Whoopi's Comment
 

Anyone know what the joke was? I know it was a joke that used a sexual pun using the words Bush and Dick.

Anyone have any idea what she actually said? I have been googleing it with no luck.

That's just it noone probably would ever have known (except those in attendance) or truly cared had Slim Fast not made this an issue.

I'm sure what she said will be in all the tabloids very soon.

I just hate that everyone is making a huge deal of it but no one knows what she actually said. If anyone finds the quote please post it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...261911,00.html

thats it?

From all accounts that I've seen it was not restricted to a single comment. None of them provided a transcript however.

It is telling that the organizers of the event are withholding the transcript.

Slim-Fast has acted well within their rights of free association. If they do not like the image she portrays, it is very reasonable to cancel their business relationship.

This is the risk every celebrity takes when advocating political positions or making displays of vulgarity.

So Republicans have any idea how whiney they are sounding about this? Is she really the first person to make the "Bush" connection? Haven't people been making x-rated jokes about Presidents for years?

I doubt slim fast is all republican if at all, they just don't want any controversy to come their way. It never was a secret what party whoopie supports.

I believe that a large group of Freepers, and probably other Repub bloggers, organized a quick email campaign to pressure Slim-Fast into getting rid of Whoopie. Now, I'm always a fan of less Whoopie, but the reaction does seem a bit overboard. Although both sides of the aisle do engage in this sort of behavior, messing with someone's livliehood is always ugly business.

It's just typical of they way Republicans do business these days.

Rather than edit this comment that does nothing to further constructive dicsussion here, I'll leave it as an example of a tactic that will be the basis for action here in the future. If you have a point to make that involves the use of your reasoning power and is not simply a pot shot thrown haphazardly and irrelevantly then make it. This post is not one of those.

Making off color and disrespectful jokes about Presidents is certainly appropriate for comedians in their acts, books, movies, etc. Doing it at a rally for the person seeking to be the next President while he allegedly laughs along is, at the very least, inappropriate.

The tendency towards disrespecting people is becoming more and more disgusting IMO. Don't like someone's policies, then it's apparently ok to insult, deride, or sully their personal character.

The President of Slim Fast is actually a Democrat and donated over a million this year to his party. There was a time in politics when crude vulgar statements were not the norm. The real reason for him canning Whoopi is pure money. Slimfast is losing ground in the diet foods market and he doen't want to isolate his customers by having a spokeswoman who bashes the President. As a spokesperson they should remain neutral and uncontroversial .

That is absolutely right. When celebrities (or others) make the choice to be spokespeople, their reputation and actions become linked with the company they represent. Obviously her endorsement deals are of less importance to her than her ability to make such political commentary. That is a choice entirely on her head not the Republicans (or others) who are offended by her actions/statements. Just as she has a right to say what she wants they have a right to respond. Whether that response is in the form of letters, emails, advertisements, or spending is irrelevant.

slim-fast is a unit of unilever. unilever execs have donated $3000 to bush and $1250 to kerry for the 2004 campaign. slim-fast founder, f. daniel abraham, who sold the company to unilever in
2000 is a major donor to the dem's and has given kerry $2000 this year.

regardless of whether it's abraham or the pres. of unilever, he can do what he wants with his money, not unilever's...

where's the source he gave millions???

my source...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-0...slimfast_x.htm

Really? What golden age was that?

Here's one cheerful dig at Grover Cleveland who was alleged to have sired an illegitimate child:


And here is a sign held to greet Andrew Jackson and his wife (the sign refers to his wife):
There were also baseless allegations that John Quncy Adams procured a prostitute for Czar Alexander I while minister to Russia.

American history is rife with examples just like this. I agree that we should remain try to remain civil, but let's have a little perspective. The fact that a comedian would make an off-color remark about a politician is hardly shocking.

As cthulu23 noted, off color jokes about Presidents go back centuries. While Whoopi does need to take personal responsibility, there is a segment of the population out there that is in a hulabaloo about this, and strangely silent about "Go Fuck Yourself."

Up until this threat appeared, I had honestly completely forgotton about Whoopie. Hmmm,..how 'bout that!

July 13, 2004 -- WASHINGTON — Some Republican activists are launching a boycott of SlimFast diet products to protest SlimFast spokeswoman Whoopi Goldberg's X-rated rant against President Bush at a New York fund-raiser for Democrat John Kerry last week.
Chat pages on pro-Bush Web sites like FreeRepublic.com are posting links for complaints to SlimFast or parent company Unilever, along with reports from angry consumers about what they wrote in their complaints.

A typical one: "Realize that when Goldberg insults our president, particularly in such a vulgar fashion, she alienates half the country . . . Can SlimFast really afford to lose half of their potential market?"

SlimFast executives yesterday didn't respond to questions about whether they intend to keep Goldberg as spokeswoman. Company president F. Daniel Abraham is a major Democratic donor who, with his wife, has given $1.2 million to groups working to defeat Bush.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27252.htm

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/p...y.aspx?aid=120

http://www.unilever.com/mediacentre/...hNews_1035.asp

Go back about thirty years ago and point out when Hollywood all got together to use vulgarity to bash a sitting president. Off color jokes sure, actively campaigning and using that type of language to describe their leader I think not. Even the worst roasts would pale by todays off the cuff comments. Remarks from Hollywood IMO are polarizing this nation. It used to be if you wanted political dialogue you read the papers or watch the news channels. Now you can't avoid it. Turn on your television and one of their talking heads follows up their acceptance speech with a jab; watch a music video hear the same thing. Sitcoms loaded with them as well. Many have turned them off completely which isolates portions of this society, which is never good. IMO they are the single greatest thing dividing this country. It used to be only a few percent cared enough about politics to really follow them. Now being constantly bombarded and insulted only drives people to the extremes.

groups not party...

Groups like 527's which are only groups because they get around the soft money ban. 527's = talking pieces for parties.

The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.


$2,000 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.

$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC or State party committee -- A PAC is a "Political Action Committee." PACs and party committees give the money you give them to candidates they support.

$25,000 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.

$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees

$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Married couples are considered to be separate individuals with separate contribution limits.

but getting back on topic - whoopies actions reflect on the party she's endorsed as well as any company she represents...

if i were kerry i'd have her on the carpet and not allow her in the building come the convention

My mom was making a big deal about it for a few days. She's probably the most easily offended person alive, so I didn't think much of it, especially when she said she didn't actually know what was said other than Bush's name used as an anatomical reference

It amazes me when people take what celebrities say so seriously. Celebrities made fun of Clinton ALL THE TIME, and these right wingers who complain about Whoopie just laughed.

Do we have a segment of our population that truly sits around and says, "these celebs make millions they must be smarter than me and more educated. Therefore, I don't care what Kerry/Bush says, by God if Pee Wee Herman supports Kerry well then I'm voting for Bush."

Or, "Damn Whoopie had some fucking nerve to say that, I'm with ya sister, fuck Bush I'm voting Kerry cause Whoopie made fun of Bush."

If we have gotten so low as to let Hollywood and other celebrities influence our vote, I am deeply ashamed of my fellow citizens and fearful that someday someone who truly is the next Hitler will take advantage of that mentality and glide into the White House.

They have a right to say what they want and how they want just as we do. And by having that right we should never condemn nor blindly follow what they say.

Companies that know of a star's history in political satire and rhetoric take that risk when they hire them. Whoopie has made fun of every president since she has been around, SlimFast/UniLever should have known that and if they felt they couldn't handle the heat they should never have hired her.

It's like Anita Bryant for years and years was the spokeslady for Florida OJ, she took to task a local law against gays and lost her job.

Why? Do companies think we, the people are so ignorant that we take what these celebs who make millions and live in their own realities so seriously?

And I have always wondered why boycott something just because the spokesperson voices their opinion?

Is not our country based on freedom of speech and opinion.

Now if Whoopie were doing a SlimFast commercial and made jokes then, she was speaking officially for the company and that is wrong. But she was at a fundraiser and she has her right to say whatever she wants.

I don't like Charlton Heston's politics but does that mean I will never buy something he endorsed or stop watching his movies? No. Because I can seperate his private beliefs from his work.

Those who threaten boycott are doing 2 things: 1) destroying someone's right to free spech and 2) trying to control others to do what that group wants them to do. Both are very very wrong.

I completely agree with EVERYthing pan6467 said. Well done.

I would if I could get away from it. Seriously I can't even watch the Shield without having some off the cuff smart comment on Iraq and that’s from the Fox network. How would you feel if sports went 90% conservative and after every game they had some wise crack to make about liberalism. Every award show would be turned into a bash the Dem fest. Its not that we elevate their opinion, far from it. However the constant bleating of their well rehearsed talking points does grate on the nerves. I would like some of my life to be politically neutral.

So, do you also disagree with other political action groups per your statement 2? Say the NJPIRGs (New Jersey Public Interest Research Group), et als? And in reference to your statement 1, are these people not simply exercising their right to free speech, free association, and free choice?

Those who boycott are simply exercising their constitutional rights of free expression and association. There is nothing more American than that.

pan6467

Two issues here - I don't think that people decide their votes because of celebs, but because the public watches them so closely, their statements are free, unregulated advertising.

Secondly, Slimfast didn't just hire Whoopi. In fact, they didn't hire her at all. They hired her image because they want to associate their product with that image. If she didn't have her image (which I see as a savvy, witty, urban woman who is pretty intelligent) she'd be just another Jane off the street and Slimfast wouldn't hire her as a spokeswoman. Accordingly, when her image, whether during an "official" ad or not, departs from what the company wants to portray I can't blame them for dismissing her. I'd say the same thing if she made an anti-Kerry joke that they felt was inappropriate.

Yup. I boycott Domino's because its founder is a raving right-wing loon. I think others are just as entitled to boycott a product if its spokesperson espouses a political argument in direct opposition to their way of thinking.

(Although I think hot dogs and apple pie are more American than even that)

I understand what you are saying but, to say because a celeb has more exposure that what they say is free advertisement, they need to watch what they say is ridiculous. They are entitled to thier opinion, we just don't have to listen to it.

As for Whoopie's image, yes what you said is part of her image, but so is being very outspoken in regards to liberal politics.

My opinion she can say whatever she wants in a non commercial, it is not going to affect my view of the product. And if it were then I obviously have problems deeper than having a celeb tell me what to buy or think.

As for boycotts, seems a bunch of you want to reem me for my opinion that they are meaningless and more of a control thing than anything.

I know that there are boycotts or just the mere threat of one that some businesses will just cave in. I, personally, just think that a vast majority of boycotts are to get what a small vocal minority wants and shows disregard for the majority.

My opinion is if you boycott because a spokesperson for that company said something while in their "personal" time or totally unrelated to the product, your boycott is about what you want and control. Your boycott to me holds no merit.

Now, you boycott a tunafish company because they kill dolphins in the nets then that's a legitimate boycott, because you are boycotting a company for it's business practices and not for the opinion of an employee.

To boycott a business for business practices is a way to change things and is in most cases very productive.

However, IMO, to boycott a company for the spokesperson or what they say (when they are not selling the product at the time) is ridiculous and you are boycotting solely because you don't like what someone said, which then IMO becomes about control and not about business practices.

If Whoopie had been seen out and eating a Weight Watchers dinner then maybe I could understand SlimFast being upset and firing her. (Because in public she is using the competitors brand and that would be bad publicity and business.) But because she spoke out on politics (at a political fundraiser, not televised) and she is and has always been political and told off color jokes about politics it's a crime... to me it's pathetic.

There are opinions here I dislike, but you will never see me tell someone not to post and express themselves (unless they attack another poster maliciously, but attacking a public/political figure is all part of free speech). You cannot have a free speech in society if you limit when or where any certain person can speak.

It is also very telling that the people who laughed whenever a public figure ripped on Clinton and took very personal shots at him are now the ones so enraged about what Whoopie said.

It's ok for one side but not the other. It's like when people were ready to roast Clinton and kick him out of office and so on, yet when Gingrich did the exact same thing those same people said nothing about that.

IMO, if you attack Whoopie then you have to attack and say the same things about a celeb that made Clinton jokes or makes Kerry jokes. Plain and simple.

Then we have finally found a bit of common ground - I also boycott Domino's because I think the founder is a raving lunatic. I will not call him right wing because his politics are not represenative of the true right.

I don't understand how someone's politics can interfere with who anyone orders pizza from. The entire idea of boycotting seems ridiculous to me. It's saying that, because you feel differently about something (something having nothing to do with pizza), that no one should order pizza from THESE people. Instead, order pizza from these OTHER people, because they are more like I am, and I agree with their lifestyle, or their opinions, or whatever it may be.

Boycotting a business for the owner's political views doesn't change the taste of the pizza. And I think the taste of the pizza is far more important than the owners thoughts on politics.

I like to put my money where my mouth is. As it were.

You are making mistaking an individual's or a group's decision to boycott as meaning that everyone else should also boycott. If others chose to participate, fine. If they don't, the boycotters are still engaged in expressing their freedom of choice.

Considering how there is loud criticism aimed by some at corporations for not being good citizens, what better way to show displeasure than in denying them one's hard-earned money?

Has anyone, EVER, said that they refuse to buy a product because the spokesperson made a harmless joke about a president in a comedy act that had nothing to do with the product?

I also boycott Dominoes. Primarially because the founder dumps millions of dollars a year into whacko political activism that I absolutely don't agree with. I don't want my money used that way. Fine if he wants to run his business like that, but don't expect to ever get my money.

I used to boycott Domino's because of Operation Rescue. Now I don't eat it because I realized it's crap pizza, but it still pleases me to not accidentally support those who kill abortion doctors.

To really pull this all the way off topic, this whole Whoopi thing is along the lines of the "W" ketchup -- they don't want to support Kerry by buying Heinz -- forgetting that there are plenty of other ketchup brands aside from the supermarket brand -- it's friggin' ketchup, it tastes the same. It isn't about not accidentally supporting someone you despise, it's about politicizing everything you can get your hands on, and I'm tired as hell of it. Shut up. Donate money, cast your vote, go to a rally if you like. Stop dragging politics into everything.

I hate how companies in this country turn into the morality squad. For example, in Howard Stern's earlier days, sponsors would pull out if he said something really offensive. I mean really... as if your customers will say, "Oh damn, Howard Stern just totally offended me and Goodyear tires is an advertiser. I hate goodyear now." When in reality they should be asking themselves why they kept listening to a show that they KNEW was offensive.

Who gives a flying fuck if she made some sexual innuendo about Bush's name? If you get offended at that, sorry, but you're an idiot. Then Slim Fast has this mysterious ego now as if their customers will care what Whoopi said.

If a company has a celebrity as a spokesperson and they make a distasteful joke or remark that doesn't sit well with your sense of humor and you then turn around and make a decision to stop buying their product because of that celebrity spokesperson, then you too are spending WAY too much time away from more important things in your life.. also, just because you don't buy the product doesn't mean that millions of others won't. Believe me, your voice will go unheard and will make no difference.

For example, the whole not supporting dominoes thing... if you believe in something, that's fine, but in reality it makes no difference. The fact is, not enough people care enough about it or know about it. You and a very small handful of others (compared to regular customers) may choose to not support dominoes, but it seriously has no effect. If anything, hate them for their crappy pizza, not because the owner is a moron.

I don't care who owns the company. If Charles Manson made the best battery on the market, I'd probably buy it. Not because I support Manson, but because I want a damn good battery!

[edit]
Didn't the Volkswagon emerge as a result of Nazis, or is that just a myth? If so, then shouldn't the whole world boycott Volkswagon? If they don't, does it mean they're supporting Nazis?

Funny thing is Heinz family owns very very little stock in Heinz anymore. NOT ONE HEINZ FAMILY MEMBER SITS ON THE BOARD. Just google the company's financials and SEC reports.

And no, as a ketchup connessiuer I can tell you there is a HUGE difference in ketchups. Heinz by far is the best, followed by Kroger's brand, Hunt's ketchup is nowhere near as good.

Again, all the "boycott" and worrying about what a celeb says is nothing more than control issues. The right has nothing bad to say about how Charleton Heston could wave a gun saying, "only from my cold dead hand."

As long as the celeb sees things your way you don't care what they say. But the second they show they have ideas of their own that matbe counter to yours, you freak and call them everything under the sun.

By putting politics into everything you just widen the gap between parties and hatred. Keep politics where they belong, because in all honesty, companies as a whole will say whatever it takes to keep your business (and blow with whatever political wind is prevelant) but they'll do what it takes to protect themselves by helping their own political agenda.
========================

Stompy, good points and yes VW was developed by Hitler as he wanted all Germans (well his version of Germans) to have an auto, hence VW was born.

Haha! I think this should become the new topic. I want a thread on the relative merits of brands of ketchup.

I'm sorry for the slight subject change there. But as a person who puts ketchup on almsot everything, I cannot sit idly by and hear someone say all ketchup is the same.

Them's fightin words!!

Some people have abortion, gun control whatever as their passion, ketchup is mine, by god.

Dear god, I...agree with pan.........

*Gets hit in the face by a snowball thrown by Satan*

I personally don't give a damn what someone's stance is as long as they make a good product. If I take my business elsewhere, it isn't going to matter, because the rest of the country isn't going to be following me. They'll be following the quality (or cheap) products.

You vote with your dollar.

Will your vote for president matter on election day?

Same principal. Whether or not one person votes might not matter. But enough people vote and it does. Besides, some people think it's the right thing to do.

here is yet another example of the intellectual cowardice of the private sector, and another bit of information showing that the pc phenomenon seems to come from the right in the public sphere:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Musi...eut/index.html

I think its time Hollywood gets it. You can't talk about politics or religion without a heated debate, something sponsors do not want. In short if you’re taking money to represent something keep your personal comments to your self or don't take the money it’s that simple. Just because reporters gloat over these Hollywood elites doesn't make their opinion anymore important than yours or mine (which we don't get the free advertising). I really see this as another example of the disconnect in this country. Athletes and Actors think there are no repercussions for what ever they do which simply is not the case. I can't go down on the sales floor and start spouting my opinions on politics without fear of firing so what makes them think they are so special?

The point behind a personal boycott is not that a corporation is going to feel the loss because Bill O'Rights chooses not to buy Fruit Of The Loom underwear because they support the killing of baby seals (that's a fictitional example, by the way). The point is that MY dollar is not going those corporations that contribute to things that I strongly oppose.

visibility is power.
that most athletes are personally nimrods whose footbal playing skills (for example) in no way connect to the endorsement of cheerios in any meaningful way means nothing.
and of course their opinions are in themselves no more or less important than anyone else's
but once you have visibility, in a debased capitalist culture, it is assumed you are famous---it is assumed that fame is reflected in cash money----and that cash is a reflection of virtue---it makes the stupid intelligent, the ugly beautiful and the aged young. like marx said over 100 years ago.

even so, a corporate shill is more than a corporate shill--they retain the right of free speech--conversely, it makes no sense to equate the personal opinions of somone who takes a particular gig with the politics of the firm that hires them.

if you take an endorsement gig, you do not sell your soul, and do not give up your rights as a citizen.

and frankly the example of whoopi goldberg's remarks about bush and linda ronstadt's tepid comments about thinking fraenheit 911 is a decent film are not extraoridinary in any way.

it is cowardice--the flip of a desire to censor free speech---pure and simple, that drives this kind of stuff.

from which follows that the argument that the idea that the corporate sector should be understood by anyone, anywhere, as a model for virtue at any level is beyond me.

you have to know that in the current climate, any comment on Michael Moore cannot reasonably be considered "tepid".

sure visibility is power. Whether or not most atheletes are nimrods is open for debate, one i wouldn't involve myself in, but i would argue that ones ignorance in the matter of breakfast cereals isn't profound enough to make the stupid intelligent and the ugly beautiful.

In fact it's a safer assumption that whoopi goldberg and lida ronstadt, along with the rest of hollywood, are politically retarted. So i think you "visibility is power" and Marx quote are quite appropriate in this instance. Using corporate time to promote your misguided ignorant beliefs is not a right.

Firing someone who does this on the other hand, is a right.

This is pretty silly. "Michael Moore has strong opinions" is a stupendously tepid comment on him. The political climate is not so charged that the simple phrase Michael Moore is a spark -- or more accurately, a reason to fire someone. Firing someone for their political views is never a right, and calling someone else's beliefs misguided and ignorant isn't particularly useful, even if we are just talking about celebrities. However, companies are free to fire spokespersons at any time, because they can always say the spokesperson isn't representing the image they want.

If you hire them to do one thing, and they use that platform to do another - they have every right to fire them. Especially when the reaction they get is a loss of customers. I would have walked out of there as well, i paid to hear Linda Ronstadt sing, the hotel paid her to sing to me, not shout politics at me.

in my opinion, the breakdown in judgement would come at the point where you paid to hear linda ronstadt sing, but that is a different matter....

look, if a venue hires a singer to perform, they do not control the nature of the performance itself. they might suggest parameters, but in the end they profit from the presence of the performer, who performs as a human being in a contractual relation with the venue that extends to the situation of the performance, not to the acts or speech acts of the performer within that performance.

if the contract stipulated "dont say anything that might offend the bourgeois nimrods who might be here", and the performer does so, then it is a breach of contract--but that is a contract that i cannot imagine anyone signing to begin with. and that is a separate matter as well.

if there was no such clause in the contract, then ending an entire concert series because of the tepid opinion ronstadt offered about michael moore is nothing other than censorship.

the venue profits from the the performance, from the fact of who is engaged as performer---the performer is not taken as an endorsement of the venue--he or she only shills for the venue insofar as his or her presence draws a crowd into the space. the space is a box within which the performance happens.

if every performer had to worry about offending anyone who might possibly be in or near the crowd at a performance, then i would imagine that you would have almost no performances. better to spin records. the delicate sensibilities of conservatives, in this case--which apprently only extend to hearing sentences they do not like, but not to matters like being lied to to justify war, a corrupt republican administration, the aborgation of basic civil liberties in the name of a war on terrorism, or to the radical expansion of the prison system as source of cheap labor for corporations for example---are less likely to be offended if you just play records.

but then, who pay to show up would show up for that shit?

even an audience willing to pay to hear linda ronstadt in 2004 do nelson riddle tunes would not do it.

"delicate sensibilities of conservatives" - stand at the exit of one of the movie theaters showing Micahael Moore's movies and look at the fire in the eyes of the impressionable "sensibilibilites of liberals", knowing what we know about Michael Moore, and then talk to me about "delicate." I'm tired of this screaming about your rights to free speech - no matter how inappropriately and deceitfully undertaken, are being threatened by our rights to react. It's a two way street.

In order to stay on topic i'll ignore this

"the delicate sensibilities of conservatives, in this case--which apprently only extend to hearing sentences they do not like, but not to matters like being lied to to justify war, a corrupt republican administration, the aborgation of basic civil liberties in the name of a war on terrorism, or to the radical expansion of the prison system as source of cheap labor for corporations for example---are less likely to be offended if you just play records."

There are a million and one reasons to dislike Michael Moore, all of which have been beaten to death here. Point being, not liking him does not mean you are a nimrod.

I don't think the contracted stated "you're getting old so if your performance sucks, you're fired" but we wouldn't consider it a breach of contract if this situation were the one realized. The reaction from the crowd is all that matters, the crowd hated her, so should the hotel - for that reason alone. As I said before I sympathize with the crowd's reaction. Just as she had a right to say what she did, the crowd had a right to react.

I think it's safe to say if Madonna started off her next concert with an hour long unannounced intro by Rush Limbaugh, the crowd would be none too happy, and Madonna's career wouldn't last long. Nothing wrong with this situation. For every action......

most venues that would have madonna would not care if she did that, matthew....it would be understood as a provocation. and she is something of a specialist in that regard. in a tepid kinda way. bad example.

besides, the venue would have its cash either way, so what would they care?
seriously, what would the owners of the venue care? what would the booking agent care? whose interests are really at stake here?

performers who suck are booked every bloody day.
there is no objective standard for that which sucks.
if there were, think about how many famous people would be working day gigs.
just think about it.
performers who suck still draw...no-one cares: its all about the green.

i reject the idea of conservative matyrdom---o boo hoo the right has no artists willing to speak their line----thats crap.

the extent to which that appears to be true is a function of the musical form you happen to like--and the degree to which in country music, say, you are more likely to find conservatives as performers is as much a function of marketing assumptions about the audience as it is of any committment from the artists, i would think.

i dont have a theory about why this might be the case--that country music and conservative performers tend to correlate--well ok thats a lie--i do have one, but it would take a while to write it and i dont have time at the moment. my brother is a bluegrass player, so i have thought about that strange world for many years....

i do have a more extensive one about why most artists work in opposition to the existing order, however. if i have a bit of time later and this thread has not collapsed into acrimony and so on and so on, maybe i'll run it out.

nothing you said actually speaks to the main argument i made, matthew. i simply refer you back to the other parts of it, the ones you did not talk about.

when i used the term bourgeois nimrods, i was not referring specifically to anyone---the idea that you as a performer cant offend anyone is repellent. it is the most basic kind of censorship, and the easiest way to assure that your audio enviornment will be even less interesting than it is now. not to mention your visual environment. sometimes, you want people to think differently. often it does not work. fuck you is not an unreasonable response in that case. i dont see any need to censor that. besides, tolerance of that kind of thing gives a political regime the appearance of largesse, no matter what they do in other sectors. it's win win. where's the problem?



and for the record, i really dont care about michael moore.

i avoided those parts because i disagree with every one of them - so from my perspective, the point is mute. In order to argue that i would have to argue each point you made - which is a total of 5 threads and a whole lot of effort.

The idea that you, as a host of a performer, are not only subject to whatever this performer decides to do on a whim, but are obligated to continue to invite them back - is repellent. I don't believe you believe that. Objectivity is not the issue. All that matters is whether or not one person thinks they suck, in the case the hotel manager (or whoever booked her). And i promise you, he's not basing his opinion on her performance, he's basing it on the reaction of the crowd.

I'm assuming you think it's a bad example because it's well known Madonna is a raving liberal, so her playing Limbaugh would obviously be done in jest. To keep this a little less wordy, that doesn't make this a bad example, but i think you know what i was getting at, so let your imagination run wild - think up a better one. Shit, Madonna's tickets can run upwards of a grand a piece, bet your ass those people would be pissed if she wasted their time with Limbaugh. As a consumer, they have every right to "expect" a certain performance for what their paying for.

Why is it so difficult to understand - noone infringed on her right to speak her mind. It was inappropriate considering the time and place, but she did it. And people reacted. You expect them to sit there and take that shit. Their somehow "delicate" if they leave. it's frustrating as hell to have someone yell something at you that you disagree with on every level, and not being in a venue where you can respond. In fact the only response available to them was to walk out.

So much for keeping it less wordy

no, matthew, that was not what i meant when i said madonna was a bad example:

what i meant is that she has built her career around the ability of folk like you to get offended---she has made millions off people like you, reacting just like you do, saying exactly what you are saying here, getting in a froth, repeating her name over and over.

because you, and folk like you, are great advertising,
you dont charge much.
you get very snippy.
you talk about how very snippy you are.
and by doing that you spread the word.


if you prefer nice innocuous inoffensive art, there are plenty of people who paint seagulls flying over ocean waves you can look at and plenty of people who sing nice up with people music that you can groove to without getting in a flutter about it.
buy that.
consume that.
in capitalism, this is what passes for freedom, so exercize it.
but yours is not the only preferred commodity world, and so you will just have to learn to put up with people who think and do and say things that you dont like. too bad.

last point: what possible objection to vulgarity--not to mention a rather meek political commentary--could a venue manager in some vegas casino possibly make? the place is the epicentre of vulgarity---it happens at such a scale that it almost defies the imagination.
not an appropriate venue?
a casino?
not appropriate for what?
are you kidding?


this is idiotic.

buh bye.

i won..yes!!

I won by not participating.

damn filterton, that's a great point.

I lost....shoot!! (i really haven't been here all day, i just got home)

Let this be a lesson boys and girls - never ever drink and post. Sorry everybody.

I'm going to say this one last time for people who believe their way of thinking is the only "right" way and anything else is Marxist commy drivel and those who hold those beliefs are ignorant and somehow less intelligent and beyond contempt to the "right" thinkers.

Any PERSON has the right in this country to speak their mind and say whatever they want about politics and politicians. IT IS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to like what they say, you can even point out and say they don't know what they are talking about, BUT YOU CANNOT EVER DEGRADE A PERSON FOR THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS, NOR THREATEN TAKE AWAY THEIR LIVELIHOOD.

The Dixie Chicks said what they said IN ENGLAND and CC decided to pull their records (not because of protests, but because of what they said) (although CC fueled protests by their actions and the DJ's) .

Whoopie said what she said in the presence of a DEMOCRATIC FUNDRAISER. She is paid big money for her comedy (like it or not). She has always been raunchy and outspoken on politics. At a DEMOCRATIC FUNDRAISER she did what she gets paid to do, and obviously being advertised as a speaker she was a drawing card.

Charleton Heston has every right to say "from my cold dead hand" all he wants.

If I don't like what they say then I turn them off. If I decide to boycott a company because their spokesperson said something I didn't agree with politically, I AM, IN THE SIMPLEST OF TERMS, PROMOTING CENSORSHIP.

It is not about who is right or who is wrong (that thinking only divides the country further and is suicidal to democracy and our bill of rights). IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM AND THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOMS.

In very simple terms, I DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE OR AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY BUT I HAVE PROVEN (BY HAVING TAKEN THE MILITARY OATH AND WORN THE UNIFORM AND SERVED MY TIME WITH HONOR AND RESPECT) THAT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT ANY POLITICAL IDEA YOU MAY HAVE.

EVERYONE HAS THAT RIGHT, AND WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES TO TAKE AWAY A PERSONS LIVLIHOOD FOR EXERCISING THAT RIGHT. CENSORSHIP TAKES MANY FORMS BUT IN THE END, NO MATTER WHAT FORM IT'S STILL CENSORSHIP, AND IT STILL IS A DENIAL OF A PERSON'S RIGHTS.

(sorry for the caps, but it is obvious some people do not fully understand freedom of speech and the rights we have.)

Also, I don't mean to flame but I am tired of some people getting away with calling liberals anything they want and talking down to us, and believing only they are free to say and do what they want.

Company's are trying to make money. If a spokesperson says something that will stop it from making as much money she is not working with them to accomplish their goal, therefore she has grounds to be fired. She had every "right" to say what she did, they had every "right" to fire her. And I have every "right" to buy or not buy products that go with or contradict my personal political views.

that last post of yours is hilarious, matthew

taken in combination with the article about dog fashions in todays new york times...

[check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/fashion/25DOG2.html]

....you have given me a genuinely goofball start to this particular saturday.


as for the debate, the last two posts have restated the positions within which everything has turned here so far.

Isn't it great when roachboy talks down to you, like you are a lesser human being? I've noticed this a lot. Just saying...

...what comes around goes around whocarz. though i still don't understand how reacting to what someone says is "denying thier rights." If their rights were denied - i wouldn't have the oppurtunity to react would i?

You can react, but it should not be in a bullying, degrading way.

As for I have stated I will boycott a company for business practices but I will not boycott a company for their spokesperson's political views. To me that is censorship. I just believe everyone has the right to their political views and stances and so long as they respect mine as I respect theirs, they can say whatever they want.

In all honesty, I am more likely to boycott a company that practices censorship by firing it's spokesperson for their outside political views. So if I needed Slim Fast, I would be more likely to choose a competitor than them because they fired Whoopie for her views.

If it happened to Limbaugh I'd do the same.


I am not a sheep I can think for myself and determine my own beliefs through education, my morals and how I feel.

Following this boycott idea, I don't agree with some of the far right wingers on a politics board I visit, should I find out where they work and protest and boycott the companies they work at because of that?

My chiropractor is a very outspoken religious right wing person, sometimes his political views raise my ire, BUT he is the best in the area at what he does and I pay for his service not his opinions.

i dont talk down to anyone, or at least i try not to, because i am not talking to the person who makes an argument on a board like this, but to/about the argument.

whocarez---if you remember other posts, then you probably remember the previous disclaimers as well.

in case you dont, here is another one.

it is not interesting to verbally play around with people i do not know on a message board as people (because you are only a proper name, a title, a location, and a post)--it is only fun live, when you are in 3-d and can see and be seen, in a context where it is possible to be joking and assume that the other party gets the fact of joking. for example.

here you cant assume any of that.

caveat lector.

whocarz - that was a below-the-belt comment and we don't allow conversations to go in that direction here.

please keep the level of discussion on point and do not ascribe personal attributes to another member that you may infer from that member's posts.

I'm sorry, but I can not read that and not think roachboy isn't being rude. His other posts atleast kept a civil tone, but I think he got out of hand with this one. You say to not ascribe personal attributes to other members to ME, but no such warning to roach boy. And just what, exactly was he doing here? He refered to another member by name, then said "you, and people like you" then made generally negative comments. I was only pointing out what I felt was a slight to matthew330 simply because he disagrees with roachboy's viewpoint.

But I digress. I will no longer post in this thread, and will no longer read roachboy's posts or respond to them. If this post gets me banned, then so be it. I will be sad, but I had to get that off my chest.

the tone of the exchange from which that post came explains pretty much everything about it.
read them.

it seems within the purview of anyone who posts to from time to time get exasperated.

but the point is that i have no problem with matthew--any snarkiness that ran through the lines got sorted on pm between us.

if there is a line, and you cross it, then you sort it with that person direct, yes?

so the above makes no sense to me.