|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 20, 2013 13:03:26 GMT -5
am not sure a comparison of Nixon to bush and the media treatment is apples to apples imo. I think a more accurate comparison would be to look from bush sr on including our current president. it would be an interesting analysis!!!! eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 20, 2013 14:23:12 GMT -5
am not sure a comparison of Nixon to bush and the media treatment is apples to apples imo. I think a more accurate comparison would be to look from bush sr on including our current president. it would be an interesting analysis!!!! eddiejinnj As far as comparing Nixon to Dubya, I think it's an apt comparison for the news media because Nixon had it far worse than what Bush Jr. had it with the same media. When it comes to the news media, I think they have grown soft on going after the Republican presidents. That started with Reagan. Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal was a far more serious scandal than what Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky ever was, and yet there was no effort to impeach Reagan over the Iran-Contra scandal. Dubya's dishonesty with the reasons for attacking Iraq rather than Bin laden and Al Qaida and the torturing of "enemny combatants" by such means as waterboarding should've raised serious questions about him as a leader. That he lied and wasn't subjected to the possibility of being impeached for those lies is something we shouldn't have been willing to overlook. Clinton's impeachment was for a far less serious lie about an affair. It would've been one thing if Bush Jr. had remained focused on capturing or killing Bin Laden but going after Hussein, again, no great loss, but neither he nor Iraq were the ones who attacked us. And Bush spent billions on a war destroying that country, and then had to spend billions more to rebuild, practically destroying our economy in the process. Bush should be the reason for not letting the Republicans anywhere near the White House but they'll probably get back there again, much to our detriment.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 20, 2013 17:49:40 GMT -5
lying to a grand jury is a federal offense. if he just lied to Hillary than it is just a lie about an affair. when I was a mental health professional, if I was caught having sexual relations with an intern on company hours I would have had 15 mins to clear my desk and be escorted out. my focusing on this and giving that opinion does not comment or compare this to what any other president did (well he did this and that). It is hard to not be loyal to who/what you believe (as I am with Linda re: my emotional loyalty to her music vs especially other female vocalists). I was just saying that it would be an interesting analysis slide. of which, you gave us some of yours. open debate is what makes this country great. thanks for the contribution. it is great to see some new folks on here too!!!! eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 20, 2013 18:58:11 GMT -5
Linda did say that she was disappointed with the way Clinton handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but she remained a strong supporter. I daresay that politics will only be dealt with peripherally in her memoir (perhaps a passing reference to the Dust-Up In The Desert).
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jul 20, 2013 19:02:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 20, 2013 19:04:47 GMT -5
Always nice for Linda to hear from her "fans" in the press (NOT!!) (LOL)
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 20, 2013 20:33:41 GMT -5
she seems to be focusing on her career and it seems by the reviews how much impact she had and her different decisions she has made in her musical career. eddiejjinnj
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jul 20, 2013 21:07:33 GMT -5
Here are the interior pages for the cover posted above. I can't believe I've been sitting on this material for nine years and didn't get it posted to the website.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Morse on Jul 20, 2013 22:12:08 GMT -5
Reading the commentary from the three at the Vegas show it just goes to show that perception feeds these stories. At times it sounds like each of the three were at different shows. Then add in what the press fabricates. Let's face it none of us inows what really happened!
|
|
|
Post by TP on Jul 20, 2013 22:47:30 GMT -5
I find it amazing that someone thinks they should deserve a refund because they sat through an entire concert and then were upset about a couple of sentences uttered introducing an encore song. As Judge Judy would say, they ate the steak. If you eat the food, no refund.
Now on the other hand, if someone had listened to a couple of songs and then went out and asked for a refund, I would say they might have deserved one. One of the folks at the concert said Linda came out and said she saw a billboard saying she would be singing her greatest hits, and that was news to her, as she would be singing standards. The concert was advertised as Linda Ronstadt singing her greatest hits, and that's not really what she was delivering.
Most of those email comments were idiots stirred up by lies they heard on conservative "news" programs.
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jul 20, 2013 23:04:34 GMT -5
Here is a follow-up editorial that was in the next issue of the Las Vegas Mercury News:
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jul 20, 2013 23:13:51 GMT -5
And here is another article from the same follow-up issue, which I confess, I have yet to read:
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Jul 20, 2013 23:22:54 GMT -5
And again, from the same issue, a letter from a reader:
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 21, 2013 14:24:56 GMT -5
lying to a grand jury is a federal offense. if he just lied to Hillary than it is just a lie about an affair. when I was a mental health professional, if I was caught having sexual relations with an intern on company hours I would have had 15 mins to clear my desk and be escorted out. my focusing on this and giving that opinion does not comment or compare this to what any other president did (well he did this and that). It is hard to not be loyal to who/what you believe (as I am with Linda re: my emotional loyalty to her music vs especially other female vocalists). I was just saying that it would be an interesting analysis slide. of which, you gave us some of yours. open debate is what makes this country great. thanks for the contribution. it is great to see some new folks on here too!!!! eddiejinnj Clinton lied about his affair but the thing for me was that it was all about politics and revenge by the Republican party, sore because they didn't win the White House. Clinton's denial of the affair had nothing to do with the running our country but all Republicans seemingly could do was think about some way they could oust Clinton from office. That started the first day Clinton took office. What the Republicans did was as close to a coup d'etat in our country as we ever came, and bordered on being an act of treason. Clinton should've owned up to the affair but I thought the denial was more about saving his marriage than anything else, yet I think that even if he had owned up, the Republicans would not have dropped the matter and probably would've been more vigorous in their attempts to remove Clinton from office. But, here again, if Clinton's affair was wrong, was George "Dubya" Bush's theft of the presidency in 2004 any less heinous an act or his attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the torturing of "enemy combatants" for information? "Comrade Dubya" (as I've always referred to Bush Jr. as, as the "Dubya" nickname sounded communistic in nature) didn't win the 2004 election in an honest fashion, not when he stole the position with the help of Katherine Harris in Florida and the hanging chads and the Supremes. If she and Florida couldn't tell a voter meant their vote for Gore, why was there never any mention of hanging chad votes for Bush that she likewise threw out? I'd almost be willing to bet any hanging chad for Bush was counted rather than thrown out. Bush would've had no problem from me going after Bin Laden and Al Qaida as they were the ones who attacked us, but Hussein (again, no great loss) and Iraq, who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. And the torturing of the "enemy combatants" is still a black eye which did some major damage to our reputation - made us look like a bully, but some in our country don't give a damn about reputation or treating the enemy fairly, but they sure expect any enemy to respect and fear us and treat our soldiers fairly if they're held prisoner.
|
|
daveb
A Number and a Name
Posts: 26
|
Post by daveb on Jul 21, 2013 18:09:48 GMT -5
Yes. And despite Gingrich et al continuing to call Clinton "radical" and "extreme left", what they didn't really want to admit but in their hearts they had to know, was that Clinton had completely outsmarted them. He had taken back the center, and succeeded at issues the repubs had been giving lip service to - balanced the budget - reformed welfare etc. Who can forget "The era of big government is over"
Of course it didn't take long for Bush to come along and squander the surplus and rack up huge deficits again.
But yeah, the impeachment was a continuation of the attack campaign that the right unleashed on the Clintons from day one and had nothing to do with our country. So please do not even compare partisan Democrats with the right wing in this country. Impeachment? As a partisan attack? What could be more un-American? Impeachment had only once before been used in our nations history. And the articles that were being drawn up against Nixon were so serious that it was the Republicans that broke it to him that he had to resign.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 21, 2013 18:40:17 GMT -5
my take is that look at the target of almost all the posts in here. who is dissing who? should be a song title. lol. I will just keep my humor and keep reading on here!!!!! eddiejiinj
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 22, 2013 12:04:44 GMT -5
No one died when Clinton lied but the sad thing is when Clinton tried to kill bin Laden every Conservative and Republican protested with the slogan "No bombs for Monica" and they all began with their "wag the dog" talking points. Sadly, because of this and the impeachment Clinton said he was not so willing to act upon intelligence again regarding bin Laden because of the controversy it would stir up. That left bin Laden free for Bush and the Republicans to ignore right up until 9/11 so I blame them for what happened on that day and the huge mess since that stolen election. Bill Clinton however was an idiot himself by siding with the Republicans on NAFTA, the Welfare Reform disaster, deregulation of the Media, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. but his biggest mistake was refusing to hold the previous administration accountable for the Iran-Contra mess which ensured his adoption by George & Barbara Bush as their last and most favorite child. Those people who relentlessly attacked him would mostly have been in jail throughout his presidency as they were all operatives tied to the Reagan-Bush-Quayle criminal family. And Linda was right, Junior was and is an idiot. Just look at him on youtube giving viewers the finger, farting and other non-sensical stuff. To me he was a giggling murderer worse than most other sociopathic killers. And Obama too is an idiot. Like Clinton he refused to hold the Bush-Cheney Crime family accountable for their many crimes (as promised) and it is those same people going after him. Obama has no personal or political courage. Even though this Congress is just about the worst obstructionists in history Obama just seems to go along to get along and appears to be worried more about his own "skin" than doing the right thing. The political party structure must be dismantled. One term-term limits for all and get the money out of politics.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 22, 2013 13:40:04 GMT -5
I agree Re: the political party statement. it just is not serving the country. eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 22, 2013 14:35:19 GMT -5
And Obama too is an idiot. Like Clinton he refused to hold the Bush-Cheney Crime family accountable for their many crimes (as promised) and it is those same people going after him. Obama has no personal or political courage. Even though this Congress is just about the worst obstructionists in history Obama just seems to go along to get along and appears to be worried more about his own "skin" than doing the right thing. The political party structure must be dismantled. One term-term limits for all and get the money out of politics. Part of the problem I think with Washington is that the politicians are entrenched, so there's nothing to be gained by making drastic change. As for Obama not having personal or political courage, recall that when Jimmy Carter was president, he was going to be the one who was going to bring change. He didn't, and the reason he didn't had less to do with him personally and more to do with the fact he was an "outsider." Carter could do nothing because he wasn't part of the Washington establishment. A big part of Obama's problem is that he wants to get along with the opposition and they keep knocking him back down. He should've gotten to the point already where he should be saying, "Enough of this sh*t!" and getting back in their faces. But, that's the problem we have with the bunch of Democrats in Washington: almost all are "Let's get along," rather than going for anything confrontational. And that, to me, enables the Republicans to keep doing what they're doing. With regard to one-term term limits, is that really such a good idea? As what would there be to stop a political machine in any state from running political candidates who would be just like the person who held the office originally? Or the possibility that there would be so many people elected who didn't know what to do in running the government or came to Washington with the view that they were going to dismantle the government. One-term term limits (or the original idea of two-term term limits) is something I think more Republicans would favor than Democrats because they see it as a way to become the majority party rather than the minority party. In Oklahoma, we have term limits at the state level and before those term limits were imposed, we had a legislature in which the Democrats were the majority party. Now, with legislators restricted to two terms, the Republicans is the party in the majority, and they're doing the people no great favors. I'd favor getting the money out of politics but here again, that's a problematical issue. It costs more money to run for public office than what the job pays, and we tend to elect those who spend the most money because they're able to make themselves more visible. Newspapers and magazines won't provide free ads and worse, there are newspapers which favor one political party over another, and some likely would refuse to provide "equal time" in their papers to the opposition. And how would the candidate who's trying to win have a fair chance if he or she is being ignored by the media? Look at the third party candidates we have every presidential election cycle. They are ignored by the news media, not invited to the presidential debates because they're not in either of the majority parties, and the news media which stages the debates deems them unelectable, so they can just stay home. We need real change but that takes a majority of people, made up of liberal, conservative and middle of the road to make that change. It won't happen until enough of us can all get together and decide we have had enough, and say to those interested in preserving the status quo, "We ARE mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!" And we need to say to those who are intolerant, those who criticize people like Linda or Natalie for speaking out because they're a celebrities, "Yeah? Well, so what? It's their country too. If you don't like it, why don't you f--k'in' leave this country and go to some other place where intolerance of dissenting views is the norm?" I don't have a problem with those whose point of views are different from mine but I do have a problem with those who think that those who disagree with what they think should just remain silent. The country belongs to all of us, liberal, conservative and middle of the road, and no one should be telling another to shut up because they don't like their politics. I think we wouldn't have the problems we have with politics if more of us would speak out.
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 22, 2013 15:17:59 GMT -5
We didn't have career politicians at the start of the country. People came in to do their 2, 4, or 6 years and were gone. As far as money out of elections it is easy. All qualified candidates are publicly funded (only) and you have a clean election process so everyone has a good shot at winning. Voting is done by a runoff voting process. All quite easy and is done elsewhere. I think we have enough smart "non-corporate" and "non-partisan" Americans who can come up with a fool proof clean elections process that the Supreme Court can't screw with. And runoff voting is a better way to elect someone: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votingThis would stop the party machine and we could have issue politics and not party politics. Most Americans are operational Liberals and we can all agree on certain major things and then agree to disagree on the others or come to some concensus. Democracy is not easy. I would vote to get rid of the useless Senate and tweak some other things if need be. Something has to be done and sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 22, 2013 16:38:10 GMT -5
We didn't have career politicians at the start of the country. People came in to do their 2, 4, or 6 years and were gone. As far as money out of elections it is easy. All qualified candidates are publicly funded (only) and you have a clean election process so everyone has a good shot at winning. Voting is done by a runoff voting process. All quite easy and is done elsewhere. I think we have enough smart "non-corporate" and "non-partisan" Americans who can come up with a fool proof clean elections process that the Supreme Court can't screw with. And runoff voting is a better way to elect someone: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votingThis would stop the party machine and we could have issue politics and not party politics. Most Americans are operational Liberals and we can all agree on certain major things and then agree to disagree on the others or come to some concensus. Democracy is not easy. I would vote to get rid of the useless Senate and tweak some other things if need be. Something has to be done and sooner than later. Public funding would be a good idea, provided the public would be spread out evenly among all parties, and not just to those with a D or R attached to their names. But, public funding would still involved taking money from the taxpayers and you know that idea is not going to go down well with those who think it's possible to have a government that runs without money. And even with public funding, you'd still have newspapers and magazines, radio and tv stations with certain political biases and animosity towards politicians they don't like, and unless something was done that mandated the media coverage had to be fair and impartial and balanced, we'd still be looking at certain candidates receiving preferential treatment and some candidates being ignored. I'm also not in favor of anything running afoul of the first amendment but we have to have some way to insure fairness in our elections. As far as the politicians being limited to 2, 4 or 6 years, I'm still not in favor of single term politicians. They're no guarantee that we'll get a better politician out of the deal and no guarantee that a politician wouldn't sell his or her vote to the highest bidders possible. What I favored at one time was the politician having to face a vote of the people prior to his or her running for reelection. The politician would had to have scored a solid majority of voters before being able to run again. By solid, I mean getting an approval of two-thirds of the people voting. If he or she couldn't get that, they would be considered "fired" from the job and not eligible to run again. But, there's even problems with that as if someone is doing their job, do we really want to replace them? I also favor a system where all people of voting age are required to vote in elections, with voting spread out over several days, with results not obtainable until everyone has voted. Safeguards would also be needed to insure there would be no chicanery, no switching the votes, no "I can't tell what the voter meant" hanging chads where the vote was clearly being cast for a certain candidate but for whatever reason, was not 100% spot on the mark. I'd make what happened in Florida in 2000 a federal crime - Harris should've been sent to jail for what she did. I agree something needs to happen sooner than later but I think we're going to be stuck in gridlock for some time.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 22, 2013 17:30:17 GMT -5
well anybody hear any good Linda news today? lol eddiejinnj
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 22, 2013 18:09:32 GMT -5
Quote by eddieinnj:
She's still alive, for what that's worth.
|
|
|
Post by eddiejinnj on Jul 22, 2013 18:21:52 GMT -5
a lot to me lol. eddiejinnj
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 19:11:19 GMT -5
She is touring to promote her book... as good news as we can hope for...
|
|
|
Post by 70smusicfan on Jul 22, 2013 22:23:33 GMT -5
Dear Mr. Partridge - Thank you very much for the articles - helps to put some perspective on the "Dust-Up in the Desert."
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 23, 2013 12:09:42 GMT -5
Reading the articles leave me with more questions, I think, than answers. For instance, didn't the president and/or CEO backpedal or deny that Linda had been escorted from the casino and allso deny that she had been banned for life from the casino? And regarding the person in the casino who got into a snit with Linda over her dedicating "Desperado" to Michael Moore, I didn't see one word as to whether that person had been removed from the premises or arrested. Even if you're angry, you don't go through the lobby and start tearing up posters. That's an act of vandalism violence, even though it's a low form of violence but still, it could've been considered a threat against Linda. And regarding the others who got up and left, of those who agreed with the customer, did they part in the acts of vandalism or did they just get up and leave? I couldn't see that many people of a conservative, Republican nature being there and not knowing of Linda's more liberal politics. It just seems like some might have been there with the intention of staging a confrontation with her and walking out, hoping for the kind of media attention it got. And of the others who got up and walked out, one has to wonder how many walked out out of embarrassment at what was happening? And perhaps with fear that the police might show up and the situation escalate into something bigger. Or did those who walk out do so because the show was almost done (as has been suggested) or were there fans who had come there expecting to hear Linda sing her hits, only to be met with Linda declaring that she was going to sing songs from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s? Depending on how much money they paid for the tickets, I can see where some people, expecting to hear Linda sing her hits might've been upset with Linda's dismissal that she wasn't there to sing her hits. With the billboard or poster promotion that Linda was going to appear at the casino and sing her hits, one gets the impression that was what the casino had expected when they signed Linda. Perhaps they and some of the fans were unaware that Linda had become very contemptuous of her own hits and music during that time and had reinvented herself musically?
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jul 23, 2013 12:35:54 GMT -5
Linda set the record straight in an interview (in the Tucson paper I believe) but no one can seem to find it. It was a good one and bares little resemblance to the news story.
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Jul 23, 2013 13:25:32 GMT -5
Linda set the record straight in an interview (in the Tucson paper I believe) but no one can seem to find it. It was a good one and bares little resemblance to the news story. I remember reading that Linda did say that the matter could've been handled better and denying that she was escorted out. But, seemed like I also came across another news story online some time ago where the hotel-casino also denied the story that she was escorted out and also denied the story that she was barred for life. It was some negative publicity that Linda and the hotel-casino didn't really need but I'm still curious to know about what, if anything, happened to the third party involved in this story? Someone blowing up like that had some real anger issues, and one would think he would've been arrested at least for the vandalism, but maybe the hotel never pressed charges?
|
|
|
Post by erik on Jul 23, 2013 14:52:18 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Even though Linda had largely been out of the spotlight since, perhaps, the Millennium Concert in L.A. as 1999 became 2000, the matter of Linda's politics was still not a state secret. If they really wanted to, they could have unloaded on her at Wolftrap in Virginia two and a half weeks earlier, when she began making the dedication and got a lot of catcalls for her "trouble." They didn't, however. It all was unleashed in Las Vegas, which makes the whole thing seem so extremely bizarre, a black comedy of sorts if you want to look at it that way. The mass media either got the whole thing wrong, or told the rest of the world lies based on what came out of Fox News, right-wing AM talk radio, and the blogosphere about it.
|
|