New Peart Interview

[metaldad]

I see this thread getting moved by the end of the day

[circumstantial tree]

QUOTE (TheBluePhoenix @ Aug 15 2012, 10:19 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 07:30 AM) The first amendment guarantees Neil the right to speak. Actually, it does not. This is a common misconception. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship only. It does not apply to non-government organizations. For example, a privately owned TV station, magazine, newspaper, web site or whatever can censor content and they often do. One can stand in a public place and freely speak but not in a privately owned place. Had I done that interview, I would have not even asked him that question because his stance on Christianity as been talked about before ad nauseum. Or if he volunteered the info, I would have used the mighty editing pen.

Edited August 15, 2012 by circumstantial tree

[LedRush]

[LedRush]

[rushgoober]

Edited August 15, 2012 by rushgoober

[GeminiRising79]

QUOTE (LedRush @ Aug 14 2012, 09:35 PM)

QUOTE (GeminiRising79 @ Aug 14 2012, 09:12 PM) What most of you fail to realize is that Neil is the biggest troll of all. I won't go that far. I will just say that I think he made a hyperbolic statement that we might agree went to far. At least, I choose to believe this. Do you remember his Xmas blog entry? That is some of his finest "work"

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (TheBluePhoenix @ Aug 15 2012, 09:19 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 07:30 AM) The first amendment guarantees Neil the right to speak. Actually, it does not. This is a common misconception. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship only. It does not apply to non-government organizations. For example, a privately owned TV station, magazine, newspaper, web site or whatever can censor content and they often do. One can stand in a public place and freely speak but not in a privately owned place. I know. It guarantees his right to speak, but not the right to use a privately owned medium to spread what he's saying to a larger audience.

[LedRush]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 10:08 AM)

QUOTE (TheBluePhoenix @ Aug 15 2012, 09:19 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 07:30 AM) The first amendment guarantees Neil the right to speak. Actually, it does not. This is a common misconception. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship only. It does not apply to non-government organizations. For example, a privately owned TV station, magazine, newspaper, web site or whatever can censor content and they often do. One can stand in a public place and freely speak but not in a privately owned place. I know. It guarantees his right to speak, but not the right to use a privately owned medium to spread what he's saying to a larger audience. It does not guarantee the right to speak. It puts limits on the government's ability to limit your speech.   It is always discouraging to see people yell "first amendment" whenever someone is attacked for what they said, or whenever they are prevented from making certain statement through contractual terms.   In the current context, no one is arguing that Neil can't say what he wants. Some are saying that his statements were insulting and ignorant, while others say it was awesome.

[Lerxster]

[LedRush]

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (LedRush @ Aug 15 2012, 10:14 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 10:08 AM) QUOTE (TheBluePhoenix @ Aug 15 2012, 09:19 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 07:30 AM) The first amendment guarantees Neil the right to speak. Actually, it does not. This is a common misconception. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship only. It does not apply to non-government organizations. For example, a privately owned TV station, magazine, newspaper, web site or whatever can censor content and they often do. One can stand in a public place and freely speak but not in a privately owned place. I know. It guarantees his right to speak, but not the right to use a privately owned medium to spread what he's saying to a larger audience. It does not guarantee the right to speak. It puts limits on the government's ability to limit your speech.   It is always discouraging to see people yell "first amendment" whenever someone is attacked for what they said, or whenever they are prevented from making certain statement through contractual terms.   In the current context, no one is arguing that Neil can't say what he wants. Some are saying that his statements were insulting and ignorant, while others say it was awesome. You're right, sorry. I didn't quite say it right and it really does make a big difference.

[eshine]

[LedRush]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 10:59 AM)

QUOTE (LedRush @ Aug 15 2012, 10:14 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 10:08 AM) QUOTE (TheBluePhoenix @ Aug 15 2012, 09:19 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 15 2012, 07:30 AM) The first amendment guarantees Neil the right to speak. Actually, it does not. This is a common misconception. The first amendment protects citizens from government censorship only. It does not apply to non-government organizations. For example, a privately owned TV station, magazine, newspaper, web site or whatever can censor content and they often do. One can stand in a public place and freely speak but not in a privately owned place. I know. It guarantees his right to speak, but not the right to use a privately owned medium to spread what he's saying to a larger audience. It does not guarantee the right to speak. It puts limits on the government's ability to limit your speech.   It is always discouraging to see people yell "first amendment" whenever someone is attacked for what they said, or whenever they are prevented from making certain statement through contractual terms.   In the current context, no one is arguing that Neil can't say what he wants. Some are saying that his statements were insulting and ignorant, while others say it was awesome. You're right, sorry. I didn't quite say it right and it really does make a big difference. Normally, I wouldn't correct a statement like yours, which was basically right. I just wanted to be cyrstal clear on how the first amendment works in light of eshine and SinCity's statements on the matter.

[LedRush]

[eshine]

[canadianice]

[LedRush]

[Ged Lent's sis]

[eshine]

I'll just say it again.

 

The members of Rush are liberals. They don't care if some of their fans are offended by their veiws. Neil, in particular, does not censor himself to avoid hurting the feelings of his staunchly conservative, republican Christian fanbase.

 

He doesn't care if you are a Republican.

 

Nor should he.

 

The Republican platform in the U.S. is rife with serious issues - hypocrisy being one of the biggest.

 

You want "limited government and regulation", yet you want to literally controll the way people live their private lives, all in the name of Jesus.

 

it's a joke, and Neil has your number - thus the "outcry" here.

[eshine]

QUOTE (canadianice @ Aug 15 2012, 11:21 AM)

Let it go, Who fukkin cares.

You do, obviously enough to whine about it.

 

Skip my posts if they bother you so much, or put me on ignore.

 

[LedRush]

QUOTE (eshine @ Aug 15 2012, 11:26 AM)

I'll just say it again. The members of Rush are liberals. They don't care if some of their fans are offended by their veiws. Neil, in particular, does not censor himself to avoid hurting the feelings of his staunchly conservative, republican Christian fanbase. He doesn't care if you are a Republican. Nor should he. The Republican platform in the U.S. is rife with serious issues - hypocrisy being one of the biggest. You want "limited government and regulation", yet you want to literally controll the way people live their private lives, all in the name of Jesus. it's a joke, and Neil has your number - thus the "outcry" here.

So you've ignored my questions, backed off from your statement, and seem to present a different argument now - one that doesn't acknowledge what Neil actually said.

 

If Neil wanted to cite certain issues with one political party, he could have. He didn't. He generalized the beliefs of a political party, and then said they were incompatible with another generalized view of the teachings of Jesus. I have argued why his statement must be wrong, and I've not heard a counterargument yet based on Neil's chosen words.

 

Of course, if you'd like to answer my questions above, that would help inch Neil's opinions closer to the realm of reality.

 

Here they are again: " What interpretation of Jesus Christ's teachings are you using? What republican platform are you speaking about?

 

"Could you please provide me examples that demonstrate the veracity of your statement? (i.e., Undisputed teaching of Jesus that conflict with undisputed views of republicans)."

[LedRush]

QUOTE (eshine @ Aug 15 2012, 11:26 AM)

I'll just say it again. The members of Rush are liberals. They don't care if some of their fans are offended by their veiws. Neil, in particular, does not censor himself to avoid hurting the feelings of his staunchly conservative, republican Christian fanbase. He doesn't care if you are a Republican. Nor should he. The Republican platform in the U.S. is rife with serious issues - hypocrisy being one of the biggest. You want "limited government and regulation", yet you want to literally controll the way people live their private lives, all in the name of Jesus. it's a joke, and Neil has your number - thus the "outcry" here.

Also, who is the "you" in your statements? Surely it can't be me.

[Lerxster]

[rushgoober]

[LedRush]