Are they for real?

Here we go again. That great luvvie fest, the 'Oscars' is with us again. A whole bunch of ********* sitting around licking each others genitals. Where do they come from?

When asked if he would wear a 'stop the war' pin, Ben Afleck allegedly replied, "that depends on my stylist" WHAT? Also it appears that the 'stars' will be expected to 'gown down' for the big occasion.
Can somebody please drag these people, albeit kicking and screaming, into the real world.

I was interested to read that the Dixie Chicks, during a concert in the UK, made a remark that included the words, Bush, Texas and ashamed. Could this presage a fall in the popularity of this talented trio?

[christinefrommichigan]

I recently read in the Detroit news last week that the Dixie Chicks's record sales have dropped 30% & their ticket sales for their up and coming tour have dropped 20%.

Some radio stations are now banning their music. Sounds like the damage is already done for them.

Can't forget Martin Sheen the ratings for his show the West Wing are starting to take a slide.

I think all these stars ever think about are themselves and how much money they make.

But we can't forget their are some musicians and actors that do care about are armed forces and our country and all are allies.

World famous cellest YO YO MA said something very nice a couple of weeks ago. Actors should keep acting and musicians should keep playing and let Washington and the congress take care of all the politics of this great world of ours.

May god be with and protect our armed forces and all our allies.

[gwen snyder]

[This message has been edited by gwen snyder (edited April 18, 2003).]

[TheWatchman]

They should take the advice of Kris Kristopherson. "If you work in the music or film insdustry, you should not discuss politics in public. If you do, you will never work again." Although he is an activist, he gladly paid the price for his music and film slump for discussing some of his views. He's still ontop of his game though.

That same freedom that allowed the Dixie Chicks to slam President Bush is the same freedom that allows radio stations and people to boycott. I always wondered why they did not slam Bush in Texas or any other place in the US. They had to do it abroad because they are cowards. Their sales have dropped by 35%. I guess it shows that it was a bad business move and Natalie Mains should have thought about it before she spoke, if she was concerned about their careers. Just goes to show who is patriotic and who is not. They showed their true colors and now they must pay the price. Personally, I hope they never recover from this and their careers are over. If they would have spoke this in the US, that would not be as bad but instead they went to a country that was mostly against the war (not anymore though!) and acted like spoiled brats.

Gwen, no, you should listen the news and not just take bits and pieces from it. Protesting the war is not terrorism. Please know the facts as this is how rumors get started. Oregon is the first state to take this stand. If you throw acid in a policemans face (like one protester did!), it will be considered terrorism. If you are blocking freeways and ambulances can't get through, this will be an act of terrorism. This happened and the protestors intent was to shut down the freeways until the war is over. That is not peaceful protesting in any stretch of the imagination. It causes fear in those who need to enter the city.

Peaceful protesting is not considered an act of terrorism. Throwing acid and stopping someone from receiving medical attention is. That can cause mass panic within a city. People were afraid to enter the city because of the protestors.

Another good example why protesting this war is so bad. Protest rallies etc. take hundreds of police officers off the street when they should be on guard against people trying to blow up buildings and spreading anthrax in a subway. Don't citizens have a right to be protected against terrorism? As long they protest and take away cops from what they should be doing (protecting US citizens from terrorists, not protestors!!!), they are not peacefully protesting. Come on. Throwing acid on a cop?? What they hell did he do? He is protecting them too. Protestors need to get a clue what is going on. They have tunnel vision and are more concerned that people will see their stupid slogans than receive protection from terrorists. How soon everybody forgot 9/11. What a crying shame.



[This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited March 27, 2003).]

[gwen snyder]

Correct, Watchman. But, we live in a democracy, however you have a point, since 9/11 people have forgotten many of our civil world policies...I mean before the day. It is a fact that our world is quite changed, and I view this as a good point, yet, let's be fair. The news leaves us with a commentators opinion as the "agency" (CNN, MSNBC, & others) wishes us to see. A slant is apportioned all of news and you surely must see that??? Come on now take off those sky blue shades and see the world. Hm-m, opinion or assault (verbal or otherwise), Natalie told the peoples' version, not the puffed up, exaggerated, politically correct newsspokespersons' opinion. Pity, perhaps the truth is a bit painful, yet, I am more concerned with her portrayal as public enemy number one!!! Get real, her action was not, I repet not Terrorism!!! Which is the view most Americans with one very weary eye on this presidency see the behavior of entering Iraq. We are out of order, us Americans, from the top down. Which holds a more significant threat? For years our state's quietly set up programs and forums for the event of terrorist activities without one blink of an eye from the fair citizens of our country...after 9/11 it is high fashion to tout the wearying horn of "beware fair brethren". I need to get real. You are absolutely right. So, let's, what exactly is real to you sir? This wonderful country that we so proudly proclaim as the "mother" of the world is vulnerable only to the extent when we no longer stand together. We are not on different sides of a news broadcast, (were they right or wrong) we are responsible to know when we cannot tolerate the actions of our controlling entities. So, in contrast we turn off our radios (the boycotting stations), we hear as they hear...let's just stick our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away, hm-m? That news from Oregon is what freezes us, Watchman. For many years now our public safety has been being reshaped, plans have been laid to protect us in the face of horrific accidents that could potentially occur. Sadly, we have seen the enemy and they are ourselves, is true and should we cut off our arm to display our loath? I think not. But, what is it you think, Watchman? In Texas, the statement "to thine own self be true" is a way of life, not merely a flowery statement of outdated democracy.

[TheWatchman]

Gwen,

It is true about some news media slanting coverage for personal gain. Okay, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that all media slants information. I'll buy that. To me, it makes no difference because I watch all the stations, listen to very educated people from both camps and then form my own opinions. If one only listens to one particular media, then yes, they will only have one side of the debate. Believe me, I listen to all sides as it is the only way to gain knowledge and knowledge is power. Take off what blue shades?

I have not heard anybody say what the Chicks said was viewed as terrorism. I watch both liberal and conservative news shows and radio talk shows and have not heard that. I am all for people having the right to protest, I would not want it any other way. That is what makes America the best country on the face of the earth. Protesting is not the issue. Responsible protesting is. Protests are supposed to be peaceful, not harmful and deadly. Throwing acid on a cop and shutting down highways is not peaceful. Okay, I know what your saying. Not all protestors behave like that. True, thank God. There is a bigger issue here that many fail to realize. The issue is "when is it not appropriate to protest the war?" I don't think that there is one correct answer at this time but, in time, there will be. Protesting in the streets and rioting is not a healthy way to get one's agenda across. As long as policeman are forced to keep protestors under control, they cannot protect innoncent Americans from terrorism. In my opinion, that is irresponsible of protestors and that should be considered a felony.

President Bush and the rest of his staff are very intelligent people with the resume to back it up. First of all, what makes anybody think that they know more about Saddam and his terrorist attempts than the current President and his administration? Do you or anybody else have intelligence reporting to you what Saddam is up to on a daily basis? No. You must realize that there is a whole lot more to Saddam and the threat that he poses to us than what we know. President Bush cannot give the public every piece of evidence about Saddam as it would greatly risk intelligence and more importantly our troops welfare and ability to put an end to Saddam and his crazy regime.

Personally Gwen, I really don't care too much about the Chicks or what they say. They are not qualified to shape any opinions that I may have about the war or President Bush. Again, I have heard nobody say that what the Dixie Chicks said was terrorism. This is just another other ploy from the liberal left wingers to help further their dying cause. I have heard protestors say that they hope that the United States loses the war. If it were me, I would force them to live in Iraq with Saddam. You cannot voice your opinion over there unless you are worshipping Saddam.

The bottom line is this. The Republicans are running this country and the war. People can cry all they want about it but it ain't gonna change a thing. Furthermore, you should get your info. from the President and Generals and those in power that are actually fighting the war and have access to information which you don't which allows them to make decisions. Why should I get my info. from celebrities and people who have tunnel vision and can see no good in Bush? Talk about slanted info., listen to protestors talk and that is taking a step further slanting...fabrication lied to further their cause.

By the way, the enemy is Saddam and Bin Laden and their nasty regimes. Anybody who thinks otherwise is waaaayyyy out in left field. geeze.

[Janice]

I have no problem with “public figures” getting involved and speaking out about the war – and I’m talking pro-war as well as anti-war. They have just as much right to speak their mind as anyone. After all, they are mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers first and far most and what they do for a living should have no bearing on their right to speak out. What I DO have a problem with is the extreme and unprofessional manner in which SOME of them choose to express those opinions and the fact that because of their celebrity status, they get media coverage and the world thinks they’re speaking for all Americans. I have my doubts, concerns, confusion and conflicted emotions regarding our government’s decision to embark on this action without UN support, but I’m appalled that the world might think that Michael Moore was speaking for me at the Oscars! I’m just as appalled that the world thinks that the folks in the spotlight who call those against the war anti-American, are speaking for all of those who believe this war is the right thing to do. There are plenty of us who fall somewhere in the middle, but have no means to get that out because Joe Six-Pack can’t call a press conference and expect anyone to turn up – he’s not “news-worthy”

I’m going to share a letter by singer-songwriter, Rodney Crowell, the only celebrity so far who captured my own confusion on the war and disenchantment with how folks are expressing themselves. Whether you are liberal or conservative, try to read it through before passing judgment, because I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with some of what he says even if you don’t agree with his politics.

Here’s what he wrote:

March 24, 2003

Much has transpired in the last few months that gives me pause. I was
decidedly against the current administration's intentions to invade Iraq
without the support of the United Nations. It was my belief President Bush's
team had failed to make a convincing case that there was a real reason to
invade Iraq. It seemed unwise to alienate our allies for reasons that
changed like the weather.

It seemed to me in the aftermath of 9-11, our President adopted a kind of
arrogance that perpetuated the ugly American cliché. There is a reason much
of the rest of the world sees us as an arrogant nation. It is, of course,
foolish to believe all Americans are motivated by greed. It is, however,
easy to understand why others see us as greedy people. I was worried
President Bush and his advisors were indebted to special interests - such as
the oil industry - to such an extent that diplomacy was not considered a
viable option.

In the end, I came to believe I knew so little about what was really going
on, it was impossible to know which side of the fence to stand on. I do
believe the current administration has done a poor job communicating their
true intentions to reasonably intelligent liberals such as myself. That
said, now that the war is on, I believe it is my duty to support our
soldiers in every way possible. It is also time to look for the goodness in
our political leaders. I do hope my misgivings about their motivations will
prove to have been unfounded.

As a yellow dog Democrat and liberal humanist, I must say the voice of
opposition to the war has not been without its ugly moments. Though we may
not agree with our President's decisions, it is counter-productive to attack
the man personally. It is possible to disagree without disrespect. Although
there does seem to be a movement among the staunch conservatives to discount
the validity of the liberal opposition's viewpoint at every crook and turn,
liberals should not see this as a license to resort to the same tactics. It
is my belief the true humanitarian, liberal or conservative, never stoops to
name-calling.

I have heard it said that artists should keep their noses out of the
political arena. I would say this to that: Notice the way Bono appeals to
the higher goodness in the politicians and men of power with which he
collaborates. To me, he is the blueprint for how a human being, artist or
otherwise, can make a real difference in the world. Let's hope his visions
materialize........Rodney Crowell

[Janice]

Watchman, you make some very valid points here, but let's be honest, there are just as many police officers pulled off the streets to work the Pro-War rallies, as well. These folks want their slogans out there just as much as the protesters do.

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Another good example why protesting this war is so bad. Protest rallies etc. take hundreds of police officers off the street when they should be on guard against people trying to blow up buildings and spreading anthrax in a subway. Don't citizens have a right to be protected against terrorism? As long they protest and take away cops from what they should be doing (protecting US citizens from terrorists, not protestors!!!), they are not peacefully protesting. Come on. Throwing acid on a cop?? What they hell did he do? He is protecting them too. Protestors need to get a clue what is going on. They have tunnel vision and are more concerned that people will see their stupid slogans than receive protection from terrorists. How soon everybody forgot 9/11. What a crying shame.
.]

[TheWatchman]

Janice, wrong, really wrong. There are far fewer pro-war rallies and never, ever, since this war has started have there been any problems with them. Again, the problem is with protests that are not peaceful. When you have unpeaceful protests, like what the morons in this country are doing, yo need cops and a lot of them to keep the babies under control. What a shame that adults have to act like heathens.

Janice, the only response to your post is that you are wrong. Did you make this up or can you show me some real data to back up your claim that there are the same amount of cops pulled from duty for pro-war rallies in comparison to anti-war protests? First of all, there are far more anti-war protests than pro-war rallies. In comparison, the amount of pro-war rallies when compared to war protests, makes pro-war rallies moot, in comparison.

I have yet see anything other than "philosophy" to back up any statements made thus far.......I have heard these same comments from reading protestors signs.

[Loon]

Take a look at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Pro-war rallies have corporate sponsorship and big budgets.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheWatchman:
[B]Janice, wrong, really wrong. There are far fewer pro-war rallies and never, ever, since this war has started have there been any problems with them.

[TheWatchman]

Couldn't read it. Had to sign up to view it and I already get enough junk mail for 3 people.

Maybe you can copy the article and post it. Anti-war protestors not only have corporate sponsors with deep pockets but also celebrities organize them as well. I am sure that some celebs organize pro-war rallies too, I don't know because there aren't any that I have seen. It may be interesting to read, but I don't see how rallies are financed has anything to do with how many cops are pulled from duty. Nor do I see the correlation to violence.

What I want to see is evidence of pro-war rallies that have turned into violent behavior and attacks on policeman. I would also like see where pro-war people have wreaked havic and panic upon large cities by shutting down highways. When you have a crowd of people that are afraid from the actions of another, it is called inciting a riot. At least according to my Ohio Revised Code law book. People are afraid of the anti-war crowd because the often turn to violence. The exact reason that they are protesting...

I was in Massachusetts for over a week. I was all over the state and saw many, many, many people protesting the war. They were even protesting in Plymouth and even farther south in more remote areas along the coast. I did not see one pro-war person carrying a sign. It's neither here or there, just an observation.

Again, so I am not misunderstood, I am all for the right to protest. I even respect those who want their voices heard and those who try to change things. Eventhough I have different views, they have every right to protest just I as do, if I choose to do so. What I question is when is it inappropriate to protest? Also, violent acts should not be tolerated from any protestor. I know I sound like a skipping record, but throwing acid on a cop is inexcusable and they should be thrown into prison for a long time for that one.

Nobody that I have seen ever said that the Dixie Chicks were terrorists. I have never seen where peaceful protestors were considered terrorists. What I have heard is when protestors turn to violence and scare people to the point where they are afraid to enter a city, that is terrorism. Or when am ambulance cannot get across a bridge because protestors are blocking it, that is terrorism because it scares the you know what out of people that they will not be saved in a life threatening situation.

The war has started and I hope it will end soon but not before the task at hand is completed. Protesting is not going to stop this war. Nor will it change the minds of those in power. It only breeds anger and fear at this point. Perhaps they should focus on securing their own towns against any future attacks from terrorists and let the policeman get back to protecting the streets from criminals and terrorists.

All I am saying is that now is not the time. Whatever one's views are on the war, we all want our families to be safe from anthrax, ricen, murder, and other acts of terrorism and they best way to do this is to let the cops do their jobs instead of babysitting war protestors and then get attacked by them. Doesn't make sense. Our safety and the safety of all Americans is much more important than crowding the streets to get one's views across which will fall on deaf ears anyway.

[Janice]

Watchman, you missed my point entirely, which is my fault for not clearly expressing myself.

The point I was making is that whether they are peaceful or not.....pro or anti...marches and rallies ALL call for a large volume of police to be monitoring the event. It's not JUST the unpeaceful protests that, as you say, "take hundreds of police officers off the street when they should be on guard against people trying to blow up buildings and spreading anthrax in a subway," it's ALL rallies and marches that do that. Does this mean that I feel there should be no rallies and marches? No, that's not what I'm saying, either. I was just pointing out the shades of gray that I see, in what some feel is a black and white situation.

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Janice, wrong, really wrong. There are far fewer pro-war rallies and never, ever, since this war has started have there been any problems with them. Again, the problem is with protests that are not peaceful. When you have unpeaceful protests, like what the morons in this country are doing, yo need cops and a lot of them to keep the babies under control. What a shame that adults have to act like heathens.

Janice, the only response to your post is that you are wrong. Did you make this up or can you show me some real data to back up your claim that there are the same amount of cops pulled from duty for pro-war rallies in comparison to anti-war protests? First of all, there are far more anti-war protests than pro-war rallies. In comparison, the amount of pro-war rallies when compared to war protests, makes pro-war rallies moot, in comparison.

I have yet see anything other than "philosophy" to back up any statements made thus far.......I have heard these same comments from reading protestors signs.

[TheWatchman]

quote:Originally posted by Janice:
but let's be honest, there are just as many police officers pulled off the streets to work the Pro-War rallies, as well. These folks want their slogans out there just as much as the protesters do.



I got your point the first time Janice. Your writing was clear to me. I just don't agree, but that's okay.

Still, there are less pro-war rallies which means that on a day-to-day basis, they are not pulling as many cops from "real work". This is all I was saying. If you have 100 anti-war protests this month and 30 pro-war rallies this month, there are more cops, overall, that are not being used to protect it's citizens from terrorists etc. because they are at the anti-war protests. I am sure that the number of anti-war protests, marches etc. outnumber pro-war rallies 100:1, easily, if not more. I'm only guessing and could be off with my estimate as I have not seen any data on this. I'm basing my estimate on what I have seen on TV (liberal and conservative stations), heard on the radio and seen with my own eys.

This may seem stupid for me to hold on this but it's relevant because because there are so many anti-war protests going on these days. Now that they have turned to violence, more cops will now be needed than at the beginning. It's all about timing giving policeman the respect that they deserve.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear different viewpoints on this.

[Loon]

Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN


By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheWatchman:
[B]Couldn't read it. Had to sign up to view it and I already get enough junk mail for 3 people.

[TheWatchman]

Thanks for posting that. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be as it was mostly about Clear Channel and all sorts of alleged ties with Bush which who cares anyway? Not very supportive of the notion that a lot of companies are supporting the pro-war rallies which does not matter anyway. It matters none who starts or funds the rallies or protests. What matters is that they are peaceful and conducted within a tasteful time period.

We can go on and on with which celebrity started this protest and what company funded this rally and what ties they have with politicians and what personal motives they have for doing such things. All protests and rallies are sparked by a personal agenda. Whether that someone is a corporation or a left-over hippy makes no difference.

Sorry, I just don't see the relevence of that article when it comes to pro-war rallies.

Loon, you said "Pro-war rallies have corporate sponsorship and big budgets." I am sure they do. So does the anti-group. That is like saying Bill Clinton had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. Or better yet, George W. Bush had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. It's neither here nor there. They are both true statements, but what do they prove?

By the way, there also should not be pro-war rallies at this time during the war either. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I just hope that the anti's get a grip and act responsible, at least.

[Janice]

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:

Still, there are less pro-war rallies which means that on a day-to-day basis, they are not pulling as many cops from "real work". This is all I was saying. If you have 100 anti-war protests this month and 30 pro-war rallies this month, there are more cops, overall, that are not being used to protect it's citizens from terrorists etc. because they are at the anti-war protests.


Ah-ha! I was the one who missed the point, sorry about that. I read your original comment to mean that it was only protests and protests alone that pulled the police away from their more important duties and I didn't feel it was fair to put 100% of the blame in one place, but you were basing your summation on the over-all ratio of protests to pro-war rallies. We were kind of comparing apples and oranges. I see now

[Loon]

Clear Channel owns one two three four and often five stations in large metropolitan areas. They can be heard by 60 to 80% of indivduals living within a metro area. They have the ability of creating a uniform message put out through multiple media channels that saturate a market with a single message.

Which companies are supporting anti-war rallies?

Most are sponsored by church, local non profit, university and true grass root groups.

Which major corporation is staging, paying for promoting anti-war rallies? Proof?

When a people are exposed to one message exclusively, this message they take to heart. This is media mechanics 101. The media is the message. Advertising works. Those who choose to ignore the power of the media upon individuals are bound to fall under the spell of the media themselves. What one does not know, will most certianly hurt one.


quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Thanks for posting that. It wasn't what I thought it was going to be as it was mostly about Clear Channel and all sorts of alleged ties with Bush which who cares anyway? Not very supportive of the notion that a lot of companies are supporting the pro-war rallies which does not matter anyway. It matters none who starts or funds the rallies or protests. What matters is that they are peaceful and conducted within a tasteful time period.

We can go on and on with which celebrity started this protest and what company funded this rally and what ties they have with politicians and what personal motives they have for doing such things. All protests and rallies are sparked by a personal agenda. Whether that someone is a corporation or a left-over hippy makes no difference.

Sorry, I just don't see the relevence of that article when it comes to pro-war rallies.

Loon, you said "Pro-war rallies have corporate sponsorship and big budgets." I am sure they do. So does the anti-group. That is like saying Bill Clinton had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. Or better yet, George W. Bush had some very wealthy people make campaign contributions. It's neither here nor there. They are both true statements, but what do they prove?

By the way, there also should not be pro-war rallies at this time during the war either. That's like the pot calling the kettle black. I just hope that the anti's get a grip and act responsible, at least.




[This message has been edited by Loon (edited March 27, 2003).]

[TheWatchman]

I read the article and it is just that. One article from a person who has an ax to grind. I choose to take that article with a grain of salt. No need to explain the power of radio but thanks anyway. I have spent thousands of dollars running ads for previous businesses. I also did my own study and poll and newspaper ads reached far more people and they retained what they read more than what was thrown at them in radio ads. People tend to absorb info. better when they read it, verses hearing it. But I do understand that radio is very powerful.

If what you say is true, then why are the anti-war demonstrations outnumbering the pro's so much? I just don't see the validity of that article when it talks about Clear Channel saturating the radio. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I am in every major city in New England and some of the east coast and I listen to radio most of the day, every day. I just don't see the media blitz that you are talking about. If anything, I hear 90% anti-war talk and 10% pro-war. I just got back from Boston and NYC. Hey, if I didn't hear this big media blitz in those cities, I doubt it even exists. I will be in Philly next. I'll wait and see what I hear there...Perhaps this is taking place on the west coast, where I never travel.

Thanks for taking the time to repsond.

[Loon]

How do you know there are more anti war demonstrations? Because the media tells you?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheWatchman:
[B]If what you say is true, then why are the anti-war demonstrations outnumbering the pro's so much?

[gwen snyder]

well, my, my, you people have certainly been busy.
Watchman, my comment about Natalie was a "dripping sarcasm" quote (your description).
And Loon like you I smell Rome burning, it is a kind of imperceptible aroma, but, nevertheless...

[TheWatchman]

quote:Originally posted by Loon:
How do you know there are more anti war demonstrations? Because the media tells you?


Loon, the answer to your question is in my previous posts and I don't feel that I need to re-write all my comments. Yes, anybody can see that there are more anti-war protests than pro-war rallies but it really doesn't matter. I don't want to volley and serve semantics into the ground. The bottom line is how protests are conducted and are the American people being robbed of much needed law enforcement because of them.

Also, don't be so paranoid of the media. The media is good and does a good job reporting what is going on. Is it s perfect system? No, but what system is?

[Loon]

In sad truth it has been on fire since the 80's when deregulation sent corporate slicks into orgasmic buy frenzies of rampant mogul making.

Some smell it while others grow accustom to the stench and go about their day.


quote:Originally posted by gwen snyder:

And Loon like you I smell Rome burning, it is a kind of imperceptible aroma, but, nevertheless...

[gwen snyder]

well, the good news is we are quite aware of where we stand in the affair at hand...

[This message has been edited by gwen snyder (edited March 29, 2003).]