by Stan Conroy 110 Replies latest watchtower scandals
edited to note : the quotations within the post were taken from Princess's previous post, only after I posted did she edit her post and remove those statements.
I immediately deleted my post after having second thoughts about this stupid topic going on and on. I did NOT delete it AFTER reborn's post. Now who's lying?
Nice olive branch reborn. You know where you can put it.
I stick by everything I have said, even my deleted post. Especially the fact that it is a stupid non issue.
I immediately deleted my post after having second thoughts about this stupid topic going on and on. I did NOT delete it AFTER reborn's post. Now who's lying?
Oh please. Fact is, you said it, then you retract it. I was posting regarding what you originally said, and was pointing out to any and all readers that if they saw quotation in my post and then did not see it elsewhere from you, they would know you originally posted it, then edited it all out. That is a deceptive tactic in my opinion, it makes it look like I am making things up you said when in fact you did say it earlier.
I addressed all of your comments, funny thing is, I don't see you successfully debunking anything I have said, nor have you provided any proof, only opinion.
I stick by everything I have said, even my deleted post.
Then why did you delete it to make it appear as though you did not say it? HMM? LOL
You accuse me of opinions and unsubstantiated commentary. I provide hyperlinks, articles, and documentation. Thusfar you have not disproven anything I have said, you have only ignored the facts and asserted your OPINION time and again.
Yeru finally admitted it was censorship. I notice you don't even address the topic now, nor have addressed documentation provided for you to plainly show the facts.
Pity.
I got as far as the top of the stairs and realized I just didn't want to continue this stupid, pointless argument. I went back down and deleted the post with an explanation of why. I could care less if you or anyone else read it. I totally expected you to be sitting at your computer just waiting for me to post something so you could dissect it with your stupid reasoning. I didn't retract a thing, I told you I still stick with everything I have posted and/or deleted thus far. God you have a thick head.
Yeru finally admitted it was censorship. I notice you don't even address the topic now, nor have addressed documentation provided for you to plainly show the facts.
I don't believe it's censorship. How is that? I don't give a shit what you post to prove your totally stupid, pointless argument.
I DON'T CARE WHAT REBORN THINKS ABOUT THE DIXIE CHICKS OR CENSORSHIP OR ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW.
There, did that get through your thick skull?
Reborn,
Actually, what took place is NOT even TECHNICALLY Censorship, since censorship involves editing or deleting OJECTIONAL CONTENT, here's Webster's definition:
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
For example, I was censored here on this forum when someone removed my "Caption Contest" because apparently someone found the photo of a head objectionable. Protest that for a while bud.
The lyrics of the music isn't what's being found objectionable, therefore what is occuring isn't censorship. DEAL WITH IT! It's a choice made. The "Chicks" exercised their right to free speech by saying what they said. The Radio Station manager exercised his free speech by not playing their music.
Yeru
Yeru:
You said, "Basic fact for ya, most people do not consider individual radio stations choosing not to carry someone's music as censorship. Most rational people consider censorship something directed from the government. The Radio station has made a choice. You don't like that choice. Boycott that radio station, it's the american way."
The issue here is not individual radio stations making such a choice; rather, the issue is companies like Clear Channel, which controls a substantial segment of the airwaves (over 1,000 radio stations), imposing their views on the rest of us. Clear Channel is not a governmental entity, yet it exercises significant control over the airwaves, making its control akin to the control exerted by the government in this regard. Their ability to "censor" the airwaves is obvious and it seems stricter governmental regulation of companies like Clear Channel is warranted. Boycotting an individual radio station is easy, it's much harder to boycott 1,000+ radio stations owned by a conglomerate bully with censorship objectives.
Thank you and all others who serve in our military for fighting to defend America and its interests. Among the American ideals defended by our military is the right for our citizens to dissent. Our country is founded upon dissent and dissent continues to play a very important role in our "system of things." Intolerance of dissent leads to totalitarian regimes like Saddam's and the Watchtower.
Thousand,
I see your point, I just happen to disagree with it. Free speech doesn't mean free of consequences.
Again, this isn't censorship. Censorship means (as indicated above) that something is not said or played because of it's content. Not too many people object to the content of the songs the Chicks sing. HOWEVER, if the Chicks decide to use the platform given to them to say something controversial then there are consequences. The Chicks don't have a RIGHT to be played on a commercial radio station. They pissed a lot of people off by what they said, but mostly WHERE they said it.
HAGGARD, CASH, ...........................AND THE dixie chicks?
OH HELL NO!
FORMALLY DC FAN CLASS
FURTHER.....................
''BE BRAVE BUT SHOW MERCY''.....
ALYSON KRAUSE
Yeru,
Whether we call it "censorship" or "inappropriate control of airwaves by a single corporate entity," something is wrong when a corporation is allowed to be in a position to control what a substantial segment of our population is permitted to see or hear. Semantics are really irrelevant to this issue.
Personally, I share the views espoused by the Dixie Chicks regarding our current president. However, my dislike of Bush has nothing to do with his actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. I prefer not to make judgments without knowing the facts, and when it comes to national security, I believe we have to support our commander in chief, regardless of our personal feelings about him. My disdain for Bush has more to do with his domestic policies, which are devastating our country and will take years to correct. When Bush was governor, Texas had the worst environmental record in the country. He has taken his disregard for the environment with him to the white house. He imposed a ban on any discussion by the EPA of perchlorate, a toxin that threatens our water and food supplies. They can't even discuss it? Which special interest is he protecting by imposing such an unprecedented gag order? Note the recent resignation of the Bush-appointed EPA chief .
Mr. Bush is also pushing to begin oil drilling in ANWAR, one of the country's last great wilderness areas (Alaska). He justifies this by asserting that we need to "break our dependence on foreign oil." However, studies have shown that drilling at ANWAR will do nothing to break our dependence on foreign oil. Much if not most of our domestically produced oil is sold overseas where a higher market price prevails. There is nothing to stop the same situation from occurring with any oil found at ANWAR. Environmentalists have predicted possible species extinctions (e.g. caribou) attributable to Mr. Bush's reckless environmental policies. Fortunately, Mr. Bush is having trouble convincing senators from his own party to back this reckless plan.
Has anyone noticed how horrible the US economy has performed under the leadership of Mr. Bush? I lost $4,000.00 on my stocks the day he became president. Governmental spending has reached an all-time high under Mr. Bush, yet he has signed a bill to give the country a $350 billion tax cut, with most of the benefit going to the wealthy. Even Alan Greenspan, a conservative and obviously extremely well-respected economist (as well as chairman of the federal reserve), has criticized the Bush plan as "premature." When you increase spending and decrease your revenue, the result is deficits. The tax cut is obviously motivated by Mr. Bush's desire to be reelected. The next generation can pay for his deficits, right?
