Support for Bill Mahr: Down with Semantic Simplification

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b]Ok, SteadyB---I come from a family with a long military history. My dad in fact is a retired Colonel who served for 30 yrs. and is a decorated Viet Nam veteran. Never a complaint from him about that horrible part of our history either. He went, he served proudly, end of story. Grandfather got the purple heart in WWII. I served but (fortunately) never had to see combat.[/b][/quote] Fortunately, I never had to either, my brother did, as did 2 uncles who fought in Europe, and one with the 101st Airborne in the South Pacific in WWII. They all, along with your family fought so that people like you, me and Bill Maher could keep the right to free speech, as I certainly know you are very aware of. Peace. steadyb

[Salyphus]

I don't have an opinion on this Mahr guy as I've never even heard of him before (I don't watch TV) but I just wanted to make the point that I don't see why one would need to have served in the military to criticize it. In my opinion that is a ridiculous notion, and if you turn it around then it also means that you shouldn't SUPPORT the military without having served either. I would say that being a taxpayer gives me the right to my opinion, whether you like it or not. Not that I'm going to give my opinion right now [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

[MMazurek]

I think suicide is the most cowardly thing a person can do. (exclude persons dying in pain) I also think 200 firefighters running into a building that they damn well know they might not come out of, to save people they've never met, is courageous. (most, if not all, don't think twice) I also think Bill Mahr stated he was only trying to convey how 'tough' the enemy is. These people have been fighting for years. I think his concern was the U.S. underestimating their foe. That said, I still think suicide is the most cowardly thing a person can do.

[KHAN]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] And insurance figures show that left-handers live 13 years less than right-handers. [/b][/quote] Crap! ------------------ KHAN (Always hopeful, Yet left-handed) [url=http://www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com]www.floydtribute.hpwebhost.com[/url] This message has been edited by KHAN on 09-22-2001 at 12:05 AM

[fantasticsound]

No one, including the news reports I've seen or heard, has displayed Maher's words IN the context of what was said. Some of you saw this show. Correct me if I'm wrong. The most detailed description I've heard is that a guest said the terrorists were not cowards, but were courageous warriors, because of what they did on 9-11-01. This was followed by Maher stating that we are cowards, shooting missles from 2000 miles away. Correct?? Yes.. no...? Assuming this IS correct, I disagree with the notion these terrorists are courageous warriors. An honorable, courageous warrior attacks OTHER warriors, their leaders, military targets, and FINALLY the means of support, ie manufacturers, etc. to stop an enemy's own attacks. These terrorists used commercial airliners with civilians onboard as weapons against two civilian buildings whose only significant gov't presence appears to be the port authority of New York City. Hardly an attacking enemy! Killing civilians without any military target whatsoever IS cowardly, especially given the small amount of infrastructure damage vs. the huge loss of civilian life. This is not to demean the value of the lives of our armed forces, but they know the enemy targets them. Civilians, by definition, must demonstrate direct rebellion to be considered a threat. The Pentagon, at least, was a military target. Once again the use of a civilian airliner mitigates their supposed bravery. And don't tell me these poor helpless terrorist organizations can only fight back this way. That's bull. As has been noted here and in the press, Bin Laden, himself, commands a huge fortune that could be used for weapons, etc. Helpless in their own land? Not a chance. I don't like to hear that our bombs have killed civilians, but we don't put military targets underneath civilian buildings, either. Could you imagine the president hiding in a bunker under a factory or a ball park? Terrorists play the coward's game of holding innocents hostage to escape from harm. That is far from brave. Regardless of the style of Politically Incorrect, it exists solely by the will of corporations bankrolling it. They have no directive to allow freedom of speech when it offends consumers that buy (or boycott) their products. They don't owe Bill Maher or any other entertainer anything. You can disagree with them caving to their consumers, but that's their choice to make. How do you know the company's leaders don't agree with the vocal reactions? I think companies would rather sit and wait for a reaction, rather than [i]point out[/i] they've been supporting someone who's adversely controversial. Controversy works well for entertainers, and sometimes politicians. It hurts businesses. They (The boardmembers) have a responsibility to shareholders AND employees to distance themselves from irresponsible remarks, like those of Maher, which they both disagree with and are a danger to their business. Just be happy we've moved out of the 1950's. Back then, each show had ONE sponsor. Several popular personalities offended their audience and lost shows when that single sponsor pulled all the backing. Bill's made his bed, now he's backpedalling to save his show. The one comment that is most true on this thread comes from Alphajerk, I believe. Politically incorrect is pathetic in it's current state. Even when it was on Comedy Central, a 1/2 hour is not long enough to flesh out even a few main points. This show needs to be an hour with commercials lumped a bit closer together, and the number of breaks reduced. ------------------ Neil [b]Reality[/b]: [i]A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.[/i]

[good morning]

In our mindset, we attack only military targets. We haven't openly attacked civilians since WW II (firebombing in Europe and Japan, nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). That's a humane approach. Terrorists take a different view. America -- AMERICANS -- are the enemy. It makes no difference, civilian or military. Killing any of us works for them because it chips away at our freedom. Why should we expect others to fight as we do? That is egocentric. This isn't a boxing match. That kind of thinking is what leads to shortsighted foreign policies and energy policies. Look how we supported bin Laden in the eighties -- all because he was against the USSR. Any trouble or violence he caused them was considered good. Well, there's a price to that. He was never our "friend." Look at our energy policy. We continue to suck down Arab oil because it's abundant. Bad idea, in my opinion. It chains us, makes us weaker.

[Chip McDonald]

A) Mahr wasn't trying to be funny. B) You have to follow the context of the discussion. C) The tense of voice also plays a part. D) If nobody on the show - Ariana "Scary Right Winger" Huffington - included, seemed to think something was wrong at the time doesn't that seem to indicate maybe this is being misconstrued? Noting that it doesn't take the same amount of courage to launch a cruise missile attack as it does being kamikaze does not mean the people who are launching the cruise missile attack aren't potentially courageous. Geez. I use Dunlop Jazz IIIs. Yeah, I think D'Addario's seem to be the most consistent. Sometimes it seems like Boogie tubes are sketchy, but I've only tried on set of Svetlana's in comparison so I don't know. 6100 fret wire sounds best IMO, but when playing through a Bassman I like Jensens. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald