Vegas Casino Boots Singer Linda Ronstadt

Damaramu · Post by **Damaramu** » 2004-07-20 04:05am

During a performance Ronstadt praised Michael Moore and his film Fahrenheit 9/11 and angered patrons......and gets banned from the casino.

Read about it HERE.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-07-20 04:10am

Pretty extreme reaction from the casino people and the patrons, but not really smart on her part either for bringing politics up in a performance too

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-07-20 04:12am

LAS VEGAS - Singer Linda Ronstadt (news) not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.

Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush (news - web sites).

Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.

"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told The Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."

Timmins, who is British and was watching the show, decided Ronstadt had to go — for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.

Ronstadt's antics "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said.

Timmins said it was the first time he sent a performer packing.

"As long as I'm here, she's not going to play," Timmins said.

Ronstadt had been booked to play the Aladdin for only one show.

Calls to Ronstadt's manager were not immediately returned.

In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal before the show, Ronstadt said "I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back."

Looks like she got her wish.

Whoa.

I think more than one person was out of line here. First off, why the heck do some performers think they need to make a political statement every time they go up on stage? You're paid to act pretty, not make a stand.

Second off, booing is okay, but tearing down posters strikes me as way out of line. I don't know exactly what she said, but I doubt it was strong enough to merit that.

Finally, I can see that the owner would be pissed about angry customers, but booting her permenantly? Yeesh.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-20 05:58am

duh. Linda Ronstadt learned the hard way, when entertainers get political they are guananteed to piss off half of their audience.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-20 08:56am

Kuja wrote:
LAS VEGAS - Singer Linda Ronstadt (news) not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.

Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush (news - web sites).

Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.

"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told The Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."

Timmins, who is British and was watching the show, decided Ronstadt had to go — for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.

Ronstadt's antics "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said.

Timmins said it was the first time he sent a performer packing.

"As long as I'm here, she's not going to play," Timmins said.

Ronstadt had been booked to play the Aladdin for only one show.

Calls to Ronstadt's manager were not immediately returned.

In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal before the show, Ronstadt said "I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back."

Looks like she got her wish.

Whoa.

I think more than one person was out of line here. First off, why the heck do some performers think they need to make a political statement every time they go up on stage? You're paid to act pretty, not make a stand.

Second off, booing is okay, but tearing down posters strikes me as way out of line. I don't know exactly what she said, but I doubt it was strong enough to merit that.

Finally, I can see that the owner would be pissed about angry customers, but booting her permenantly? Yeesh.

dude you aren't familiar with ms. ronstant are you.

I mean you expect anything else from a 1960's/1970's folk singer indian rights. anti war demonstrator, migrant worker's rights, pro-union, who has never changed since the 1960's/1970's and has a reputation for being outspoken? We get here up in Yosemite every year, come pow-wow time. the casino idiot is stupid for thinking that you can shut this person up. It's so much apart of her act and the show as it is with Arlo Geutheri, Willie Nelson, U2, The Smother's brothers etc.

My god, unless your completly inept you know what she's going to say, and you figurre out how to sell to that kind of crowd.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-07-20 08:58am

Col. Crackpot wrote:duh. Linda Ronstadt learned the hard way, when entertainers get political they are guananteed to piss off half of their audience.

except that politics has always been part of her proformance.

It's like asking Willie Nelson not to mention small farmers, and pot
Asking Bono not to sing Bloody Sunday, because it may upset someone...
duh

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-07-20 09:52am

Watching the conservative circle-jerk over this would be funny if it wasn't so sadly predictable.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-07-20 10:00am

Haha, I love it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 10:34am

What I really like about all this is the fact that Moore really seems to be getting under Conservative America's skin, while before he was just an annoyance.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-20 10:37am

The Kernel wrote:What I really like about all this is the fact that Moore really seems to be getting under Conservative America's skin, while before he was just an annoyance.

Maybe because the powers that be in the copnservative movement realize that Moore has effectively taken a page out of their own playbook and used it agaist them. Distort and exagerate the truth in a charming manner and people will swallow it hook line and sinker.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 10:45am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
The Kernel wrote:What I really like about all this is the fact that Moore really seems to be getting under Conservative America's skin, while before he was just an annoyance.
Maybe because the powers that be in the copnservative movement realize that Moore has effectively taken a page out of their own playbook and used it agaist them. Distort and exagerate the truth in a charming manner and people will swallow it hook line and sinker.

I agree, which is why despite his dishonesty, I still like Moore as long as he keeps the Conservatives on the defensive and looking like hypocrits.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-07-20 11:45am

The Kernel wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
The Kernel wrote:What I really like about all this is the fact that Moore really seems to be getting under Conservative America's skin, while before he was just an annoyance.
Maybe because the powers that be in the copnservative movement realize that Moore has effectively taken a page out of their own playbook and used it agaist them. Distort and exagerate the truth in a charming manner and people will swallow it hook line and sinker.
I agree, which is why despite his dishonesty, I still like Moore as long as he keeps the Conservatives on the defensive and looking like hypocrits.

Which will be the case until Michael Moore Hates America comes out sometime this summer.

The Corrupt retarded WASP vs. The bloated, fact splicing sensationalist.

I wonder who is right?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 11:50am

Neither, they're both hypocritical jackasses.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 11:52am

The Kernel wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
The Kernel wrote:What I really like about all this is the fact that Moore really seems to be getting under Conservative America's skin, while before he was just an annoyance.
Maybe because the powers that be in the copnservative movement realize that Moore has effectively taken a page out of their own playbook and used it agaist them. Distort and exagerate the truth in a charming manner and people will swallow it hook line and sinker.
I agree, which is why despite his dishonesty, I still like Moore as long as he keeps the Conservatives on the defensive and looking like hypocrits.

Which is part of why we're stuck with nearly all politicos being lying assholes: people will support any low so long as it's their side that benefits.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 11:55am

Stormbringer wrote: Which is part of why we're stuck with nearly all politicos being lying assholes: people will support any low so long as it's their side that benefits.

I think you missed my point. I'm informed enough about Moore and his films to know when he's exaggerating, so it isn't really an issue for me. What I really like to see is how pissed neocons get at getting a taste of their own medicine.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 12:04pm

The Kernel wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Which is part of why we're stuck with nearly all politicos being lying assholes: people will support any low so long as it's their side that benefits.
I think you missed my point. I'm informed enough about Moore and his films to know when he's exaggerating, so it isn't really an issue for me. What I really like to see is how pissed neocons get at getting a taste of their own medicine.

Which isn't just semantics how? Because I fail to see how supporting Moore simply because he riles people up is any better that what you say the 'neocons' are doing. That's just lowering the debate to the lowest tactics and all it does is serve to ruin public discourse.

As a bit of an informative PS: One of the reasons I'm not going to be voting Kerry is he uses the same deceptive tactics as Bush. So I don't think sinking to his level helps any.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 12:23pm

Stormbringer wrote: Which isn't just semantics how? Because I fail to see how supporting Moore simply because he riles people up is any better that what you say the 'neocons' are doing. That's just lowering the debate to the lowest tactics and all it does is serve to ruin public discourse.

Did I say I support Moore? No, I said I like him and I find his behavior amusing. Sure, it lowers the debate but there's not much lower it can go given Bush's despicable two-faced behavior of the last four years. Besides, once you filter through the more emotional propegandaist scenes, F/9-11 is actually a decent piece of work. Sure, it probably would have been better if someone like Errol Morris did it, but quite honestly as long as it was a partisan work, it was always going to be criticized as being impartial.

As a bit of an informative PS: One of the reasons I'm not going to be voting Kerry is he uses the same deceptive tactics as Bush. So I don't think sinking to his level helps any.

Fair enough.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-07-20 01:01pm

so Kernal, what you are saying is that is is perfectly fine to be a lying, crooked, thief as long as you belive your cause is just? Wow, if all polititians would subscribe to The Kernal Doctrine, the would would fall apart so much sooner!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 01:09pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:so Kernal, what you are saying is that is is perfectly fine to be a lying, crooked, thief as long as you belive your cause is just? Wow, if all polititians would subscribe to The Kernal Doctrine, the would would fall apart so much sooner!

First off, for fucks sake could you people please stop spelling my name with an "a"? It's KERNEL, not KERNAL!

Anyways, Moore is hardly a lying, crooked, thief, he simply makes films that are overly partisan. And it's not so much that I support Moore's point of view as I support his hatred of Bush. Remember, Moore isn't pushing an agenda per say, he's tearing down someone elses.

Besides, its not like Moore is running for office or part of the Democratic party propeganda machine. He's just a disgruntled citizen which gives him more leeway in my mind since he doesn't represent anyones interests or standards.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-20 01:19pm

As a bit of an informative PS: One of the reasons I'm not going to be voting Kerry is he uses the same deceptive tactics as Bush. So I don't think sinking to his level helps any.

Genuinely curious: What sort of tactics?

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-07-20 02:13pm

the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush

I was just thinking about this whole situation, and was wondering; what would be the reaction of the people and managers if instead of Moore, she were talking about Bush or some other Conservative leader? What if it were "George Bush is a great American patriot," or "everybody go see Bill O'Reilly's show, its wonderful."

Just wondering about this, I'm not saying this to make a point or anything, I'd genuinely like to know what would happen if the comments she made were at "the other end of the spectrum." My guess is that she wouldn't be fired, and that not nearly as big of a raucus would be made (if any at all).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 02:23pm

The Kernel wrote:Anyways, Moore is hardly a lying, crooked, thief, he simply makes films that are overly partisan.

He makes political attacks ads writ large (with all the lack of integrity that implies) and has become a standard bearer for the left. I would argue that his films, while technically lies, are carefully crafted to create a false impression.

The Kernel wrote:Besides, its not like Moore is running for office or part of the Democratic party propeganda machine. He's just a disgruntled citizen which gives him more leeway in my mind since he doesn't represent anyones interests or standards.

But he's become a standard bearer for the left as well as a major celebrity. Should that mean he gets a free pass? If so it seems to me people shouldn't be complaining about Coulter or O'Rielly either.

As for a simple citizen, hardly. As I said he's celebrity and a major liberal pundit. He's done so under the guise of being some sort of investigative journalist rather than admitting his simply a man that makes editiorial films. Regardless of what he claims he ought to be held to the same standards as any other.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 02:35pm

Did I say I support Moore? No, I said I like him and I find his behavior amusing.

Again I fail to see how the difference between enjoying Moore's behaviour and supporting him.

Sure, it lowers the debate but there's not much lower it can go given Bush's despicable two-faced behavior of the last four years.

Frankly, the idea that some how the political landscape is going to be improved simply by removing Bush seems utterly ridiculous to me. I can understand decrying Bush for his lies; I find the destable myself. What I can't understand is why when it's your side using it (and benefitting I might add) it's suddenly no big deal, they did it first. That seems utterly Kindergarten and I don't see how it's going to improve anything.

Besides, once you filter through the more emotional propegandaist scenes, F/9-11 is actually a decent piece of work. Sure, it probably would have been better if someone like Errol Morris did it, but quite honestly as long as it was a partisan work, it was always going to be criticized as being impartial.

I take it you mean partisan not impartial?

Again, I'd have a lot less of a problem with Moore if he didn't engage in the same sort of sly deception he claims to decry. I've read plenty about both BfC and F 9-11 and both are pretty well rife with deception by ommisions and bullshit guilt by association tactics. The simple fact is they're designed to play directly to an ignorant crowd and win them over or simply to preach to the choir. I don't particularly respect his attempts to sell that as objective commentary.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-20 02:39pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
As a bit of an informative PS: One of the reasons I'm not going to be voting Kerry is he uses the same deceptive tactics as Bush. So I don't think sinking to his level helps any.

Genuinely curious: What sort of tactics?

The liberal use (pardon the pun) pardon the pun of deceptive half truths, the use of emotionally loaded language to convery false impressions, and the same just plain old evasive and contradictory behaviour.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-07-20 02:39pm

Stormbringer wrote: He makes political attacks ads writ large (with all the lack of integrity that implies) and has become a standard bearer for the left. I would argue that his films, while technically lies, are carefully crafted to create a false impression.

I would agree (I assume you meant to write that they are technically NOT lies) that F-9/11 is a heavily biased attack films, thus providing only the evidence in support of his point. Still, his "standard bearer for the left" label is not a self-supported one which makes the difference in my mind. He isn't trying to promote the left so much as attack the right which is the difference between him and people like Hannity and Coulter.

Stormbringer wrote: But he's become a standard bearer for the left as well as a major celebrity. Should that mean he gets a free pass? If so it seems to me people shouldn't be complaining about Coulter or O'Rielly either.

Like I said, Moore doesn't paint himself as a Democrat, nor is he standing behind any particular candidate. That really makes all the difference since he is trying to present overwhelming evidence to destroy Bush, but he is not trying to defend Kerry at the same time. Coulter and O'Reily OTOH bash Democrats while simultaneously praising the virtues of their favored party. This is a very important distinction.

As for a simple citizen, hardly. As I said he's celebrity and a major liberal pundit. He's done so under the guise of being some sort of investigative journalist rather than admitting his simply a man that makes editiorial films. Regardless of what he claims he ought to be held to the same standards as any other.

No he shouldn't because he is not trying to defend anything nor present a better way of doing things. BfC was a perfect example of this, he utterly destroyed several groups for what he considered to be harmful support of the "Culture of Fear", but he didn't try to pretend he knew everything, nor did he say that he had the idea solution. That is the big difference.

You ever hear Coulter talk? From the way she goes on, not only is everything liberals do/say 100% wrong, but everything she and other conservatives do/say is 100% right. Moore never tries to pretend he is perfect, nor does he pretend like he has all the answers and I overwhelmingly prefer this attitude over that of your standard political pundit.