for dedicating song to Michael Moore....Now, I can see people getting little mad, after all, there were probably many conservatives in the audience who made trip from Orange County, CA to see the show, but come on, these people were acting like those crazies in the movie "28 Days Later"......





-- Modified on 7/20/2004 6:49:18 AM

-- Modified on 7/20/2004 6:55:01 AM

what's the problem?

of how many people feel about this person (Moore), his agenda and apparently Ms. Ronstadt's too.  I think it's hilarious.  I am going to send a thank you letter to the casino manager and further, I am going to go out of my way to stay there then next time I am in Vegas!  I wonder how many times this happens that celebs piss people off with their unsolicited opinions and suggestions??  I think it's simply hilarious!

Too bad they don't show their ire against an administration, whose actions gave Michael Moore his material.

They only have themselves to blame.

The next time I am in church and the minister brings up something political I will go ballistic.

What a bunch of hypocrits (sp). The religious right preaches of Bush in church (separation of church & state) yet an entertainer is responsible for a small portion (aaprox. 1/4 according to all accts.) of an audience nearly starting a riot in a casino???? For dedicating a song to Moore??

What a bunch of horse shit that is.

So of course, it would follow that since they are known to make irrational decisions, they would skew toward Republican.

More interesting to see people get their panties into a bind over a movie.  Either way this intensity over this argument is lame. If you like Moore, a good laugh, or his message, go see the movie. If you don't like him, his message or a good chuckle-don't go.

But getting all worked up and calling him a traitor?  Can't we just leave that stuff to the French?  Or the Japanese?

Being american is all about arguing, multiple points of view, and knowing the other guy is nuts-but he is entitled to his opinion.  Like being jewish with better food!

I'd rather talk about something we all can agree on.  The movies cost too much to go to!  Can I get a witness?  $12.00 for a flick?

Sdstud, HEHEHEHE You missed 2 points though....

  first of all its "republiCON" not Republican(which is actually an honorable title) and second of all you forgot it is just as irrational a decision to blindly lean democrat.  The democratic leadership is just as useless as the republiCON!!  

Hey, I don't even have a problem that some audience members got mad, they should have just complained to a manager, they probably would have gotten some comps out of it (espcecially if they are high rollers) but when these goons "spilled drinks, & tore down posters" that's going too far....I don't care if she praised Michael Moore, Sean Penn, & the 9th. circuit court of appeals right after trying to sing Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit", the audience shouldn't have started a near RIOT over it.......


-- Modified on 7/20/2004 6:35:31 PM

would have to concede that those on the political left spend much more time in liberal and/or black churches soliciting political support than conservatives.  Personally, I attend a church where our pastors do not preach politics from the pulpit, even though "some of my best friends" are religious conservatives.  I think there is a substantive difference between those who allow their religious convictions to inform their political philosophy than those who blatantly solicit political support in churches with the wink and nod of ministers.  In Virginia, for example, Demoncrats spend much more time in black churches (not their own) than, say conservative politicians spend at the Thomas Road Baptist Church (Jerry Falwell's).

Why is it, then, that the IRS primarily goes after conservative religious groups, rather than the churches in which Demoncrats solicit support shortly before election day?

Remember, she was on the Casino's dime when she spoke out. There is no reason they should not be able to fire her. If I started walking around my office pushing political views instead of doing my job, I would be fired as well.

Everyone has the right to free speech, but you need to do it on your own dime.

that if they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. But seeing as how the casino is private property, it is their option as to whether or not press charges...

-- Modified on 7/20/2004 10:34:38 PM

Bush you're da man! I wanna be just like you when I grow up!

and to Moore:

Please lose some weight, stop deceiving and bring lots of water when you arrive at the gate of hell!

The thing I find funny about all the whining about "censorship" is that people seem to forget that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from negative feedback.

RLTW

What was pathetic was the casino-trashing behavior of the casino customers.  The fact that the casino has no problem with their behavior doesn't make it any less pathetic.

The real issue is if they were angry enough to do what they did, what comes next?  Physical attacks on the performer?  Would you support that?

-- Modified on 7/21/2004 7:37:23 AM

If some of the audience damaged property they should face the consequences. That was wrong. I wasn't there, and you probably weren't either. So no one can say for sure that it was a just a couple of people that went too far, or a large group of people that went too far.  

The simple point is that when an entertainer or public figure speaks out about a "hot button issue" in a public forum, they should not be surprised by the reaction from the audience. Crying "censorship", like Moore has done in response to this issue is what is truly pathetic.

RLTW

My point being that the ruckus was in a casino, this is a place where you are not guarded or led to believe that you are protected, from others opinions, bad habits or vulgar behaviors.

I would not expect or want to hear political opinions in church, and if I did, I would not return as I feel that is NOT the place to have  political discourse.
I am sure that there are some Dems that are outrageous in their behaviour and actions, but I just do not see it as often as the Republicans show.

As far as the casino owners go, they should have also kicked the unruly riot enciters out and banned them forever too. What the patrons did was childish and I see it more and more every day in how the truly "Political" among us behave.

Case in point, I was confronted by an addleminded Bush lover because of my "George Bush You're Fired" bumper sticker. He proclaimed his love for Bush and I let him know that his love would never be returned as he (Bush) was working on making an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriage. I do not think he understood what I was telling him because he then went into a diatribe about Bush being the greatest president ever. I'll stop here because I think you already know my feelings on THAT.

On the other hand, to love someone without expecting love in return is TRUE love (IMHO).  Well, hopefully he will love the one he is with and find some happiness someday ...

Saying that someone who says something controversial should
"not be surprised at the reaction" they get is an attempt at intimidation, when that reaction includes physically trashing a place.  It was the physical violence of that that distinguished this incident.  I do not agree that "no one can know for sure" whether it was just a couple of people or a large group.  The eye witnesses know, but of course we may never know because the casino will not press charges, and so no one will be under oath.

Sorry if I seem rude, but that's bunk. There is no denying the fact that intimidation and violence against others is wrong. No matter if it's a Bush hating entertainer feeling threatened by a rowdy audience, or a counter-protester being shouted down and intimidated at an International ANSWER anti-war/pro-Saddam rally. In both cases it's wrong.

Unfortunately the simple fact of life is that if you say something inflamatory in public you should expect a negative reaction. So... learn how to fight, or run really fast, then shout out all you want. It's a free country.

RLTW

is one of physical violence, then that is an attempt to intimidate them into not making the controversial statement in the first place.

People who are easily inflamed are not in control of themselves.

You really had to be there. This guy was a lunatic. And the blank stare when I said that, I wish I had my camera, LOL

to all of the WTO protestors. Now there was violence.

Every time a Democrat speaks, it's freedom of speech. Everytime a republican responds, it's censorship.

The only reason to be so afraid of rebuttals is if you think you can't back up you arguments.

BTW, the last time I checked no one tried to attack Linda Ronstadt? So your argument about violence is unfounded..

the people in the casino.  The transition from the violence shown in the casino to the violence of attacking a person is easily made.

You are absolutely right about rebuttals.  Discussion is the answer, not violence.