Wine bashing !

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: You know, right wingers didnt like Cliton anymore than left wingers like Bush, yet we didnt protest and do everything humanly possible to let him now we didnt like him there.

IR, I agree with everything else you said, so let that be known.

If by this quote, the "there" you refer to is "in power" or "in the White House," I will retort briefly:
Whitewater
Flowers
Lewinsky

All of which wasted 70 frikin million of my tax dollars so Repugs could conduct a witch-hunt based more on the fact they didn't like Clinton than on anything else.

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [/qb]

IR, I agree with everything else you said, so let that be known.

If by this quote, the "there" you refer to is "in power" or "in the White House," I will retort briefly:
Whitewater
Flowers
Lewinsky

All of which wasted 70 frikin million of my tax dollars so Repugs could conduct a witch-hunt based more on the fact they didn't like Clinton than on anything else.[/QUOTE]

Ok,true, and that occrued to me right after I posted. But,hehe, I know this is going to sound bad, but isnt that a little diffrent?? I mean those things are rahter..uh..Illegal. Its a bit diffrent the way I see it. I could be wrong.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, not to derail the thread by going to far afield, but only Whitewater was illegal - and that was Hillary - and it was not "proven." Lewinsky was only illegal after 30-some odd hearings finally turned up lie. How petty.

Flowers was not illegal at all. Maybe harrassment - but that's a civil lawsuit. Last time adultery itself was illegal, Nathaniel Hawthorne was writing about it.

I could give a crap less where Clinton put his slick willey, so long as the country was humming along nicely. (Oh my, what death by puns) Give me Clinton back in office, a big fat market, and blithe ignorance to Enron-esque woes due to such finiggly things as lies in accounting and I will be a very happy voter indeed.

[ 03-03-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Luvian]

Personally, I do find this more offensive than burning flags of the country of president's picture, and here is why:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: These people are saying the French government is wrong, and I don't get the uproar over it.

You see, in my opinion, this statement is wrong. When you burn a flag, you are protesting against the symbol of the government. If you burn the president's picture, you are protesting against the government.

When you destroy wines bottles, breads, or ban people from your shop, you are not protesting against the government, or it's politics, you are simply causing grief to fellow human beings, without regards on either they agree or not with you.

I can tell when a country's or president's politics are opposed to mine, but I can't tell when a wine or bread maker's policy are opposed to mine. To me, hurting their feeling just because of the geographical location in which they where born is wrong, and is the same as racism.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, banning people from another country from entering your shop would NOT happen (legally) in the US - that was mentioned in another country.

I think you make a good point in that regard, Luvian. I do sympathize with the very patriotic muslim Americans who are getting the shaft because backwards dumbasses can't distinguish between nations and the people that inhabit them.

But, with wine or other goods, they are nearly as much a symbol of the country as a flag. I say this because the WTO has served to highlight it in recent years. Take a look at US Steel subsidies - that are an outright act of protectionism and an attack on Japanese steel dumping ("dumping" means selling below market value to gain control and drive out competitors). Nations identify themselves with products these days.
US v. EU re: Beef Hormone
US v. EU re: Bananas
Austrailia v. Japan re: Salmon
EU v. US re: Corporate Tax Laws
EU/Japan v. US re: steel

I don't think it's as directly tied to racism. While I will agree that refusing to let a Frenchman into your restaurant is discrimination (not racism specifically, but I get your drift), I must say that bashing the bottle of wine open is a symbolic attack against France much more than the Burgundy region farmer.

[ 03-03-2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Luvian]

But want it or not, destroying the bottle of wine hurt the farmer a lot more than "France".

It's also not France that will go bankrupt if people decide to boycott the wine. Is making a political argument against France worth risking destroying an innocent family?

[ 03-03-2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: On the serious side though Davros, why is the protest of these people so offensive? Seems to me that pouring out wine would be less offensive, not more, but I've been wrong before. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Please to note Ronn that I failed to use the word offensive [img]smile.gif[/img] . The most negativity in my post was reserved only for the "scathing quotes" (read anti-French jokes) that people would not be saying if they weren't angry.

Too many responses to reply individually, but I note that some responses imposed previous arguments on the thread on my post and said "I disagree Davros" and argued against points I never made. For example I never argued against the right of peaceful protest, yet several responses have taken me to task as if that were a point that I had made [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Looks like I got plenty of response, but many of them seem to have missed the key words in my post :

"predominantly" right wing - and nothing posted has convinced me of different "as yet" for the weight of evidence remains on that side.

"odd extremes" - and in my view, crushing bread and wine with an Armoured vehicle rates as an oddity, and as for extreme, crushing with the AV seems to me to be a case of "termination with extreme prejudice [img]smile.gif[/img] ". Nowhere did I state or imply that I was at all offended by people paying for good wine and pouring it down a gutter - it's a free world and it is their right of expression.

"disappointing" - yes, I think this whole anti-French thing is disappointing - did 2 months ago - still do today

[Thoran]

The destruction of good wine is a sad thing indeed, maybe they should have run over croissants or something else, good wine is a treasure for all humanity, and transcends national borders. Of course it could be they were going through and cleaning out all their "economy" vintages... that would be OK.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Luvian: Personally, I do find this more offensive than burning flags of the country of president's picture, and here is why: Quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: These people are saying the French government is wrong, and I don't get the uproar over it.

You see, in my opinion, this statement is wrong. When you burn a flag, you are protesting against the symbol of the government. If you burn the president's picture, you are protesting against the government.

When you destroy wines bottles, breads, or ban people from your shop, you are not protesting against the government, or it's politics, you are simply causing grief to fellow human beings, without regards on either they agree or not with you.

I can tell when a country's or president's politics are opposed to mine, but I can't tell when a wine or bread maker's policy are opposed to mine. To me, hurting their feeling just because of the geographical location in which they where born is wrong, and is the same as racism.[/QUOTE]Well Luvian you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

You may think burning a flag or the president's picture is ok, but I don't. To me the US flag doesn't represent what's wrong with my country, it represents what's right with it. There are vets who have given quite a bit to defend my country who are quite offended by the act of burning a flag. It hurts them personally, do you care? Do you care that some American, who's politics you don't know about, is hurt by this? What about that American who's hurt for no reason Luvian?

You seem to only be concerned for the wine makers who may have their feelings hurt by this, but you disregard the feelings of others because you don't understand them because YOU don't think it's important. You may think pouring out wine is a terrible thing, but I don't. Not only do I think your point is wrong, I think it's pathetic and that it borders on stupidity.

Now those things didn't sound nice did they? You are entitled to your opinion, and while I disagree with it, I shouldn't resort to name calling right? Both of those comments were used in this thread regarding those who are protesting, but you didn't bother to comment on that, so should I assume it's OK? You may think that type name calling is ok regarding this issue, but I don't.

Pouring out wine shouldn't be causing anyone any more grief than any other non violent form of protest and to suggest so is to invoke a double standard. The wine was paid for and it shouldn't matter to them whether it's pouring into someone’s stomach or into someone's sewer. Exactly what type protest would you prefer? Should we try to get an OK from someone first?

Finally , it's not the same as racism, and how dare you even suggest it. I'd wager that those who have been subjected to racism would find your remark insulting. That comment is pure and simple sensationalism. I'm really surprised and disappointed to see that statement from a MOD.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Luvian: Personally, I do find this more offensive than burning flags of the country of president's picture, and here is why: Quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: These people are saying the French government is wrong, and I don't get the uproar over it.

You see, in my opinion, this statement is wrong. When you burn a flag, you are protesting against the symbol of the government. If you burn the president's picture, you are protesting against the government.

When you destroy wines bottles, breads, or ban people from your shop, you are not protesting against the government, or it's politics, you are simply causing grief to fellow human beings, without regards on either they agree or not with you.

I can tell when a country's or president's politics are opposed to mine, but I can't tell when a wine or bread maker's policy are opposed to mine. To me, hurting their feeling just because of the geographical location in which they where born is wrong, and is the same as racism.[/QUOTE]Well Luvian you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

You may think burning a flag or the president's picture is ok, but I don't. To me the US flag doesn't represent what's wrong with my country, it represents what's right with it. There are vets who have given quite a bit to defend my country who are quite offended by the act of burning a flag. It hurts them personally, do you care? Do you care that some American, who's politics you don't know about, is hurt by this? What about that American who's hurt for no reason Luvian?

You seem to only be concerned for the wine makers who may have their feelings hurt by this, but you disregard the feelings of others because you don't understand them because YOU don't think it's important. You may think pouring out wine is a terrible thing, but I don't. Not only do I think your point is wrong, I think it's pathetic and that it borders on stupidity.

Now those things didn't sound nice did they? You are entitled to your opinion, and while I disagree with it, I shouldn't resort to name calling right? Both of those comments were used in this thread regarding those who are protesting, but you didn't bother to comment on that, so should I assume it's OK? You may think that type name calling is ok regarding this issue, but I don't.

Pouring out wine shouldn't be causing anyone any more grief than any other non violent form of protest and to suggest so is to invoke a double standard. The wine was paid for and it shouldn't matter to them whether it's pouring into someone’s stomach or into someone's sewer. Exactly what type protest would you prefer? Should we try to get an OK from someone first?

Finally , it's not the same as racism, and how dare you even suggest it. I'd wager that those who have been subjected to racism would find your remark insulting. That comment is pure and simple sensationalism. I'm really surprised and disappointed to see that statement from a MOD. [/QUOTE]First of all, don't try to turn this into a nationality debate. I never ever mentioned the US, my post was not at all about that.

Second, I never said burning a flag "is ok". I consider it very offensive and never should be done. Don't put words in my mouth.

And what is racism? Here's a quote from Dictionary.com:

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So what's the diference between a black and a white, or a German and a Chinese? both could be considered "races". So, being biased to french people is the same as being biased to black, in my opinion. Both things are very wrong.

As for your insults, I am going to show this posts to other mods, and ask them what should be done about it.