fansince62 Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 I caught Martin Sheen and the assembled 100 celebs on the tele the other day. While opposed to what they advocate, I do believe in democracy, free speech and suborning my will/instincts to the collective/democratic decision-making process. I'm also aware of the hidden agendas and dubious moral platforms these folks often launch their diatribes from. There is, however, a caveat to all of this. This is not the same as some outlandish income redistribution plan or manipulation of free speech or simple celebrity publicity hunting. We're talking viscereal interests here that can have permanent consequences. To my frame of mind, what is absent is accountability. If something terrible happens, I want these and the others who advocate similar positions to be held accountable for placing the rest of us at risk. What should accountability mean in this situation? If someone in your family dies because of a terrorist chemical, biological or nuclear attack that we know is partly sponsored or abetted by Iraq, how do we hold the folks who prevented action that could have SAVED LIVES accountable? Should this be done and if so what form should it take - and I'm referring to everyone, not just politicians........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Sorry but you are out of luck. Oter than the natural social outcasting that would happen and the lowered likelyhood they would be listened to again, you cant punnish people for expressing an opinion. If they knew the out come would be a terrorist attack and lied about it that would be a different story (and hard to prove). But liability for an opinion, no matter how stupid would make us our own worse enemy. That is not what this nation is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just skins baby Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 What irritates me the most is the people that base their beliefs on that of some celebrity such as Sheen, Streisand, Heston, Rosie Odonnel and others. Please research the issues and look at facts. I don't care what side you are on, but at least be informed about the decisions that you make, not what somebody tells you they believe and you take it for the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted December 15, 2002 Author Share Posted December 15, 2002 Mad Mike....not so by any stretch of the imagination....there are consequences for ideas and actions........witness the tactics employed by the Jesse Jacksons of the world. the full range covers illegal violence to economic boycott to social ostracism to public villification. there are a whole range of options. I'm simply stating that the stakes are much higher on this one - this is qualitatively different from past matters of social upheaval. If the worst comes to pass....do those on this board who feel that blame can be properly placed also feel that some sort of accountability should be exacted? I'm not sure what the proper course of action should be, but I'm also convinced that the free ride is over. aside from poll driven politics, my suspician is that many dems who are lining up to take Iraq to task are donig so precisly for these reasons - they do not want to be held accountable if there is another cataclysmic WTC attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 15, 2002 Share Posted December 15, 2002 Do what all good liberals do. Initiate a class action law suit against the collective bunch of riff raff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted December 16, 2002 Share Posted December 16, 2002 I am not familiar with the demonstration you are talking about, what happened? What were they advocating? I can probably guess, but could you fill me in? Anyway, guessing that they were making an anti-war statement of some sort, there is a flipside to what you say, what if the hawkish scenario turns for the worst, should all hawks be held responsible for any resulting atrocities? What if we go ahead with an attack on Iraq, and with his back against the wall, as a last resort Saddam orders WMD attacks on Israel, US troops or even against the US itself? I think people on both sides of this issue are primarily concerned with a doomsday scenario, and the disagreement comes on how best to deal with the situation, I don't think Martin Sheen or Rush Limbaugh are responsible for the consequences of US policy, since they ultimately they don't have the final say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 16, 2002 Share Posted December 16, 2002 It was abunch of Liberal H-wood blowhards signing an antiwar letter. Of course they want us to abandon any war before we even know what Saddam may have. Brilliant thought process. Mike Farrell of MASH fame is the head moron. But I expect that considering the support he gives to Cop Killers like Abu Jamal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 16, 2002 Share Posted December 16, 2002 Wow, Fan since 62, do you realize what you are advocating? It would be the end of "I hate what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend you're right to say it." If you want to go that route, it's the end of free speech. So many times since 9-11, I've found myself wondering just how far the some people in this country will go. At what point have we destroyed all that we fight for in the name of defending it? Already we arrest with no prospect of trial or judicial review (since partially undone). If you want to make a statement, say it. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can boycott the entertainers. If not enough people agree with you then perhaps yours is the opinion out of touch. Does that make your opinion wrong...I don't think so. History has vindicated many on the losing side of a popular opinion. However, we are built on a free market/free democracy system. I'm also curious as to why you draw a distinction between speaking out on income redistribution vs. war or action on terrorism. You do realise that both have life and death consequences. Heck, I could probably make a case that those against any income redistribution risk more lives than those speaking out against terrorism. Famine & poor healthcare combined with a lack of education to get jobs and do anything about it vs. the combined deaths of all terrorist strikes in the U.S. over the past 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted December 16, 2002 Author Share Posted December 16, 2002 Yomar...already thought about what you respsonded with....and you're right! gbear...it already happens all the time!!!! say something non-PC, for instance, and the usual interest groups pillory you in the press and exercise their version of economic warfare (boycotts). some sort of accountability,if things go south, is what I'm after: the stakes are so much higher on this one. also, while I appreciate your sense of humor in the evident equivocating on income redistribution and terrorism, I do think there are some distinctions wotrthy of note. One....income redistribution is already happening - the question is to what degree; terrorism is unacceptable to any degree. two...there's the small matter of intent. The specific intent of most terrorist acts is to kill. One can select some level of income redistribution, contribute his share to the public weal, and still attempt to minimize the expropriation of his labor....entirely different moral issues. pls.........I realize liberals always prefer "ends justify all means" lines of thinking....but don't overstep the line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.