SexyMuthaF said:

Theres that reading comprehension thing again. Look back at my first post in this thread.

.

There is a writing and reading conprehension failure. I quoted you word for word - no edit and none of your dishonesty.

You keep flipping your position like intentionally creating chaos. Maybe you take a break? Note the question mark therefore dont accuse me again of telling you what to do.

SexyMuthaF said:

You keep flipping your position like intentionally creating chaos. Maybe you take a break? Note the question mark therefore dont accuse me again of telling you what to do.

.

Ah a new tactic. My position is constant - you promoted listening to a celeb when they say what you want to hear but not other celebs if they say things you don't want to hear.

.

Show one flip or apologise for lying.

You flipped on maga. You insisted trump using it was somehow proof he's racist, then when I made you realize it was used by both Clintons you changed your mind and said it's a secret sign of racism only when trump used it. Now bow your head and get on your knees and apologize.

SexyMuthaF said:

You flipped on maga. You insisted trump using it was somehow proof he's racist, then when I made you realize it was used by both Clintons you changed your mind and said it's a secret sign of racism only when trump used it. Now bow your head and get on your knees and apologize.

.

That is a lie, idiot.

.

My first post was to compare MAGA to Yes, we can and only discussed identifying when was USA great with no mention of racism.

.

My second post already recogninsed the difference between when Reagan used it to look forward from the 1970s and when trump used to look back a time before a Black President:

"

Yes, as mentioned above.

.

Slogans can be tweaked and repeated but you have to match the slogan to time and circumstances.

.

40 years ago was a different time and different circumstances. The county was going from disaster to disaster - Watergate, Ford, Opec oil shocks, Iran hostages, Billy Carter, stagflation, unemployment etc. Carter was a disaster of a president, but is the best former President in living memory. The slogan then matched what the majority of people wanted - a change in decade and President to move away from a disasterous 1970s - it was a slogan to look to the future because the last decade was not great.

.

In 2016 there was not the same universal feeling. The economy was growing, employment was growing, respect for the US was growing, The stockmarket was growing, etc.

.

trump was seeking to look to the past prior to there not being a black President against whom he had built his far-right conspiracy theory base with the birthers - for trump it was a slogan to look to the past by calling on the legacy of Reagan. Another difference: trump simplified it so he could trademark it, so MAGA dies with his presidency (although we may see it in 2024 if the GOP can't free itself of this disaster)."

.

That trump used because he is racist and Reagan did not was ALWAYS my position. My dispute with you on the Clintons was that you lied when you said the Clintons used it as a Presidential slogan when they did not. There is no flip.

.

So,

.

I never insisted that trump using it somehow proof he is racist: That is a lie - the proofs he is racist are legion.

.

I never indicated that people who use it only use it because they are racist: That is a lie - before any mention of Clinton's use I had already differentiated Reagan's positive use of the term from trump's racist use the term.

.

My position is absolutely consistent - President Unelect trump used in a racist way only matched by the KKK. Reagan and the Clintons did not.

.

I know you will never have enough integrity to apologise to me, but you know you really should.

kpowers said:

.

Exactly and sorry - I would not have posted this here except I was replying to an idiot.

I warned you about the namecalling. I know you're around 15 but that's no excuse, so I'm giving you a timeout. And not a slap on the wrist sly 3-day timeout but a week timeout.you need to be rehabilitated.

SexyMuthaF said:

I warned you about the namecalling. I know you're around 15 but that's no excuse, so I'm giving you a timeout. And not a slap on the wrist sly 3-day timeout but a week timeout.you need to be rehabilitated.

You claiming to be a mod now?

Oh Lawd so much drama and shit stirring. I'm not speaking to ian for 7 days that's my choice dont know what your talking about gurl.

SexyMuthaF said:

Oh Lawd so much drama and shit stirring. I'm not speaking to ian for 7 days that's my choice dont know what your talking about gurl.

Are you putting yourself in the naughty corner?

Look upthread you'll see ian is in a timeout for childish namecalling.

SexyMuthaF said:

Look upthread you'll see ian is in a timeout for childish namecalling.

.

The thread is not why is F'er sulking. It is about whether actors (and other celebs) getting political hurts the craft.

.

Kurt has a point because he has suffered from a undeserved backlash. However, I disagree with his point because artists have the same rights to express their views (and suffer any consequences) as everyone else.

.

The trickiest part of the issue is people will listen to some artists (eg Chris Rock) and use what they say as support for their side of politics or beliefs but then complain about or target other artists when the same occurs. It does mean that people like Rosie O'Donnell and Kelsey Grammer have suffered from poliitcal backlashes just as much as people like Jane Fonda and Charleton Heston have been listened to more than they probably deserve because of their acting careers. But this is reality and we all should make up our own minds

I've been watching this from other boards. Shocked and amused since I've never known Kurt's political leanings. I've assumed liberal because I've always seen he and Goldie as the ultimate hippies or at least as the ultimate non-conformist for the longest time. The tbings one learns.

Hippies are antiwar. No new wars under trump thst says a lot.

RJOrion said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Ian nailed it.

Bottom line, people yap about free speech, as long as it's speech they agree with. If Lebron James praised Trump, you think Laura Ingraham would have told him to "shut up and dribble"? Fuck no. But I noticed she didn't tell Ted Nugent to shut up and stick to music when he called Obama a "mongrel".

I'm grateful that athletes like Bill Russell, Kareem, Jim Brown, John Carlos, Tommie Smith and Arthur Ashe used their platform to speak out against injustice. Folks who have a problem with that need to check themselves.

theres a big difference between speaking out for civil rights and against civil injustices, and speaking about politics....BIG difference... Russel, Brown, Kareem, John Carlos, Tommie Smith werent making political statements...they were speaking about civil rights and injustices aginst BLACK people...again, a BIG difference..these celebrities dont even know enough about the inner workings and behind the door activities of politicians, and are unqualified to speak conclusively on it, thye just speak on behalf of their financial interests...lets not confuse the civil rights movement with bi-partisan or partisan politics...

[Edited 11/27/20 14:17pm]

That's real talk

OldFriends4Sale said:

RJOrion said:

theres a big difference between speaking out for civil rights and against civil injustices, and speaking about politics....BIG difference... Russel, Brown, Kareem, John Carlos, Tommie Smith werent making political statements...they were speaking about civil rights and injustices aginst BLACK people...again, a BIG difference..these celebrities dont even know enough about the inner workings and behind the door activities of politicians, and are unqualified to speak conclusively on it, thye just speak on behalf of their financial interests...lets not confuse the civil rights movement with bi-partisan or partisan politics...

[Edited 11/27/20 14:17pm]

That's real talk

So there may be some cases when most would agree it's obvious what category somebody's speaking falls into, but sincere question...

How do you decide, for all who speak, who is speaking out about injustices against a group in a valuable way, and who is speaking in an unqualified way that is nonprivy to relevant inner workings and/or overly motivated by one's financial interests?

What is the rule/formula/algorithm?

And does all this really fit into a neat binary of: a) those who are, and b) those who are not, valuably speaking for civil rights/the rights of a persecuted group, a disenfranchised group?

For example, there were people who made valid points about denying/disadvantaging of women who also said things, in the course of this speaking out, that were a disservice to women of lesser financial means. They were missing a perspective. Shades of gray, at least IMO.

another question:

Are some here of the opinion that a citizen's vote for one candidate over another (or whether one vs. another candidate gets into political office) is meaningless in terms of civil rights and will have zero effect on the state of civil rights? And of the opinion that who gets on the (e.g., U.S. supreme) court will have zero effect on the state of civil rights? I'm guessing that is where some here are coming from, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Edited 12/4/20 7:31am]

rednblue said:

So there may be some cases when most would agree it's obvious what category somebody's speaking falls into, but sincere question...

How do you decide, for all who speak, who is speaking out about injustices against a group in a valuable way, and who is speaking in an unqualified way that is nonprivy to relevant inner workings and overly motivated by one's financial interests?

What is the rule/formula/algorithm?

And does all this really fit into a neat binary of valuably speaking for civil rights/the rights of a persecuted group, a disenfranchised group...or not?

For example, there were people who made valid points about denying/disadvantaging of women who also said things that were a disservice to women of lesser financial means. They were missing a perspective. Shades of gray, at least IMO.

another question:

Are some here coming from a place of: any citizen who thinks that voting for one candidate over another (or whether one vs. another candidate gets into political office) are both meaningless in terms of civil rights and will have zero effect on the state of civil rights? Same for who (e.g. for the U.S.) gets on the supreme court? I'm guessing that is where some here are coming from, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Edited 12/1/20 9:28am]

.

Exactly.

.

When discussing an issue and not a politician, there is no distinction between civil rights vs politics, environmental protection vs politics or fighting for any issue vs politics. Much of what celebs discuss as politics is issues like BLM, Civil rights, Global warming, gender equity, stopping abuse of women, children, refugees etc. This is different from vote for X and vote out Y. On the issues, you can work out where you stand. On the issues there is no big difference between the issue and politics and it certainly is not binary: Fighting for civil rights etc and politics are one and the same - It is unary.

.

There is also the assumption that celebrities need to know the enough about the inner workings and behind the door activities of politicians before they can speak conclusivly on politics. Why? And even if this is so, why single out celebs? Most of us don't know the behind the door activities of politicians - given that these can nefarious or at least self serving, that we don't know what they are getting up to is never a reason to not talk about it, just the opposite.

.

Then there is the financial reasons dismissal. All people talk from their interests (including financial interest) point of view. Indeed if a person has no interest in what is being discussed, they are less likely to be worth listening to. Should a person seeking civil rights be excluded for being considered worthy of being listened to because they or their family and friends may benefit financially from equity in civil rights?

kpowers said:

Love that movie, Sci fiction with an edge of horror.

v10letblues said:

SexyMuthaF said:

Only damn fools listen to celebs out of touch with reality. Chris rock types at least keep it real.

Yeah, well, the same can be said about anyone listening to politicians. Trump anyone? Ted Cruz?

Anyone listening to pundits. Pundits on Fox News?

.

Yeah, stupid argument.

.

The more diverse the voices the better. Trying to silence anyone is pathetic.

[Edited 11/28/20 11:55am]

Yep, we are having that discussion in another thread about Media. And how FB and Twitter have been doing more of that toward one side.

OldFriends4Sale said:

v10letblues said:

Yeah, well, the same can be said about anyone listening to politicians. Trump anyone? Ted Cruz?

Anyone listening to pundits. Pundits on Fox News?

.

Yeah, stupid argument.

.

The more diverse the voices the better. Trying to silence anyone is pathetic.

[Edited 11/28/20 11:55am]

Yep, we are having that discussion in another thread about Media. And how FB and Twitter have been doing more of that toward one side.

Do you mean putting notices when politicians lie? That's actaulally a public service. Good on them.

v10letblues said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Yep, we are having that discussion in another thread about Media. And how FB and Twitter have been doing more of that toward one side.

Do you mean putting notices when politicians lie? That's actaulally a public service. Good on them.

.

Exactly. When it is simply on if the tweet or post is lie, it is not a matter of balancing equal time to political opinions - the weighting to one side or the other is just a reflection of the number of lies.

OldFriends4Sale said:

kpowers said:

Love that movie, Sci fiction with an edge of horror.

Yup late 70's early 80's John Carpenter had some great movies Halloween, Halloween 2 (turns out John Carpenter had more involvement in this movie then known, he did directed a scene for the movie), The Fog, The Thing, and Escape from New York.

v10letblues said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Yep, we are having that discussion in another thread about Media. And how FB and Twitter have been doing more of that toward one side.

Do you mean putting notices when politicians lie? That's actaulally a public service. Good on them.

No, not that stuff. And you and I know, lies told by politicians are never fully revealed.

Most people invested in their party tend to believe lies, they want to believe.

I am talking about censoring by Twitter and FB

kpowers said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Love that movie, Sci fiction with an edge of horror.

Yup late 70's early 80's John Carpenter had some great movies Halloween, Halloween 2 (turns out John Carpenter had more involvement in this movie then known, he did directed a scene for the movie), The Fog, The Thing, and Escape from New York.

Yes, John Carpenter had a run of classics. I need to rewatch the Thing, I think I only saw it once.

Escape from New York, The Fog, Halloween I and II (5 stars)

Christine was a great movie too.