SOB: Miko, Are you just trying to stir something up, or do you honestly believe that a few idiots making death threats represent the whole of people who disagree with the Dixie Ho's?
No problem here. It's just the ways of expressing that disagreement must be at least legal, if not moral.
I quite understand that more than half of americans would disagree with them and I have no problem with such people.
While I think myself that Mr. Bush commited grave mistakes in some of his policies, denigrading him as a person* - also the Texans who've elected him as a governor and half of the americans that voted for him - was very wrong on their part. If I ever listened to music, I would have skipped a couple of their concerts in protest.
On the other hand, death threats are just plain illegal. So is disrupting a concert and ruining the value for people who've paid good money for attending the concert.
You would not approve of anyone spitting into the soup you've bought at a restaurant or cutting your suit just because they are upset with the cook or a tailor. Or by making threats to a business make you stand in lines through a metal-detector.
There are civilised and legal ways to express one's indignation. Re-electing Bush would be the most productive of such ways.
Wlfgng: here's a little education for you: ALL celebreties get death threats
I never argued that they did not or should not have expected to. I just argued that a person is wrong to approve such ways of "exercising their right to respond".
There is plenty of crime out there. Does not mean it is OK to approve of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* By the same token I believed Mr. Clinton should have been impeached for perjury and being a democrat, not elected at all, but that it was wrong to make a spectacle out of his personal relations with concenting adults.
miko
