Scientific fact.

[Dead Head]

Arf.

[snarl]

What does my spiritual choice have to do with the fact that I didnt cut and paste the one freakin argument I said something about? Had I done such cut and paste I would have gotten the same statement from you with the added "How about you show the whole argument before you speak."

I was making a toungue in cheek statement about "not noticing" because I felt that was a ridiculous argument. If I wanted to really get into this issue I would dissect every statement. I dont. I believe there is alot of grey area on this topic and I dont feel like getting dragged into it.

Wooha, lets make tongue in cheek statements about kiddy rape!

My point was that your Christian President is forcing Christian religious beliefs on people, by cackhandedly enforcing legal policy to restrict abortion. I'd follow this up by saying that from what I have seen, it is christian Republicans that are most flippant about the issue.

I wondered if that was the case here. It interested me.





He died for your sins.

[Leatherneck]

If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is?

Ooh, let's see shall we? How about the feelings of fear and shame caused by being raped? Or maybe the attacker threatening more of the same, or even death if the victim speaks of what happened? Perhaps the fear that no one will believe them? Or not actually realising they're pregnant until the last month or so?

First the brain goes into gear, and only then do we allow the fingers to touch the keyboard.

Report the rape. Then there's no threats. You realize before the 8th month that you're pregnant. If you're raped, you get tested. That's common sense.

Usually your posts at least have a decent argument. This one, doesn't.

What does my spiritual choice have to do with the fact that I didnt cut and paste the one freakin argument I said something about? Had I done such cut and paste I would have gotten the same statement from you with the added "How about you show the whole argument before you speak."

I was making a toungue in cheek statement about "not noticing" because I felt that was a ridiculous argument. If I wanted to really get into this issue I would dissect every statement. I dont. I believe there is alot of grey area on this topic and I dont feel like getting dragged into it.

Wooha, lets make tongue in cheek statements about kiddy rape!

My point was that your Christian President is forcing Christian religious beliefs on people, by cackhandedly enforcing legal policy to restrict abortion. I'd follow this up by saying that from what I have seen, it is christian Republicans that are most flippant about the issue.

I wondered if that was the case here. It interested me.

The Christian President has every right to try and get his beliefs into practice. That's how it works-- you're elected because more people believe the way you do. Where those beliefs are based are irrelevant.

[snarl]

your feckin daft mate.

Woooo, if you'ev been raped and dont report it, everything bad that happens to you after the incident is your fault because you were daft!

It's not that black and white. I can see why you love George W [composite word including 'f*ck'] **** Bush.

People's brains dont work that simply mate.

The Christian President has every right to try and get his beliefs into practice. That's how it works-- you're elected because more people believe the way you do. Where those beliefs are based are irrelevant.

Lets play 'idiots'

If GWB made it legal for everybody to rape yo momma, would you back him to the hilt then?

Do you see?

Also, your president was elected because less people believe the way he did.

[Pissin' Poonani]

If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is?

Ooh, let's see shall we? How about the feelings of fear and shame caused by being raped? Or maybe the attacker threatening more of the same, or even death if the victim speaks of what happened? Perhaps the fear that no one will believe them? Or not actually realising they're pregnant until the last month or so?

First the brain goes into gear, and only then do we allow the fingers to touch the keyboard.

Report the rape. Then there's no threats. You realize before the 8th month that you're pregnant. If you're raped, you get tested. That's common sense.

Usually your posts at least have a decent argument. This one, doesn't.

Sweet Zombie Jesus. Get off my planet, now.

Do you honestly believe the **** that you just wrote? Ok then, let's take a look-see shall we?

1. Report the rape
Yes, it's that simple. Some people do, but I think you'll find that a lot of people are too scared or ashamed to do so, which leads us to...

2.Then there's no threats
As far as I know, there's no rape ettiquette whereby the rapist has to allow his victim time to recover before he can make any threats. In fact, I'm assuming that most will make the threats of more of the same, or violence towards the victim or their family during the time frame of the assault. Whether the victim is 10 or 100 years old, I'd assume that the impact of a threat from someone who has just proved their willingness to harm you will be greatly multiplied.

3.You realise before the 8th month that you're pregnant
This thing you're currently connected to via your computer is called 'The Internet', and it's a very powerful research tool. Use it.

4.If you're raped, you get tested
Do you? See the above, and also take into account things such as denial, or post traumatric stress.



[/i]

[Metal Vendetta]

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Ok I see how this works now. Snarl says some nasty, rude comment and hes lauded as a 'comic genius'. I make an off color remark and get treated like Im a war criminal. And as for the internet, thats great and all, but Ive been through 2 prenancies. Seen them firsthand. Sometimes real life DOES work more than the internet. I read the article and I still think its a crock. If its not, then that girl is only the second person I know of in written history to have a baby and not be pregnant.

The other one got nailed to a tree for trying to get everyone to be nice to one another.

Maybe hes not the savior of man, but he had the right idea. Anyway Im off this topic.

Oh yeah.. the R Kelly thing was class

[snarl]

Ok I see how this works now. Snarl says some nasty, rude comment and hes lauded as a 'comic genius'.

Show me 'nasty, rude'

I make an off color remark and get treated like Im a war criminal.

Get over yourself mate. Seriously, you're talking bollocks here.

And as for the internet, thats great and all, but Ive been through 2 prenancies. Seen them firsthand. Sometimes real life DOES work more than the internet.

Woo, I have one piece of first hand evidence that backs up my pov so will discount everything else. Sensible. Hey, I'll also use some cliched little line just to EMPHASISE!

I read the article and I still think its a crock. If its not, then that girl is only the second person I know of in written history to have a baby and not be pregnant.

Nice going! It's easy to discount anything you don't personally want to listen to, you go girl.

How do you know that Mary wasn't banged whilst on Rohypnol? Can you prove she wasn't? Do you like my flippancy?

Do you see?

The other one got nailed to a tree for trying to get everyone to be nice to one another.

Maybe hes not the savior of man, but he had the right idea. Anyway Im off this topic.

Yes yes, it's very sad.

Oh yeah.. the R Kelly thing was class

Agreed!

[Leatherneck]

your feckin daft mate.

Woooo, if you'ev been raped and dont report it, everything bad that happens to you after the incident is your fault because you were daft!

It's not that black and white. I can see why you love George W **** **** Bush.

People's brains dont work that simply mate.

The Christian President has every right to try and get his beliefs into practice. That's how it works-- you're elected because more people believe the way you do. Where those beliefs are based are irrelevant.

Lets play 'idiots'

If GWB made it legal for everybody to rape yo momma, would you back him to the hilt then?

Do you see?

Also, your president was elected because less people believe the way he did.

If you don't report a rape, then yes, it's your fault if you have a child from that rape. If soldiers who've kileld families, you can get over a rape. Yes, it's horrible. But you aren't the only one to go through it. Find a support group.

Making it legal to rape is not the same as disallowing the killing of babies that could survive outside the womb. That's a horrid analogy. Come up with a better one and I'll answer that one.

[Guest]

If you don't report a rape, then yes, it's your fault if you have a child from that rape. If soldiers who've kileld families, you can get over a rape. Yes, it's horrible. But you aren't the only one to go through it. Find a support group.

So, you're equating 'taking someone else's life' with 'having your own body abused', are you? How exactly are you balancing the terms?

And, say you don't know you're pregnant because you've never had sex to your knowledge, but unbeknownst to you, that time you went on a night out in January, but can't remember anything about it ("must've been a good night, eh? got well bladdered!"), was actually when this guy spiked your drink with a date-rape drug, raped you, and left you with no memory of it, and, oh look, you're bleeding from between your legs, only it's not blood, but some liquid like water. I wonder what that could mean. Also, you've been putting on a little bit of weight recently, haven't you?

Is it your fault you didn't report the rape and you're in labour now?

[Denyer]

Making it legal to rape is not the same as disallowing the killing of babies that could survive outside the womb.

We should clarify terminology here; "late-term" refers to anything past the first trimester. That's three months, or roughly twelve weeks. Doctors will generally try to delay birth if labour starts any earlier than about thirty-four weeks into a pregnancy.

Second, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawed a procedure rather than a time limit—specifically, dilation and extraction. The act effects procedures carried out before a foetus is considered viable; it contains no form of exemption to protect the health of women where the procedure is considered the safest and most appropriate by medical professionals.

It prevents not one abortion. It merely increases health risks.

Do you actually know anything about legislation passed in your country? Or basic biology?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/08/nebraska.abortion.ap/

[wideload]

Undemocratic? Do you really think people are that stupid that they can't make up their own minds on issues? Do you not think that people actually read candidate and party manifestos instead of a 2 minute soundbite from the candidate's celebrity buddy?

actually most people dont read party manifestos. Especially the audience at most rock concerts. And yes people are influenced by celebrities, look at fashion for instance. If you can convince someone to dress a certain way you can convince them to vote a certain way.

I certainly won't be arguing that it's freedom of speech, because even you acknowledge that it is just that. No argument needed.

you missed my point entirely. I was arguing that freedom of speech is limited. You cannot say or do things that infringe on someone elses rights. For example hate crimes.

Calling people idiots is neither democratic or undemocratic. It's an irrelevance, just like your point about the perception of 'coolness/uncoolness' due to celebrity endorsement. If you or others you know take 'coolness' into consideration when voting for candidates it's a poor poor poor reflection on individuals if they do so.

These were just examples. Calling someone an idiot is a way of making them feel bad, and yes making people feel like crap will influence their actions. As for the "coolness factor" you can call it whatever you want. My point is that people will act a certain way based on how they think their idols will act or peer pressure.

I don't see any undemocratic coercion. Very broadly speaking, there are no militia that 'twist the arms' of voters in the US to vote a certain way. People can still freely make up their own minds one way or another. I see no problem with celebrities/musicians weighing in with political opinions.

military force is not the only way to coerce people. There are strict rules set in place about how, when, how much, and where candidates are allowed to endorse themselves for this very reason. Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic.

[Dead Head]

Undemocratic? Do you really think people are that stupid that they can't make up their own minds on issues? Do you not think that people actually read candidate and party manifestos instead of a 2 minute soundbite from the candidate's celebrity buddy?

actually most people dont read party manifestos. Especially the audience at most rock concerts. And yes people are influenced by celebrities, look at fashion for instance. If you can convince someone to dress a certain way you can convince them to vote a certain way.

For shame if they don't choose to keep themselves informed. But that's democracy for ya. Knowledge is power. I never disagreed that people aren't influenced by celebrities. But maybe that's a whole other debate on the vacuousness of western society. And sure, celebs may be able to influence people to dress a certain way, or to vote a certain way, but I think the degree of influence for those two things would differ a lot.

You can argue all you want about how its freedom of speech, but i think it just surpresses republicans that might like his music. As previously mentioned just because someone can do something doenst mean the should. A lot of the laws of democracy depend on good will and trust.

I certainly won't be arguing that it's freedom of speech, because even you acknowledge that it is just that. No argument needed.

you missed my point entirely. I was arguing that freedom of speech is limited. You cannot say or do things that infringe on someone elses rights. For example hate crimes.

I didn't miss the point at all. Just pointing out that you're wrong. Freedom of speech is just that - freedom to say what one wishes. As distinct from any follow-up penalty for uttering said opin.

And I still fail to see how Springsteen supporting the DP US Prez candidate somehow infringes on his republican fanbase. So..... if Springsteen supported the Redskins.....that would mean he was infringing on Cowboys fans, yeah? Bollocks.

For instance i can go around calling everyone who votes a certain way an idiot, but that's not very democratic is it. Which is essentially what happens when a celebrity endorses a candidate. A celebrity also has a "cool factor" associated with them. Making people who vote the opposite way as the celebrity just as uncool as people who dont like the music.

Calling people idiots is neither democratic or undemocratic. It's an irrelevance, just like your point about the perception of 'coolness/uncoolness' due to celebrity endorsement. If you or others you know take 'coolness' into consideration when voting for candidates it's a poor poor poor reflection on individuals if they do so.

These were just examples. Calling someone an idiot is a way of making them feel bad, and yes making people feel like crap will influence their actions. As for the "coolness factor" you can call it whatever you want. My point is that people will act a certain way based on how they think their idols will act or peer pressure.

You're an idiot. There. Was saying that influencing you? Irrelevant for this debate (but for completeness' sake... the answer is probably 'yes'). Was saying that 'surpressing' (as you said) your democratic rights? No. Absolutely not.

I don't see any undemocratic coercion. Very broadly speaking, there are no militia that 'twist the arms' of voters in the US to vote a certain way. People can still freely make up their own minds one way or another. I see no problem with celebrities/musicians weighing in with political opinions.

military force is not the only way to coerce people. There are strict rules set in place about how, when, how much, and where candidates are allowed to endorse themselves for this very reason. Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic.

Sure, there are other ways to coerce people, but the point was that the US, in a broad sense, coercion in the classic 'shady' sense does not feature, thankfully. As distinct from influence. 'Campaigning', 'promoting', 'influencing' is legitimate because it is still "take it or leave it". There are no reprisals against voters of the losing presidential candidate.

Show me proper evidence of which of the democratic rules and regulations that the 'Springsteen music brigade' broke? When? Where? Which ones?

"Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic." Gah. You're really talking rubbish here. Care to expand on that quote of yours?

[Dead Head]

<snip some visual brainwrong>

I find the Ted Maul 'pictionary' quite entertaining Metal Vendetta!

[wideload]

For shame if they don't choose to keep themselves informed. But that's democracy for ya. Knowledge is power. I never disagreed that people aren't influenced by celebrities. But maybe that's a whole other debate on the vacuousness of western society. And sure, celebs may be able to influence people to dress a certain way, or to vote a certain way, but I think the degree of influence for those two things would differ a lot.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. I think celebrities are very influential when it comes to political issues. Musicians are especially influential. I never said that I didnt read political manifestos, I said most people at rock concerts don't. As for the vacuousness of western society, its all society that suffers from that (i think there is another topic on the board about this). Personally I attribute it to human nature.

I didn't miss the point at all. Just pointing out that you're wrong. Freedom of speech is just that - freedom to say what one wishes. As distinct from any follow-up penalty for uttering said opin.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and never should be to protect people's rights. For that same reason political debate should be limited to certain venues. The concert of a pop icon like springstein should not be one of these venues.

And I still fail to see how Springsteen supporting the DP US Prez candidate somehow infringes on his republican fanbase. So..... if Springsteen supported the Redskins.....that would mean he was infringing on Cowboys fans, yeah? Bollocks.

First of all an election is totally different than a sporting event, but if you insist on looking at it that way..... you could argue that if all celebrities threw there support behind a certain team, then that team would gain a bigger fan base. This fan base would grow not because of the attribute of the team, but the influene of the celebrity. In turn that team would be able to afford better players, and win all the games. It would essentially take away any aspect of fair competition within the sport. Now keep in mind that were talking about an election, and if there is no fair competition in election you have a problem. YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.

You're an idiot. There. Was saying that influencing you? Irrelevant for this debate (but for completeness' sake... the answer is probably 'yes'). Was saying that 'surpressing' (as you said) your democratic rights? No. Absolutely not.

Now imagine if every day someone called you an idiot for the way you voted. Now imagine if it wasnt one person, but a whole stadium full of people. Its called peer pressure, and yes it would influence you I dont care who you are.

Sure, there are other ways to coerce people, but the point was that the US, in a broad sense, coercion in the classic 'shady' sense does not feature, thankfully. As distinct from influence. 'Campaigning', 'promoting', 'influencing' is legitimate because it is still "take it or leave it". There are no reprisals against voters of the losing presidential candidate.

Show me proper evidence of which of the democratic rules and regulations that the 'Springsteen music brigade' broke? When? Where? Which ones?

"Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic." Gah. You're really talking rubbish here. Care to expand on that quote of yours?

Here you are creating a reprisal. Not liking what your favorite celebrity has to say or not seeing his concert. For many diehard Springstein fans who are republican, wouldnt you agree that is punishment?

And yes campaigning has extremely strict rules. Regardless of whether springstein violates these is not really a crucial point of my argument. Which is basically celebrities have more pull over the general populace than the average person (a point you have agreed on), which is translated into political sway. Thus celebrities have more political power than the average person, hence UNDEMOCRATIC.

[Denyer]

For that same reason political debate should be limited to certain venues. The concert of a pop icon like springstein should not be one of these venues.

You'd better burn any Springsteen albums you have then. Or fade out the lyrics to a number of the songs.

Music is if anything more political than TV or print—because you're listening to someone speak. You're listening to people take things which concern or interest them and inject emotion into their communication.

Unless you're listening to Britney, I suppose.

you could argue that if all celebrities threw there support behind a certain team, then that team would gain a bigger fan base. This fan base would grow not because of the attribute of the team, but the influene of the celebrity. In turn that team would be able to afford better players, and win all the games. It would essentially take away any aspect of fair competition within the sport.

This is how sport operates. And it's how politics operates; there are more than two political parties in America. There are more than two presidential candidates. How many were on-stage at the recent debates? Two were actually stopped by security as they tried to gain entry.

Now imagine if every day someone called you an idiot for the way you voted. Now imagine if it wasnt one person, but a whole stadium full of people. Its called peer pressure, and yes it would influence you I dont care who you are.

Happens a lot, on all sides. With religion, with politics, with music, with sexuality.

Here you are creating a reprisal. Not liking what your favorite celebrity has to say or not seeing his concert. For many diehard Springstein fans who are republican, wouldnt you agree that is punishment?

Punishment?

You want Springsteen without his experience or passion and you're being punished?

Which is basically celebrities have more pull over the general populace than the average person (a point you have agreed on), which is translated into political sway.

No, it doesn't. I'm sure I can find music in my collection produced by people I think are scum. All you're saying is that people are sheep who can't think for themselves, who need protecting from anyone with any ability to communicate.

Thus celebrities have more political power than the average person, hence UNDEMOCRATIC.

Politicians have more political power than the average person. People with the ability to stand up on stage and string a sentence together have more political power than the average person. Again, I've no clue what point you're trying to make beyond the startlingly obvious.

[wideload]

You'd better burn any Springsteen albums you have then. Or fade out the lyrics to a number of the songs.

Music is if anything more political than TV or print—because you're listening to someone speak. You're listening to people take things which concern or interest them and inject emotion into their communication.

Unless you're listening to Britney, I suppose.

I didnt say music couldnt be political, I just think its wrong for celebrities to have the power to directly influence political events.

This is how sport operates. And it's how politics operates; there are more than two political parties in America. There are more than two presidential candidates. How many were on-stage at the recent debates? Two were actually stopped by security as they tried to gain entry.

i am in full agreement with you hear. Partisan politics is total ********.

Happens a lot, on all sides. With religion, with politics, with music, with sexuality.

I agree, but does that make it right?

Punishment?

You want Springsteen without his experience or passion and you're being punished?

There is a big difference between springstein writing a song and directly doing everything he can to influence the election.

No, it doesn't. I'm sure I can find music in my collection produced by people I think are scum. All you're saying is that people are sheep who can't think for themselves, who need protecting from anyone with any ability to communicate.

Thats not even close to what i am saying. Wether or not you chose to admit it, everyone is socialized by what is around them. When it comes to a vote people should be influenced by real political issues and not leather pants.

Politicians have more political power than the average person. People with the ability to stand up on stage and string a sentence together have more political power than the average person. Again, I've no clue what point you're trying to make beyond the startlingly obvious.

Politicians are supposed to have more power, but only exercise it as it in a way they think their constituents would want it exercised. The difference between celebrities and the average person is that they perform on a stage that the vast majority of people just dont have access to. There is a big difference in them expressing political views and directly influencing the results of what is supposed to be a fair election.

Basically the main point that I am making is that in a democracy every citizen is supposed to have the same voting power. Celebrities having more voting power is undemocratic. No more democratic than a corporation offering (or withholding) goods for votes, which is essentially what is happening.

[Denyer]

I didnt say music couldnt be political, I just think its wrong for celebrities to have the power to directly influence political events.

Look at the Governor of California. Look at Reagan's career in entertainment.

I agree, but does that make it right?

We're discussing opinions here rather than biology. If, for example, you can bring yourself to consider credible the notion of an all-knowing god which punishes its creations in perpetuity for succumbing to flaws it created them with—chances are I'm going to call you an idiot every time you bring it or related mythology up in conversation.

I don't buy into the notion that all opinions are equally logical or sane, no.

There is a big difference between springstein writing a song and directly doing everything he can to influence the election.

What is this apparent gulf of perspective? For one person, writing a song is everything they could do to communicate their political message. For another, it's organising a gig.

When it comes to a vote people should be influenced by real political issues and not leather pants.

Then educate people not to be taken in by media foils such as the Governator. The US has a weak education system when it comes to introducing kids to questions of media bias and self-interest, because it isn't in the interests of politicians or business.

Educate people, rather than calling for Prohibition on leather.

Politicians are supposed to have more power, but only exercise it as it in a way they think their constituents would want it exercised.

And quality control for cars is supposed to ensure deadly vehicles don't make it to the road, not that companies calculate compensation claim costs versus the costs of product recalls or negative publicity.

in a democracy every citizen is supposed to have the same voting power. Celebrities having more voting power is undemocratic.

Celebrities do not have more voting power. One person, one vote. Nothing stops Hank Doe making a rousing speech in his local boozer for Arnie and the right to fondle women with impunity. Citizens have freedom of speech -- they don't, in the US, have freedom of media. Which is why TV networks can invite speakers onto news shows, but only on the condition they don't mention third-party candidates by name (for fear of angering advertisers who run fundraisers for Bush or whoever.)

No more democratic than a corporation offering (or withholding) goods for votes, which is essentially what is happening.

A live show is goods? Better cancel the performers, lunches and other entertainments laid on at party conferences and fundraisers. Politics is: vote for me, and I'll do something for you. Simple as.

[Dead Head]

I never said that I didnt read political manifestos, I said most people at rock concerts don't.

And what is undemocratic about them not keeping themselves properly politically informed? Nothing. It's their choice. And if, as you say, most rock-concert goers choose to ignore political reading, then it's still not the 'fault' of Springsteen and company that the concert goers are receiving one Prez election opinion from the rock stage. It remains the right of Springsteen and friends to voice their opinions on-stage or off-stage or whatever.

The onus is on an individual to keep abreast of current affairs and affiliations if they wish to most effectively use their vote.

I didn't miss the point at all. Just pointing out that you're wrong. Freedom of speech is just that - freedom to say what one wishes. As distinct from any follow-up penalty for uttering said opin.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and never should be to protect people's rights. For that same reason political debate should be limited to certain venues. The concert of a pop icon like springstein should not be one of these venues.

Expand upon this, please. "Freedom of speech is not absolute"? That strikes me as saying that there's no freedom of speech. Where is this limitation defined? And what rulebook or regulation is relevant for the specifics of this politically-aligned rock concert? Please provide these references to back that up, otherwise your position rings hollow.

And I still fail to see how Springsteen supporting the DP US Prez candidate somehow infringes on his republican fanbase. So..... if Springsteen supported the Redskins.....that would mean he was infringing on Cowboys fans, yeah? Bollocks.

First of all an election is totally different than a sporting event, but if you insist on looking at it that way..... you could argue that if all celebrities threw there support behind a certain team, then that team would gain a bigger fan base. This fan base would grow not because of the attribute of the team, but the influene of the celebrity. In turn that team would be able to afford better players, and win all the games. It would essentially take away any aspect of fair competition within the sport. Now keep in mind that were talking about an election, and if there is no fair competition in election you have a problem. YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.

An election is totally different from a sporting event?!! Get right out of town! Who'da thought?!

What precisely is illegal about some music stars supporting a particular political grouping? And secondly, what precisely is undemocratic about that?

You're an idiot. There. Was saying that influencing you? Irrelevant for this debate (but for completeness' sake... the answer is probably 'yes'). Was saying that 'surpressing' (as you said) your democratic rights? No. Absolutely not.

Now imagine if every day someone called you an idiot for the way you voted. Now imagine if it wasnt one person, but a whole stadium full of people. Its called peer pressure, and yes it would influence you I dont care who you are.

You seem to be equating that a Republican Party follower who attends this Democratic Party-slanted Springsteen rock concert as someone at the event whose rights have been inherently curtailed by being in that position. That's baloney. You mention the difficulties of resisting peer pressure - it smells of someone with either a big inferiority complex or someone with little confidence to stand by their own beliefs and positions.

And I'm sure you don't care who I am, but suffice to say that peer pressure is something that I've habitually swatted away from my youth onwards and I continue to find it little burden.

Here you are creating a reprisal. Not liking what your favorite celebrity has to say or not seeing his concert. For many diehard Springstein fans who are republican, wouldnt you agree that is punishment?

What??? Clarify and expand this point please.

There are strict rules set in place about how, when, how much, and where candidates are allowed to endorse themselves for this very reason. Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic.

Show me proper evidence of which of the democratic rules and regulations that the 'Springsteen music brigade' broke? When? Where? Which ones? "Celebrities throwing concerts like this is a cheap and manipulative way around this. Hence undemocratic." Gah. You're really talking rubbish here. Care to expand on that quote of yours?

And yes campaigning has extremely strict rules. Regardless of whether springstein violates these is not really a crucial point of my argument. Which is basically celebrities have more pull over the general populace than the average person (a point you have agreed on), which is translated into political sway. Thus celebrities have more political power than the average person, hence UNDEMOCRATIC.

Since you brought up the point of 'Springsteen and buddies' breaking the "strict rules set in place about how, when, how much, and where candidates are allowed to endorse themselves", you should really answer the question and provide proper substantial evidence of this. I'm asking for the second time. Your original "Hence undemocratic" quote hinged on that evidence. So prove your point on the Springsteen concert 'democratic rulebreaking'.

Celebrities having higher profiles/influence does not take away from an ordinary individual's ability to vote on their own terms, based on the opinions formed by themselves with the two meaty hemispheres found between their own ears. It's still as democratic as could be.

Also the capitalization emphasis of "hence UNDEMOCRATIC" really makes your point twice as chucklesome.

[Metal Vendetta]

Springsteen puts on concert = democratic
Republican-controlled supreme court decides who wins election before votes are counted = undemocratic

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[Master_Fwiffo]

Cant you just feel the love in this thread? I think I feel a song coming.

[wideload]

Lets clear something up. I never said that Arny running for republican office was democratic. In fact, its just as undemocratic as springstein giving this concert. Another example of people using star power to influence voters.

As for lacking self-confidence, seems more like I might not be the one with that problem. The points I'm making are at least attempting to be logical, your just resorting to name calling. If you cant handle someone expressing an opinion that differs from your own without name calling, maybe this says a lot about why you agree with celebrity endorsement of candidates. You can argue all you want about being immune to peer pressure. You might not call it peer pressure, but everyone is influenced by what goes on around them. We are all socialized to some degree. Go to any university campus, and every professor there will agree with me.

As for freedom of speech not being absolute I already gave you several examples. I cant go around calling people racist names(this is a hate crime). I cant go around insulting people for no reason (this can be taken as assualt). I cant make up lies about people and print them as fact (this is slander). This does not mean there is no such thing as freedom of speech. It just means the individual has limitations (like the ones I stated above) to protect society in general.

There is nothing undemocratic about music stars supporting a political party. There is something undemocratic about a bunch of rich celebrities getting together and changing the course of an election by throwing their starpower and money behind one candidate. It is no different than a corporation or lobby group (which is essentially what they are) doing the same thing. As for people being informed, there are already lots of people who are informed. Believe it or not, they dont all vote the same way. Springstein is specifically trying to change their beliefs to conform with his.

As for the thing about the supreme court, even if it is true, dont you think we should strive for a more democratic election in future. Not just some kind of revenge on the opposing political power.

I should also clear something up, I dont support the republican party at all. I support democracy. Which means that people who support either party should have an equal voice. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is "evil" and "right wing". This is implied by several times when you have brought up what the republican party has done and insinuating that I agree with it.

As for third party candidates not being invited to debates or tv shows, it has nothing to do with advertisers. A party is not allowed to take part in a debate unless they recieve a certain amount of the vote in the previous election. If you remember in 1992, I believe it was, Perot recieved did quite well in the election. As a result he was allowed to participate in debates in 1996. He actually won the first one.

Here is a site that goes over how well you do on election influence the amount you are allowed to spend on the next election. Also give general rules about campaigning.

http://www.fec.gov/pres96/presgen1.htm

[Dead Head]

wideload - please edit your post to reply in 'point by point' quotation fashion to the points I raised.

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

Cant you just feel the love in this thread? I think I feel a song coming.

Yeah I feel you on that one. I started this damn thing and dropped out lonnngggggggg ago. One thing I will never understand is how you people bicker for days! Don't you get tired of it???

Hey Fwiffo lets go get some coffee, or take a vacation to Maui, maybe by the time we get back they'll be done.

*Edit*

btw Metal Vendetta that is one scary ass crab

[Guest]

btw Metal Vendetta that is one scary ass crab

You mean the red crab with the scary ass at the top of the page, right?

That is indeed a crab with a scary ass. Even though, we cannot actually see its ass, we can assume that it is scary just by the way its rearmost pair of legs look slightly pincer-like, and therefore its ass probably looks like its face (and what a surly/mean/nasty/brutal/4.5-buttfrenzy looking face that is!), and given that crabs move sideways, anything coming towards it would think it can see them.