It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Linda Ronstadt: I Don't Like Singing for Christians

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Singer admits having believers in audience 'can cloud my enjoyment' .

Singer Linda Ronstadt appears to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward Republicans and Christians who might be in her audiences she'd rather not know they are there.

What ever happened to when an entertainer, entertained.
With out posting there own personal views and objectives on the paying customers. I guess now before going to a concert you will have to see what party the entertainer belongs to ensure you get what you paid for!

john

www.worldnetdaily.com...




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Aren't entertainers aloud to voice their opinions too? They're no different then anyone else.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xephyr
Aren't entertainers aloud to voice their opinions too?


On their own time, yes. While performing their job for money, no.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I'm sorry, I guess I don't agree. It's every American's constitutional right to speak their mind when and where they please.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I agree. An entertainer is there to entertain us not give us a political commentary like her and Whoopi did. And notice that there is no large media outcry over her Christian comments. God forbid if Charley Daniels said he did'nt want Muslims in his audience or he did not prefer to do shows for them, he'd be splapped with a big fine from the PC-Police.

I don't care if an entertainer is liberal. Alot of good singers and actors are liberal. My favorite singer, Jimmy Buffet is liberal, but I don't care, same with my favorite actor Harrison Ford, another liberal. But they are smart and they do not spew their politcal comments during shows.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I think she is just guilty of vocalizing what a lot of people are thinking. It's not PC, so all of the neocons are going to scream that thier feelings were hurt.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
If I am paying you to perform for me then what does that make you?

If so then stop preaching and start singing.

No one pays you to hear your opinion of war for or against.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
And notice that there is no large media outcry over her Christian comments. God forbid if Charley Daniels said he did'nt want Muslims in his audience or he did not prefer to do shows for them, he'd be splapped with a big fine from the PC-Police.


Yeah, definitely. I hate this friggin double standard we have in our society. It's ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faisca
Yeah, definitely. I hate this friggin double standard we have in our society. It's ridiculous.


Come on. This is Linda Ronstadt, not Brittany Spears. I think the silence you hear from the media would be the same if Vanilla Ice had said this. Now if it was Madonna, then you would have your mass media coverage.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Oh but it was big news all over the media that her audience booed her off the stage because she praised Moore? Come on now. The double standard is blatantly obvious, it's such a load of crap.

If some entertainer, old or new, came out and said "I don't feel comfortable infront of a (insert gay, black, latino, Muslim, Jew, etc. here) audience," the media would be up in arms. And we all know it. People can step all over Christians while if you so much as sneeze near a mosque you're the picture of evil.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
why isnt this in politics and scandals or that "other forum" i wont dare speak its name?

although i must say it speaks volumes when an entertainer becomes so preoccupied by what political beliefs their "fans" have that they feel they cant perform and "enjoy" what they do. its just sad. small minded sadness. i feel sorry for her really.

i remember a time when entertainers entertained and didnt care what their fans believed in. isnt entertaining about entertaining, not getting fixated on what your fans believe in and then making political statements to people who didnt pay to hear your political statements?

it'd be one thing if they paid to see her talk about moore bush kerry or politics in general. i know i'd be angry if i went to a concert and heard someone spewing about their political beliefs, i also wouldnt care if they mirrored my own, i pay to hear songs, not ideology.

sure people can say whatever they want but people buy tickets to hear a singer sing, imagine that, expecting to hear a singer sing, not talk about politics.

if we wanted to hear someone talk about politics we could tune into any number of stations on the radio for free.

for a person who seems to have been in a long winded waning phase of her career she sure doesnt mind burning bridges. nothing says "death of an entertainment career" like discriminating and driving away droves of your fans because of their own PERSONAL beliefs.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xephyr
Aren't entertainers aloud to voice their opinions too? They're no different then anyone else.


Yes they are allowed to voice their opinion but if they do they shouldn't get mad when they are booed or kicked out of a show. People paid to see her sing, not to hear her political opinion. She should talk to the Dixie Chicks, they know what its like.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xephyr
I'm sorry, I guess I don't agree. It's every American's constitutional right to speak their mind when and where they please.


But be expected to lose fans that paid money to see you perform, not to campaign for Kerry.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xephyr
I'm sorry, I guess I don't agree. It's every American's constitutional right to speak their mind when and where they please.


Wrong. She was being paid for one thing: to sing, that's it. She had to use that stage to voice her political opinion because no one would listen to her otherwise. I think my mom had one of her album's in the 70's. Vegas is a well known final destination for washed-up entertainers

I think that it is obvious that she was out of line. People who like her music paid to see her perform. When she started her political rant, those same people booed her off the stage.

Edit: There is also another post on this already started yesterday
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-21-2004 by nyarlathotep]


df1

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It would be interesting to see where the owners of the Aladdin are putting their political contributions. If those contributions are going into republican coffers I would suggest that those of a liberal point of view should boycott this venue. It is only fair, we pay these people to run a casino and a hotel, not express a political opinion. Isn't this equivalent to saying: "We pay to her sing, not to express a political opinion".
.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
It would be interesting to see where the owners of the Aladdin are putting their political contributions.


That is the benefit you get when you are signing the paychecks. It is like comparing apples to oranges. You see, when you are the owner, you get to call the shots. Employees don't have that benefit.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I am here to proudly say I don't have an opinion, and I MUST tell you so!

She can say whatever she wants

Her fans can desert her anytime she quits being interesting.

Everyone is free.

But the reason for this post is to talk about the psychology of it all. Cintra Wilson, who ought to be considered one of the leading Anthropolgists of our era, wrote about this in her work "a massive swelling"

Entertainers, especially those who are famous for innate talent, like jocks, singers or models, often have a deep-seated urge to be taken seriously as intellectual lights as well. This drives them to crave their own talk show (McEnroe) or at least critic-spot (Paul Abdul)

MTV's "rock the vote" has always been hopelessly lame at motivating Teenagers to vote (most of them tend to be conservative, anyway). But it has been great for drawing artists to the network like moths to a flame. Remember Madonna draping herself in a flag and whispering that voting was better than sex!? Gawd, makes you wonder just how sexually inexperienced she really is . . .

I'm old enough to remember "we are the world," which pretty much says it all about celebrity egos, don't it?

And every four years, Joe six-pack and Suzy housecoat are painfully reminded that the celebrities they worship are multimillionaires with a politico/religious outlook at antipodes with the experience of hard-living people.

And the musiccorps wonder why CD-sales are in a slump.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
It would be interesting to see where the owners of the Aladdin are putting their political contributions. If those contributions are going into republican coffers I would suggest that those of a liberal point of view should boycott this venue. It is only fair, we pay these people to run a casino and a hotel, not express a political opinion. Isn't this equivalent to saying: "We pay to her sing, not to express a political opinion".
.



no this is more like "dont buy heinz ketchup because of john kerry".

anyone can contribute to whoever they please. however there is still a vast difference between simply giving some money to a campaign and going on a political tirade when you're getting paid to sing. them giving money to any campaign doesnt stop people from gambling, however her talking about politics DOES stop people from hearing what they paid her to do, sing. then again they didnt close down the hotel and casino to talk about politics, thats basically what she did when she stopped singing.

i dont care if she gave every last penny of her own to kerry bush or even nader, it doesnt interfere with her singing. her talking about politics during a show she was performing DOES interfere with her singing as its hard to sing a song and yet talk about politics at the same time.

if you cant tell the difference...



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
It would be interesting to see where the owners of the Aladdin are putting their political contributions. If those contributions are going into republican coffers I would suggest that those of a liberal point of view should boycott this venue. It is only fair, we pay these people to run a casino and a hotel, not express a political opinion. Isn't this equivalent to saying: "We pay to her sing, not to express a political opinion".
.


That is the exact reason they kicked her out. She was expressing her opinion at a Aladdin sponsered show at the Aladdin, Aladdain has the right to kick someone out that is upsetting THEIR customers. It is not that difficult to understand, you just have to think.


df1

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
You see, when you are the owner, you get to call the shots. Employees don't have that benefit.


I agree entirely. And since liberal customers are paying Alladins pay check, the liberal customers which employee Alladins services should stop doing so. I am sure Alladin will get the message after the boss gives them a pay cut.
.

[edit on 21-7-2004 by df1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join