Concerts for Change

[Denyer]

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

I had a buddy at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a little girl in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms

One thing I will never understand is how you people bicker for days! Don't you get tired of it???

As someone once said:

"The best way to avoid 1984 is to ensure there are always counter-weights for everything. For every war, an anti-war movement. For every Orwellian piece of legislation, an active privacy coalition. For every DRM proposal, a consumer rights group. Give the debates raging. Keep the issues in the spotlight. When you tire of the fight, make sure there is fresh blood to replace you. Freedom isn't a war you win, it's an eternal struggle; albeit one worth fighting for."

The points I'm making are at least attempting to be logical

Where? You're suggesting political campaigning and fundraising is undemocratic.

I do agree with one thing: freedom of speech is mythical. It has never existed, nor will it. It's an ideal.

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.

You'd best start a movement to shut down the two largest parties, then.

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.

The debates are organised by a private company—the "Commission on Presidential Debates" isn't a governmental entity. It was established in 1987 following agreements between the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Its rules are arbitrary and designed to exclude other presidential candidates.

Badnarik is listed on the ballot in Arizona and over 45 other states. The October debate was partially funded by a state university, and the Arizona state constitution has strict controls on use of taxpayers' money. Had the three candidates been invited, the debate could have been portrayed as educational—as it was, the event was a bipartisan commercial.

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

One thing I will never understand is how you people bicker for days! Don't you get tired of it???

As someone once said:

"The best way to avoid 1984 is to ensure there are always counter-weights for everything. For every war, an anti-war movement. For every Orwellian piece of legislation, an active privacy coalition. For every DRM proposal, a consumer rights group. Give the debates raging. Keep the issues in the spotlight. When you tire of the fight, make sure there is fresh blood to replace you. Freedom isn't a war you win, it's an eternal struggle; albeit one worth fighting for."

Or we could all take a nap, or play with our transformers, that is my vote.

[Denyer]

Or we could all take a nap, or play with our transformers, that is my vote.

Wouldn't want to trouble your attention span...

[Best First]

I never thought i would find myself actively wishing rape on someone...

but apparently its the only way to learn these days.

hey ho.

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

Or we could all take a nap, or play with our transformers, that is my vote.

Wouldn't want to trouble your attention span...

Easy man im just playing around, and my real point is that I started this topic looking for opinions on the concerts, and now with all the bickering and hostility it has turned into people getting raped.

[Dead Head]

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???

No.

Firstly, it's not bickering - there's some good outlay of points going on here (unlike 99.99% of other "general discussion" forums out there on the web). There are some smart people here with which to continue a worthwhile debate. Secondly, I'd find it very depressing if all conversations were short and lowbrow - I get plenty of those when I'm shooting pool with my friends!

If something complex is worth discussing at all, then it is worth discussing intelligently and with suitable depth.

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

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???

No.

Firstly, it's not bickering - there's some good outlay of points going on here (unlike 99.99% of other "general discussion" forums out there on the web). There are some smart people here with which to continue a worthwhile debate. Secondly, I'd find it very depressing if all conversations were short and lowbrow - I get plenty of those when I'm shooting pool with my friends!

If something complex is worth discussing at all, then it is worth discussing intelligently and with suitable depth.

Very intelligent sounding for a dead head

[Best First]

Or we could all take a nap, or play with our transformers, that is my vote.

Wouldn't want to trouble your attention span...

Easy man im just playing around, and my real point is that I started this topic looking for opinions on the concerts, and now with all the bickering and hostility it has turned into people getting raped.

its almost as if teh conversation has evolved isn't it?

run for your lives! Freedom of discussion! run for your lives!

[Powermaster Optimus Prime]

its almost as if teh conversation has evolved isn't it?

run for your lives! Freedom of discussion! run for your lives!

Yuppp

[Dead Head]

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.

Logical? That expressing political opinion by famous persons in public is undemocratic? That is not logical.

As for name calling, where were you slighted by being called names?

I'd guess that I'm handling your difference of opinion just fine. I'm certainly not, for example, putting my black hat on and crippling your computer system to gag you from posting your opinion here. Again, as distinct from merely providing counterpoints to your posts.

And what are you trying to infer when you say "maybe this says a lot about why you agree with celebrity endorsement of candidates"? What is this 'says a lot'? What are the gruesome (ahem) specifics of this point of yours?

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.

Immune to peer pressure? I certainly never said that. As for the seperate point about influence, I never said people aren't influenced or are not social creatures. So you're sticking knives in a straw man there.

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.

You can indeed say/print all those things, as long as you are willing to accept a state's subsequent action against you. Your point is taking into consideration the possible negative after effects of such broadcasting.

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.

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.

So it's fine for a celeb to throw their starpower behind a candidate, but not fine for throwing their starpower-and-money behind the candidate. In order words, that boils down to 'it being bad that celebs throwing their money behind a particular candidate'. Is this the core of your argument? The money? If so, does your concern include the fear of 'favor buying'? And how does this relate to the specific financials of Springsteen's travelling circus?

And on to the other point, for the third time: 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 third time. Your original "Hence undemocratic" quote hinged on that evidence. So prove your point on the Springsteen concert 'democratic rulebreaking'.

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.

Why are you even telling me that "they don't all vote the same way"? What new insight have you provided there?

Springsteen has outlined his support in public for a particular candidate (or possibly more accurately 'against the current president'). Again, the point being it is 'take it or leave it'. What is the problem? Are people who choose to vote for the other party going to be blacklisted by his kind from future concerts? I think not.

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.

Again, because your reply was 'open' (i.e. without direct referring quotes) it is hard to determine if some of these points are addressed to me. Assuming that this one is, then when did I say, or insinuate, or let alone think, that anyone who disagreed with me is "evil" or "right wing"? Where is the evidential quotes to support your claim here? (Again if this point was not addressed to me, then just reply confirming that is the case. And it would be helpful in future if you do explicitly use the point-by-point quoting instead of 'open replying'.)

[wideload]

Assuming that this one is, then when did I say, or insinuate, or let alone think, that anyone who disagreed with me is "evil" or "right wing"? Where is the evidential quotes to support your claim here?

You automatically assumed I was right wing by the fact that you kept using things that the right wing had done (ex. arny, supreme court) as a means of justifying your actions. I dont understand why you would bring those up in a negative fashion unless you were presuming I supported them.

So it's fine for a celeb to throw their starpower behind a candidate, but not fine for throwing their starpower-and-money behind the candidate. In order words, that boils down to 'it being bad that celebs throwing their money behind a particular candidate'. Is this the core of your argument? The money? If so, does your concern include the fear of 'favor buying'? And how does this relate to the specific financials of Springsteen's travelling circus?

No I dont think that celebs should use starpower to endorse a candidate. What I meant was if they want to support a candidate they should and they can do that. There is a big difference inbetween voting for someone and throwing a benefit concert for somoene. The scale of the attention you attract is totally different. Celebrities are essentially a product. Althought they exist as real people, the vast majority of their fans dont know them on this level. Consumers are buying their image/persona as a product. I dont want Bruce Springstein decided the election anymore than I want Coca-Cola or Mcdonalds. Musicians who hold concerts like this are essentially turning themselves into a lobby group. Dont you think people would complain if everytime you bought a big mac you were bombarded with pro-republican prophaganda?

You can indeed say/print all those things, as long as you are willing to accept a state's subsequent action against you. Your point is taking into consideration the possible negative after effects of such broadcasting.

Yes I can technically print/say those things as long as im willing to accept a state's subsequent action against me. I can also commit murder or overthrow the government with a military coup. The point is none of those things involve obeying the law. So when I said you couldnt do something it meant you couldnt do it while obeying the law. Since all democracies are upheld by law I think this is a valid point.

Where? You're suggesting political campaigning and fundraising is undemocratic.

I do agree with one thing: freedom of speech is mythical. It has never existed, nor will it. It's an ideal.

I'd like to again point out the difference between a candidate campaigning by presenting his views and a celebrity endorsing him. This is kind of a major point of my argument.

I think freedom of speech does exist but its not limitless. Like all freedoms it must be limited to protect others. A totally "free" society can never exist. Since in order for society to function, people cannot do things that harm others or their rights.

You'd best start a movement to shut down the two largest parties, then.

This something I'd really like to do. I'm Canadian, we have a few more options than you, but there still dominated by partisan bull. As for how the springstein thing relates to this I think we should try and make steps away from corporate sponsored partisan politics. This seems like a big step backwards.

http://www.fec.gov
This site has all the information on when and how much a campaign is allowed to spend. What springstein is doing is essentially campaigning. Although Kerry is technically not doing it himself, thus making it legal. IT is essentially the same thing as Kerry campaigning himself. This is about as ethical as those stupid adds you see on tv by veterans groups slandering kerry.

Even if this concert is technically legal. I dont think its ethical in anyway. Its about as ethical as corporate lobby groups deciding the election.

Also I'd like to add, I'm just trying to have a friendly philisophical debate, sorry if things are getting a little to heated or if anyone is offended.

[Best First]

Big Business constantly lobbies government, usually to the benefit of only its top employees, and the detriment of 'everyday people'.

Conversely Brucey is, if anything showing a willingness to sacrifice a portion of his fandom for the sake of what he thinks is right.

[wideload]

Big Business constantly lobbies government, usually to the benefit of only its top employees, and the detriment of 'everyday people'.

Once again just because one person does it does that make it ethical?

This is a quote from the commision

"The law also prohibits contributions from
corporations and labor unions. This prohibition
applies to any incorporated organization,
profit or nonprofit."

IMO celebrities are equatible with corporations. Although I'm sure every industry has found ways around this, do we really need yet another industry doing this?

[Denyer]

What I meant was if they want to support a candidate they should and they can do that. There is a big difference inbetween voting for someone and throwing a benefit concert for somoene.

Yes, it's known as communicating your opinions to others. To people who agree with you on a number of scores and therefore may agree with you on others. Being a politician. Musicians are politicians, if you hadn't noticed. News-readers, actors, community leaders, teachers and celebrities are politicians too. There are no qualifications for being a politician.

Celebrities are essentially a product. Althought they exist as real people, the vast majority of their fans dont know them on this level.

Depends on the celebrity. I've spoken to or exchanged mail with many of the bands I listen to. Some have strong political opinions, some don't. If I disagreed with something they were raising money for, I wouldn't support it—it's a simple matter of not being a craven, fellating sheep. Depending on the issue involved, this would determine my future purchasing, concert attendance and correspondence.

You cannot legislate "these people have too much influence on grown adults with a vote, they must be stopped."

Consumers are buying their image/persona as a product.

No, they are sharing in a viewpoint expressed through music which allies with their own. You may be buying into bands solely as a form of consumerism. That's your choice.

Musicians who hold concerts like this are essentially turning themselves into a lobby group. Dont you think people would complain if everytime you bought a big mac you were bombarded with pro-republican prophaganda?

This is the case in cafes, restaurants, bars, churches, etc—whether it be guest speakers, notice boards or music. People then choose either to not patronise those establishments or to continue supporting them.

People vote with their feet and with their friendship.

So when I said you couldnt do something it meant you couldnt do it while obeying the law.

What law? Stop prevaricating and bring to the debate what laws you feel are being infringed by a fund-raising concert.

IT is essentially the same thing as Kerry campaigning himself.

No, it is not. Bruce Springsteen is not a presidential candidate.

Even if this concert is technically legal.

"I know I'm not offering proof for my assertions, but I think it should be illegal."

Corporations do not arbitrarily decide to risk up to 40% of their client base for things they believe in. A corporation does not believe in anything; it is treated as an individual in US law for purposes of legal liability, but also has legal responsibilities to shareholders to protect its dollar value.

[Denyer]

IMO celebrities are equatible with corporations.

And IMO, in the view of many others, and in the eyes of the law: they are not.

Music is giving voice to thoughts and feelings.

[wideload]

Yes, it's known as communicating your opinions to others. To people who agree with you on a number of scores and therefore may agree with you on others. Being a politician. Musicians are politicians, if you hadn't noticed. News-readers, actors, community leaders, teachers and celebrities are politicians too. There are no qualifications for being a politician.

You misunderstood no matter how you define politician, Springstein himself is not running for office. He is however attempting to influence an election that should be based on the political opinion of those running for office. And that is all it should be based on.

Depends on the celebrity. I've spoken to or exchanged mail with many of the bands I listen to. Some have strong political opinions, some don't. If I disagreed with something they were raising money for, I wouldn't support it—it's a simple matter of not being a craven, fellating sheep. Depending on the issue involved, this would determine my future purchasing, concert attendance and correspondence.

You cannot legislate "these people have too much influence on grown adults with a vote, they must be stopped."

guaranteed the vast vast majority of the people in his audience do not know him on a personal level. All they know is his image. Once again big difference between a band beign political and a mainstream pop icon directly influencing a vote. Even if people are not sheep(which I never said they were) it is not inconceivable to see it having enough of an effect on an election to swing the results. Which is the intention.

wideload wrote:
Consumers are buying their image/persona as a product.


No, they are sharing in a viewpoint expressed through music which allies with their own. You may be buying into bands solely as a form of consumerism. That's your choice.

My choice of music has nothing to do with this debate. There are a lot of people who care more about their favorite rock musician than who they vote for. Enough to swing an election. For someone to have that kind of power and knowingly exercise it is undemocratic.

This is the case in cafes, restaurants, bars, churches, etc—whether it be guest speakers, notice boards or music. People then choose either to not patronise those establishments or to continue supporting them.

People vote with their feet and with their friendship.

I dont think religious groups, or businesses should have any more influence either.

Corporations do not arbitrarily decide to risk up to 40% of their client base for things they believe in. A corporation does not believe in anything; it is treated as an individual in US law for purposes of legal liability, but also has legal responsibilities to shareholders to protect its dollar value.

regarldess of wether springstein is a corporation, that is a red herring. Even if he is sacrificing himself that does not make his actions democratic, so self sacrifice is irrelevant to this debate. For instance if I really didnt want Bush to win I would kill him. I would probably die in the process, the ultimate sacrifice. Does that mean what I did is democratic? No

wideload wrote:
IMO celebrities are equatible with corporations.


And IMO, in the view of many others, and in the eyes of the law: they are not.

Music is giving voice to thoughts and feelings.

I totally agree with music giving voice to thoughts and feelings. Even a major pop icon is capable of this. Anyone is. That doesnt mean a pop icon doesnt bear resemblance to a corporation just because they create art. I never said the art itself was a corporation. That would be like saying mcdonalds isnt a corporation because a hamburger can feed you.

Like I stated above this is a red herring... Alright I'm tired so this is probably my closing statement.

These kind of concerts, that are intended to influence a vote, cross the line between art and political coersion. Regardless of whether they are legal, art, or have good intentions the end result is that celebrities who put on these concerts have greater voting power than the average person. Thus making them undemocratic and immoral. But thats just my opinion.

[Denyer]

He is however attempting to influence an election that should be based on the political opinion of those running for office. And that is all it should be based on.

It should be based on the political opinions of the population, surely?

guaranteed the vast vast majority of the people in his audience do not know him on a personal level. All they know is his image.

You're saying they've never listened to his music and aren't listening to anything he says? What do you regard as personal? Bumping into the guy in the street? Reading his letters? Getting him into bed? Knowing his past involvement in a community? People know no more of elected politicians.

There are a lot of people who care more about their favorite rock musician than who they vote for.

In that case, democracy as you define it is not only irretrievably f*cked, but has been in the US for many decades. Those individuals have always existed; they're the same individuals who will vote for whoever their parents or church say they should.

You cannot change that; there will always be people who will hand their agency in a direct manner over to others. Just as there are millions of people who, for whatever reason, never vote.

Enough to swing an election. For someone to have that kind of power and knowingly exercise it is undemocratic.

No, it isn't. People choose to trust the word and intentions of others. That's democracy.

intended to influence a vote, cross the line between art and political coersion.

There is no line between politics and 'art'. Art is anything people have done and called art.

celebrities who put on these concerts have greater voting power

No, they do not. One person, one vote.

[Best First]

IMO celebrities are equatible with corporations.

mmm, but, and here's the thing: How?

and een if you are right, why are you seemingly more ired about one than the other? BS is at least being transparent in his activities, and arguably has far less influence, or cause to aim to erode the rights of individuals for profit (its almost as if...clebrities aren't really equatable with corportaions isn't it) that big business.

He isn't lobbying for specific policies that benefit him, he is just supporting his party despire the fact that being hugely rich from a financial level he would probably do better under Bush with his tax cuts for the rich.

But apparntly Bruce is the bigger problem.

People really piss their freedom up the wall don't they?

[wideload]

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:38 am Post subject:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wideload wrote:
He is however attempting to influence an election that should be based on the political opinion of those running for office. And that is all it should be based on.

It should be based on the political opinions of the population, surely?

But the opinions of the population are supposed to be reflected in the opinions of the people running for office. you even said it "No, it isn't. People choose to trust the word and intentions of others. That's democracy". Your contradicting yourself

You're saying they've never listened to his music and aren't listening to anything he says? What do you regard as personal? Bumping into the guy in the street? Reading his letters? Getting him into bed? Knowing his past involvement in a community? People know no more of elected politicians.

your missing my point again. Of course people listen to his music. My point is that his celebrity image gives him more pull than the average person. ie more people will listen to him than a normal person. Its undemocratic of him to take advantage of that

In that case, democracy as you define it is not only irretrievably f*cked, but has been in the US for many decades. Those individuals have always existed; they're the same individuals who will vote for whoever their parents or church say they should.

You cannot change that; there will always be people who will hand their agency in a direct manner over to others. Just as there are millions of people who, for whatever reason, never vote.

So basically your agreeing with me and my whole argument . So democracy is hurt by the actions you mentioned, do we really need additional people trying to tear it down. We may not be able to remedy the problem overnight, but yes we can do things to improve the situation.

There is no line between politics and 'art'. Art is anything people have done and called art.

Although the music itself may be art. The idea of having a concert to influence the vote is not. Just as I coud have an art exhibit at a republican rally. Although there would be art there that doenst make the rally itself art. There is a clear line between politics and art. Not everything that expresses emotion and feeling is art. A campaign poster not art. I could write "I llike pizza" on a piece of paper. This expresses my feelings and opinions about pizza-I like it. Still not art.

wideload wrote:
celebrities who put on these concerts have greater voting power

No, they do not. One person, one vote.

Your totally missing the point of my argument. By your reasoning lobby groups do not matter. Corporate funding doenst matter. But unfortunately thats simply not true. All of these groups, just as celebrities do, interfere with democracy by influencing the vote. Although a celebrity or CEO of a large corporation will only ever get one vote, their actions will have an influence on the voting public that should not exist.

and een if you are right, why are you seemingly more ired about one than the other? BS is at least being transparent in his activities, and arguably has far less influence, or cause to aim to erode the rights of individuals for profit (its almost as if...clebrities aren't really equatable with corportaions isn't it) that big business.

He isn't lobbying for specific policies that benefit him, he is just supporting his party despire the fact that being hugely rich from a financial level he would probably do better under Bush with his tax cuts for the rich.

The nobility of his intentions are totally irrelevant to this conversation. The question is wether he is doing something democratic or not. I've already mentioned how somethign can be noble and not democratic.

But apparntly Bruce is the bigger problem.

People really piss their freedom up the wall don't they?

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to get at here. Dont know why you keep bringing up republican actions as a means to justify what Springstein is doing. I have never mentioned positive views towards Bush in this debate or claimed that what Bruce has done is worse than what anyone in the Bush campaign has done. If you truly believe what republicans are doing is wrong because they violate democracy, shouldnt you apply a similar criteria to people on either side? Or do you just believe defying democracy is okay as long as the guy who benefits you is in power?

[wideload]

double post blah

[Optimus Prime Rib]

The shirt reads "I swear I didnt know she was 3"

Gotta love tshirthell.com

[Metal Vendetta]

The shirt reads "I swear I didnt know she was 3"

Gotta love tshirthell.com

Loving it already

But back on topic: where's Unique Ron when you need a healthy, balanced opinion on US politics? I bet he's a big Bruce fan...

[Denyer]

But the opinions of the population are supposed to be reflected in the opinions of the people running for office.

People running for office have opinions. The population decide which of them to trust. This is democracy. Individuals have the ability to form parties and stand as candidates themselves, in fact—though in this regard in the US they're actively disenfranchised by a bipartisan system.

Your contradicting yourself

That would be "you're", were it the case.

your missing my point again.

I grasp your point. I disagree with it—that is to say, I consider the premise the celebrities have more voting power than others a creative lie, founded on the equally abhorrent concept that grown adults with a vote should be 'protected' from anyone in a position to communicate their opinions through media.

So basically your agreeing with me and my whole argument . So democracy is hurt by the actions you mentioned

Nope; we really have to work on your ability to parse syntax. I'm saying that democracy as you define it does not exist, has not existed historically and cannot exist. When people vote, they take into account the opinions of those they trust. That includes career politicians, teachers, pastors, career musicians, friends, etc.

Although the music itself may be art. The idea of having a concert to influence the vote is not.

Anything can be art. It's a label so wide as to be meaningless.

Not everything that expresses emotion and feeling is art. A campaign poster not art. I could write "I llike pizza" on a piece of paper. This expresses my feelings and opinions about pizza-I like it. Still not art.

It is art if someone regards it as art, whether the person who regards it as art is you or another. It is a label; nothing more. Art has neither intrinsic nor genitive value; it's one of few near-universal signifiers.

Your totally missing the point of my argument.

I'm reading what you write. You persist in assigning to the influence of rhetoricians the term "voting power".

By your reasoning lobby groups do not matter. Corporate funding doenst matter.

A fund-raising event, whether speech or concert, does not constitute the buying of law. All political parties fund-raise.

The question is wether he is doing something democratic or not. I've already mentioned how somethign can be noble and not democratic.

n. "Representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large."

Dont know why you keep bringing up republican actions as a means to justify what Springstein is doing.

Because he thinks Bush is evil and self-serving. The same opportunities to reference the current president would be being taken if you were trumpeting Badnarik.

[Dead Head]

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.

As for name calling, where were you slighted by being called names? Well?

And what are you trying to infer when you say "maybe this says a lot about why you agree with celebrity endorsement of candidates"? What is this 'says a lot'? What are the gruesome (ahem) specifics of this point of yours??

Assuming that this one is, then when did I say, or insinuate, or let alone think, that anyone who disagreed with me is "evil" or "right wing"? Where are the evidential quotes to support your claim here?

You automatically assumed I was right wing by the fact that you kept using things that the right wing had done (ex. arny, supreme court) as a means of justifying your actions. I dont understand why you would bring those up in a negative fashion unless you were presuming I supported them.

You're talking cr*p here - I assumed nothing about your position. Where the fvck did I mention anything about Arny or the supreme court? Where?

And yes campaigning has extremely strict rules.

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'.

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.

For the fourth time: 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 fourth time. Your original "Hence undemocratic" quote hinged on that evidence. So prove your point on the Springsteen concert 'democratic rulebreaking'.

I'll repeat the question yet again in the hope of you giving an answer, and hopefully a straight and full one at that:
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". Where is the proper substantial evidence of this. I'm asking for the second time. Your "Hence undemocratic" quote hinged on that evidence. With respect to Springsteen's concert's alleged 'democratic rulebreaking', 'how', 'when', 'how much' and 'where' did these 'strict rules' get infringed?

Enlighten us.

Also I'd like to add, I'm just trying to have a friendly philisophical debate, sorry if things are getting a little to heated or if anyone is offended.

Personally, I'm totally unoffended.

[wideload]

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.
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'.

never said springstein was breaking the rules. I said there are rules that limit the amount the candidates can do themselves in order to make things fair. If you read the link it says there is a limit to how much each candidate can spend on promoting themselves and how much they can fund raise. Think it says 61.8million or something like that.
By springstein doing the promoting himself, he is going around these laws since they do not apply directly to him. He is opening up a front for Kerry that he would not be allowed to do himself. Not ethical.

People running for office have opinions. The population decide which of them to trust. This is democracy. Individuals have the ability to form parties and stand as candidates themselves, in fact—though in this regard in the US they're actively disenfranchised by a bipartisan system.

I strongly agree

I grasp your point. I disagree with it—that is to say, I consider the premise the celebrities have more voting power than others a creative lie, founded on the equally abhorrent concept that grown adults with a vote should be 'protected' from anyone in a position to communicate their opinions through media.

If you want an example of this look no furter than California. This is a state that always votes democratic. More so than any other state. Yet they elected a republican senator. Why? Because hes a celebrity.

Nope; we really have to work on your ability to parse syntax. I'm saying that democracy as you define it does not exist, has not existed historically and cannot exist. When people vote, they take into account the opinions of those they trust. That includes career politicians, teachers, pastors, career musicians, friends, etc.

democracy will never exist in a perfect sense. You know what its an ideal. No ideals exist perfectly. Some things move us closer towards that ideal other things further

Anything can be art. It's a label so wide as to be meaningless.

If its a meaningless label, then why did you bring it up in defense of your argument?

I'm reading what you write. You persist in assigning to the influence of rhetoricians the term "voting power".

I dont see how the term voting power is rhetoric. It is merely measure of the effect one person has on an election vs another. Its an accepted political term. Its commonly used in political debate (try googling it) and is totally relevant to this conversation.

A fund-raising event, whether speech or concert, does not constitute the buying of law. All political parties fund-raise.

What he is currently doing is different than fundraising. It is too late to contribute directly to the kerry campaign. What he would be doing is more comparable to a lobby group.

Because he thinks Bush is evil and self-serving. The same opportunities to reference the current president would be being taken if you were trumpeting Badnarik.

regardless of how anyone feels towards bush this debate is about what springstein is doing. Even if Bush has commited many evil acts that doenst justify anyone else being evil.

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.

alright I'll apologize for this. Looking back on it, it seems quite dubious.

[Dead Head]

this debate is about what springstein is doing.

There are strict rules set in place about how, when, how much, and where candidates are allowed to endorse themselves

never said springstein was breaking the rules.

Your subtext all along to SpringsteEn And Vote-For-Change was that they had somehow broken the rules of american democracy. They were apparently undemocratic according to you.

I read implicit acknowledgement in your previous posts wideload, that there was no breaking of these 'STRICT rules'. But to be explicit, do you agree that these STRICT rules, as you mentioned, have not been broken? Simply answer YES or NO (we'll get to your point about possible rule circumvention later).

Given that, you can't say it's undemocratic as it stands.

he is going around these laws since they do not apply directly to him. He is opening up a front for Kerry that he would not be allowed to do himself. Not ethical.

Give references to particular, specific rules that have been apparently circumvented.

With respect to "lobby groups", give references to the entity definitions for B. Springsteen, and similarly a reference to the definition for the 'Vote For Change' entity. And give references to the restrictions placed on lobby groups with respect to putting on politically-slanted rock concerts.

Explicitly define the circumvention/loophole in american democracy in this regard that needs ideally, according to you, to be closed.

Are there any level-headed people out there who share your position on all this? Are there a significant number of websites that have picked up on this 'undemocratic'/'unethical' view of "Vote For Change".

alright I'll apologize for this. Looking back on it, it seems quite dubious.

What do you mean 'it seems quite dubious'? What seems quite dubious?

[Denyer]

If you want an example of this look no furter than California. This is a state that always votes democratic. More so than any other state. Yet they elected a republican senator. Why? Because hes a celebrity.

Which means that they have, on the strength of what they know about him, decided to trust the guy. I think they made a poor decision; however, voters chose to entrust their support—that's democracy in action.

You know what its an ideal. No ideals exist perfectly. Some things move us closer towards that ideal other things further

Yes. Using one's abilities to communicate is not undemocratic. Fame is a reflection of one's ability to communicate with people—often on a personal level. Aspects of personality come through in song or performance.

If its a meaningless label, then why did you bring it up in defense of your argument?

Searching through the last three pages, I wasn't the person to bring up that term. I suspected I hadn't, given that I've long considered the notion that some things fit into a box marked 'art' and other don't to be pretentious waffle.

It is merely measure of the effect one person has on an election vs another. Its an accepted political term.

As a measure of influence wielded by communities and parties. It refers to demographics, not individuals.

It is too late to contribute directly to the kerry campaign. What he would be doing is more comparable to a lobby group.

What he is primarily doing (along with other performers) is raising awareness and mobilizing voters to register and get involved. To quote Matt Cameron:

"The name 'Vote for Change' might be an implicit endorsement for Kerry, but we're not explicitly endorsing him. We just want to tell people it's really important that they register to vote."

Just in case anyone has actually not noticed, proceeds from the concerts have been going to MoveOn PAC, not Kerry. They may agree with many of his policies; they may disagree with as many of Bush's—but they are not the Democrat Party. They operate in the same political territory as the NRA and Christian Coalition, except with rather less emphasis on religious fundamentalism and waving of guns. They support candidates and parties whom they feel reflect the views of their members.

[wideload]

Your subtext all along to SpringsteEn And Vote-For-Change was that they had somehow broken the rules of american democracy. They were apparently undemocratic according to you.

I read implicit acknowledgement in your previous posts wideload, that there was no breaking of these 'STRICT rules'. But to be explicit, do you agree that these STRICT rules, as you mentioned, have not been broken? Simply answer YES or NO (we'll get to your point about possible rule circumvention later).

Given that, you can't say it's undemocratic as it stands.

This is the last time I am going to explain this. The candidates themselves have strict rules. No the law itself hasnt been broken. It is still possible to be undemocratic without technically breaking any laws though. For instance lobby groups. How can I not say that is undemocratic. regardless of if the law has been broken. By your definition nothing undemocratic went on the last election, because technically no laws were broken, and nobody can ever disagree with that. Democracy is an ideal that requires the participation of all involved to make it work. It is a matter of ethics as well as law.

Give references to particular, specific rules that have been apparently circumvented.
[qoute]
Although its totally irrelevant to this conversation, since my argument is about the morality and not the law, but since you insist on this red herring where you think my whole argument colapses if I cant prove this....
"http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf"
here is the page that lists all the rules. Although these rules do not apply to specific groups, private rich people can spend as much as they want. Thus giving them more of a say in wins the election. Although not illegal it is unethical. As you can see my argument has nothing to do with wether or not the law is being broken.

For how the law is being circumvented just look at the quote below.

With respect to "lobby groups", give references to the entity definitions for B. Springsteen, and similarly a reference to the definition for the 'Vote For Change' entity. And give references to the restrictions placed on lobby groups with respect to putting on politically-slanted rock concerts.

Explicitly define the circumvention/loophole in american democracy in this regard that needs ideally, according to you, to be closed.


Are there any level-headed people out there who share your position on all this? Are there a significant number of websites that have picked up on this 'undemocratic'/'unethical' view of "Vote For Change".

Wether or not people agree with me has nothing to do with wether or not I think its immoral. Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though.
Here is an exellent article on it
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15397

Several pop icons also agree with me

"“If you are listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you are a bigger moron than they are,” said rock star Alice Cooper"




wideload wrote:
If you want an example of this look no furter than California. This is a state that always votes democratic. More so than any other state. Yet they elected a republican senator. Why? Because hes a celebrity.

Which means that they have, on the strength of what they know about him, decided to trust the guy. I think they made a poor decision; however, voters chose to entrust their support—that's democracy in action.

Ya but for what reasons are they trusting him. People "trusted" Arny does that mean it was for the right reason?

Yes. Using one's abilities to communicate is not undemocratic. Fame is a reflection of one's ability to communicate with people—often on a personal level. Aspects of personality come through in song or performance.

They are not trying to use song or performance as an explicit way of communicating ideas. Guaranteed these bands will be performing there old classics, then using there fame to influence people who to vote for.


As a measure of influence wielded by communities and parties. It refers to demographics, not individuals.

What he is primarily doing (along with other performers) is raising awareness and mobilizing voters to register and get involved. To quote Matt Cameron:

"The name 'Vote for Change' might be an implicit endorsement for Kerry, but we're not explicitly endorsing him. We just want to tell people it's really important that they register to vote."

Just in case anyone has actually not noticed, proceeds from the concerts have been going to MoveOn PAC, not Kerry. They may agree with many of his policies; they may disagree with as many of Bush's—but they are not the Democrat Party. They operate in the same political territory as the NRA and Christian Coalition, except with rather less emphasis on religious fundamentalism and waving of guns. They support candidates and parties whom they feel reflect the views of their members.

Ya right. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. This is exactly what I'm talking about by circumventing laws. Why werent the pro-bush artists invited then? I suggest you read the article above too.

[wideload]

Your subtext all along to SpringsteEn And Vote-For-Change was that they had somehow broken the rules of american democracy. They were apparently undemocratic according to you.

I read implicit acknowledgement in your previous posts wideload, that there was no breaking of these 'STRICT rules'. But to be explicit, do you agree that these STRICT rules, as you mentioned, have not been broken? Simply answer YES or NO (we'll get to your point about possible rule circumvention later).

Given that, you can't say it's undemocratic as it stands.

This is the last time I am going to explain this. The candidates themselves have strict rules. No the law itself hasnt been broken. It is still possible to be undemocratic without technically breaking any laws though. For instance lobby groups. How can I not say that is undemocratic. regardless of if the law has been broken. By your definition nothing undemocratic went on the last election, because technically no laws were broken, and nobody can ever disagree with that. Democracy is an ideal that requires the participation of all involved to make it work. It is a matter of ethics as well as law.

Give references to particular, specific rules that have been apparently circumvented.
[qoute]
Although its totally irrelevant to this conversation, since my argument is about the morality and not the law, but since you insist on this red herring where you think my whole argument colapses if I cant prove this....
"http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf"
here is the page that lists all the rules. Although these rules do not apply to specific groups, private rich people can spend as much as they want. Thus giving them more of a say in wins the election. Although not illegal it is unethical. As you can see my argument has nothing to do with wether or not the law is being broken.

For how the law is being circumvented just look at the quote below.

With respect to "lobby groups", give references to the entity definitions for B. Springsteen, and similarly a reference to the definition for the 'Vote For Change' entity. And give references to the restrictions placed on lobby groups with respect to putting on politically-slanted rock concerts.

Explicitly define the circumvention/loophole in american democracy in this regard that needs ideally, according to you, to be closed.


Are there any level-headed people out there who share your position on all this? Are there a significant number of websites that have picked up on this 'undemocratic'/'unethical' view of "Vote For Change".

Wether or not people agree with me has nothing to do with wether or not I think its immoral. Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though.
Here is an exellent article on it
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15397

Several pop icons also agree with me

"“If you are listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you are a bigger moron than they are,” said rock star Alice Cooper"




wideload wrote:
If you want an example of this look no furter than California. This is a state that always votes democratic. More so than any other state. Yet they elected a republican senator. Why? Because hes a celebrity.

Which means that they have, on the strength of what they know about him, decided to trust the guy. I think they made a poor decision; however, voters chose to entrust their support—that's democracy in action.

Ya but for what reasons are they trusting him. People "trusted" Arny does that mean it was for the right reason?

Yes. Using one's abilities to communicate is not undemocratic. Fame is a reflection of one's ability to communicate with people—often on a personal level. Aspects of personality come through in song or performance.

They are not trying to use song or performance as an explicit way of communicating ideas. Guaranteed these bands will be performing there old classics, then using there fame to influence people who to vote for.

What he is primarily doing (along with other performers) is raising awareness and mobilizing voters to register and get involved. To quote Matt Cameron:

"The name 'Vote for Change' might be an implicit endorsement for Kerry, but we're not explicitly endorsing him. We just want to tell people it's really important that they register to vote."

Just in case anyone has actually not noticed, proceeds from the concerts have been going to MoveOn PAC, not Kerry. They may agree with many of his policies; they may disagree with as many of Bush's—but they are not the Democrat Party. They operate in the same political territory as the NRA and Christian Coalition, except with rather less emphasis on religious fundamentalism and waving of guns. They support candidates and parties whom they feel reflect the views of their members.

Ya right. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. This is exactly what I'm talking about by circumventing laws. Why werent the pro-bush artists invited then? I suggest you read the article above too.

[Dead Head]

It is still possible to be undemocratic without technically breaking any laws though. For instance lobby groups.

Lobby groups are undemocratic?

Give references to particular, specific rules that have been apparently circumvented.

Although its totally irrelevant to this conversation, since my argument is about the morality and not the law, but since you insist on this red herring where you think my whole argument colapses if I cant prove this. <snip> As you can see my argument has nothing to do with wether or not the law is being broken.

I didn't insist on anything that was irrelevant, at points of introduction into this debate. YOU introduced the talk about specific rules and ways around them. YOU introduced any red herrings that may have been unwittingly seen (on my part, not yours) as relevant. But thanks for now clarifying that it was your red herring you were talking about all along.

So it boils down on your side to "Lobbying is unethical in the US democracy." Is that the crux of your point?

For how the law is being circumvented just look at the quote below.

Wha? Which quote?

Are there any level-headed people out there who share your position on all this? Are there a significant number of websites that have picked up on this 'undemocratic'/'unethical' view of "Vote For Change".

Whether or not people agree with me has nothing to do with whether or not I think its immoral. Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though. Here is an exellent article on it http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15397

You're seriously quoting FrontPageMag? That's a laughable source of opinion. Talk about hilariously far right and biased. Going by that, the answer to my first question very much seems to be 'No' - there are no level-headed people out there who share your position on all this. "Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though." - really? Show me more links rather than just one from a known crackpot site like FrontPageMag.

Several pop icons also agree with me "If you are listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you are a bigger moron than they are, said rock star Alice Cooper".

You're mad. How are you reading this as support for your position? He's not saying anything about the morality of the 'lobbying'. Cooper likely just keeps his music more seperate from his politics.

This is exactly what I'm talking about by circumventing laws.

Your red herring there again.