Thank you Canada.

[Unrepresented]

The other group that needs an a$$ whooping is PETA. They wanted to take out an ad in our local paper comparing the decapitation and murder of Tim Mclean to how animals are killed every day. What is wrong with these people? Is there no sense of honor left in the world? What the heck does this poor kid getting murdered on a Greyhound bus have to do with the treatment of animals?????

I'm sorry that you would rather ignore inhumane treatment of living things. Granted, it's probably not the most effective way to send a message, but I'm sure the animals being mistreated appreciate any help they can get.

 

[HollowBassman]

Hello?

Howdy!

...Did I not point out that it was the principle that suffered?

Typical. You go on and on and on about all the 'sacred rights and freedoms' you're entitled to, until someone disagrees with your personal opinion, then they have no rights whatsoever, and to you, that's just and fair...

First, I don't necessarily disagree with them.
My post was just a fun way of saying that I don't agree that "their constitutionally 'guaranteed' freedom was trampled all over". You, however, are free to think otherwise; I really don't care.

...And then you wonder why America is so unpopular. . .

Oh, this is embarrassing... I totally think you've got me confused with someone else.

 

[Bob the bassist]

Howdy!First, I don't necessarily disagree with them.
My post was just a fun way of saying that I don't agree that "their constitutionally 'guaranteed' freedom was trampled all over". You, however, are free to think otherwise; I really don't care.

Don't get me wrong- I wasn't trying to accuse you of disagreeing with me. What honestly bugs me about that whole thing is that the American citizens, not the government, imposed 'sanctions,' if you will, on a group for voicing their opinion: The very same citizens who scream at the gov't anytime they think their rights are being infringed on, however slightly. I think we can agree it would have been illegal for the gov't to encourage record-burnings and boycotts against them, so why is it ok for the citizens to? I just find it disturbing that such hypocrisy goes unchallenged.

 

[Robert B]

Hello? Did I not point out that it was the principle that suffered?

Typical. You go on and on and on about all the 'sacred rights and freedoms' you're entitled to, until someone disagrees with your personal opinion, then they have no rights whatsoever, and to you, that's just and fair.

And then you wonder why America is so unpopular. . .

Wait, are you saying you don't approve of America? Oh my, how will I sleep tonight? This is just awful.

 

[L-A]

Wait, are you saying you don't approve of America? Oh my, how will I sleep tonight? This is just awful.

Chemically mass-produced pills usually do the trick for me.

 

[coyoteboy]

Don't get me wrong- I wasn't trying to accuse you of disagreeing with me. What honestly bugs me about that whole thing is that the American citizens, not the government, imposed 'sanctions,' if you will, on a group for voicing their opinion: The very same citizens who scream at the gov't anytime they think their rights are being infringed on, however slightly. I think we can agree it would have been illegal for the gov't to encourage record-burnings and boycotts against them, so why is it ok for the citizens to? I just find it disturbing that such hypocrisy goes unchallenged.

Alright, personally I pretty much agreed with with what the Chicks said and their motivations for saying it. However, just as they have the right to say what they did, others have the right to act as they please (within the law) in response, by boycotting, phone calling, ending contracts, record burnings, what-have-you.

You can't prevent someone from disagreeing with you.

They got a bad rap, sure, but I don't think it's a legal issue.

 

[Robert B]

Chemically mass-produced pills usually do the trick for me.

 

[Bob the bassist]

Wait, are you saying you don't approve of America? Oh my, how will I sleep tonight? This is just awful.

It is to laugh. Har dee har. America's got a lot of good things going for it, but it gets wrapped up in radical, fanatical causes too much. IMO, your gov't tries to please all the people all the time, and you know what Lincoln said about that. . . and, like the Canadian gov't, they get too involved in people's private affairs. I don't need more parents, I want them to get on with running the damn country. (Hey, if they're gonna insist on running it like a big corporation, what's this 'tax' nonsense? I'm a shareholder. . . I want my stock dividends! )

Alright, personally I pretty much agreed with with what the Chicks said and their motivations for saying it. However, just as they have the right to say what they did, others have the right to act as they please (within the law) in response, by boycotting, phone calling, ending contracts, record burnings, what-have-you.

You can't prevent someone from disagreeing with you.

They got a bad rap, sure, but I don't think it's a legal issue.

Well, there could be legal repercussions for voiding a contract, but to me the distinction is: one was an action, perfectly legal and moral by the US constitution, and the reaction violated the very ideals the country was founded upon.

 

[jazzy grille]

First link is the story. Second link is letters that the paper has been receiving supporting them for telling PETA to take a hike. Today's paper edition is full of letters from the Canada and the US voicing people's disgust with PETA.


http://www.portagedailygraphic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1145849

http://www.portagedailygraphic.com/feedback1/Display.aspx

P.S. looks like I got a new signature!

I am glad to see that people voiced their disgust about this. I used think of PETA as "ignorable" compared to Fred Phelps and his pals, but now they are on the same field.

I can't stand people who try to "cash in" on incidents like this to get air-time..

 

[coyoteboy]

It is to laugh. Har dee har. America's got a lot of good things going for it, but it gets wrapped up in radical, fanatical causes too much. IMO, your gov't tries to please all the people all the time, and you know what Lincoln said about that. . . and, like the Canadian gov't, they get too involved in people's private affairs. I don't need more parents, I want them to get on with running the damn country. (Hey, if they're gonna insist on running it like a big corporation, what's this 'tax' nonsense? I'm a shareholder. . . I want my stock dividends! )

Yeah, the Bush 'Corporation' worked really well.


Well, there could be legal repercussions for voiding a contract, but to me the distinction is: one was an action, perfectly legal and moral by the US constitution, and the reaction violated the very ideals the country was founded upon.

I see where your going, folks wanted to supress the Chick's ideas, but they didn't. They said it, and no one stopped them. The court of public opinion can be merciless, but they did gain a few fans back.

 

[jazzy grille]

Well, there could be legal repercussions for voiding a contract, but to me the distinction is: one was an action, perfectly legal and moral by the US constitution, and the reaction violated the very ideals the country was founded upon.

What reaction violated the constitution? Not being snarky, just trying to figure exactly what you are talking about.

That is why I say freedom of speech is a double edged sword.. Unless I am missing something that you are trying to get at, I am pretty sure we already agreed that is the way this freedom works.

The hypocrisy does not go unchallenged, groups like the ACLU tackle these issues quite often.

 

[Geddyfleaharris]

I'm sorry that you would rather ignore inhumane treatment of living things. Granted, it's probably not the most effective way to send a message, but I'm sure the animals being mistreated appreciate any help they can get.

You're kidding right? The treatment of animals has NOTHING to do at all with a young man being violently killed on a bus. Sorry nothing connects the two stories so please do not try. Ads and actions like these are what make it difficult for people to take interest groups like PETA seriously.

 

[jazzy grille]

Invalid Link Removed

I can't wait to see how this unfolds (hopefully nobody has to deal with them at the funeral), I hope they are arrested.

 

[Unrepresented]

You're kidding right? The treatment of animals has NOTHING to do at all with a young man being violently killed on a bus. Sorry nothing connects the two stories so please do not try. Ads and actions like these are what make it difficult for people to take interest groups like PETA seriously.

I haven't seen the ad, as I try and avoid watching too much teevee, but in general I respect PETA and think highly of their goals, even if I personally don't live my life to some of their extremes. I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their ad was well-meaning.

 

[jazzy grille]

I haven't seen the ad, as I try and avoid watching too much teevee, but in general I respect PETA and think highly of their goals, even if I personally don't live my life to some of their extremes. I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their ad was well-meaning.

Rofl...

Yeah, that says much about you... I am glad you support people who try and cash-in on tragedy and someones suffering.

Good jorb.

 

[armywalaby]

Every time I see her last name I want to stab my eyes out with a mellonballer.

 

[Valerus]

Filled with sharks.. Flying Sharks.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Jared Lash]

And then you wonder why America is so unpopular. . .

America is totally popular. All the girls totally dig bad boys. In fact, last week in homeroom I heard France telling Spain that she thought America was completely hot and stuff.

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. First and foremost, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom from the repercussions of speech. People that cried out "freedom of speech" in defense of say, Don Imus, need to remember that most people could easily be fired for saying something crude to their boss. Sure, I think we've become hypersensitive and too reactionary, but being able to say whatever you want is not the same as being able to say what you want without consequences. The Dixie Chicks chose to say something that the majority of their fan base found offensive. No one stopped them from saying it, but people that didn't like it were free to stop supporting them. Simple as that.

Secondly, it's easy to be in favor of freedom of speech in the abstract. The real test is putting up with something that makes your blood boil and that goes against all of your own principles or beliefs. I can't imagine the twisted thinking of the WBC members. But those wack jobs have a right to free speech. As do PETA. And I have the right to be repulsed by both of them. But you can't shut people up just because you don't like what they say.

All that said, I don't have a problem with what Canada did here. These nutbags aren't Canadian citizens and they don't have to extend them the same freedoms that they would their own people. I would hope the US would do the same if the situation were reversed, though I doubt it.

 

[Gard]

Man, what an awful situation for this kid's family, and on top of it, two groups of utter nutballs are trying to exploit it for their own twisted goals.

:scowl:

The Phelpsers I need not say anything about, other than they once protested here in our town, and got ran out on a rail, something which I am proud of my adopted hometown for.

Here's a pretty clear summation of my opinion of PETA, complete with incredible amounts of smart@$$edness and sarcasm, which is utterly deserved by them (and understand, I am an unabashed animal lover):

http://telicthoughts.com/penn-teller-expose-peta/

Please be advised that there are some "less than PG" words used, as is typical of our good friend and fellow bassist Penn Gillette.

 

[Unrepresented]

Rofl...

Yeah, that says much about you... I am glad you support people who try and cash-in on tragedy and someones suffering.

Good jorb.

I don't think anyone in PETA is getting rich off this, so "cashing in" would be an inaccurate description. They are using an isolated media moment to try and attract more attention to their cause. Is it in good taste? Probably not, but I respect their "ends justify the means" attitude.

Good taste shouldn't be the sole arbiter of social reform.

By your logic, news media are exploiting the situation far more than anyone else by publicizing an incident that shouldn't be considered national news by any legitimate stretch of the imagination.