Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 6:40:44 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
".....and two to take 'em".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_a_sucker_born_every_minute


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 6:42:29 AM   
michaelGA2


Posts: 1533
Joined: 4/26/2006
Status: offline
since i don't listen to country (not into drinking music) i have not productive opinion on them.

_____________________________

Are we having fun, yet?

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 9:24:47 AM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
However, I think you know, NTUY was talking about American citizens. At least that is what I assume.


I can't speak for American citizens but there were certainly British citizens held in the camp, four of which spent three years there without charge or explanation.  After failed suicide attempts and a further six months, they were then released without any charge whatsoever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4720962.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3545709.stm


< Message edited by Lilmissbossy -- 7/18/2006 9:26:26 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 9:39:19 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:


"After 9/11 we could no longer take a chance on Iraq (who sponsored terrorism) to give their WMDs to Al Queada or other terrorist groups. Saddam Heusein had been in violation of the UN charter requiring him to disclose all WMDs in his possesion or suffer the consequences. His failure to do this for 12 years gave us the right to invade. That we had the balls to enforce the charter, and the UN didn't, just shows how impotent the UN is."


There isn't a country in the world that doesn't sponsor terrorism.  Can you say "The Contras", once heavily sponsored by the US?  Or how about NORAID? Cuba? India?  Indonesia? Chile?

America (and Britain) sponsors terrorism throughout the world, it just renames those terrorists as "freedom fighters" to cover its arse.

And remind me, how many WMD's did we find in Iraq? Because I seem to remember it being "none" and Bush and Blair issuing official apologies for receiving 'poor information'.


ummm, ok, again.

My response was about domestic citizens since the post I was replying to was about manipulating the "citizens" of nazi germany into war and comparing that to the US "citizens" in the current situations. While I agree manipulations occur, in no way is it near what was happening in germany.

The ummm, ok, thing is because your response, has little or nothing to do with what I was even responding to. As in comparing gasing, shooting, and imprisoning your citizens that don't agree with the leader of the country(Hitler), to the way people are treated in the US who don't agree with Bush, is way off.

Thanks.


(in reply to EnglishDomNW)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 10:58:47 AM   
EnglishDomNW


Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline
Sorry, that wasn't a message posted to you, what happened was that you were just the last poster so I clicked "Reply" for ease to post a general message rather than post a new message entirely

_____________________________


"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 11:13:35 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lilmissbossy

I can't speak for American citizens but there were certainly British citizens held in the camp, four of which spent three years there without charge or explanation.  After failed suicide attempts and a further six months, they were then released without any charge whatsoever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4720962.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3545709.stm



You have to blame Blair for that. Blair could have threatened to have pulled British troops out of Iraq if British citizens weren't released. The French and Germans would have done a lot more than Blair to protect their citizens from the lack of justice. On this score I don't blame Bush, the fault is squarely with Blair for being up Bush's arse.

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 11:25:42 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Too funny!
Al Qeada has "rights" now?
OK, let's let them all out of jail and let them go in your neighborhood!

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 1:05:49 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Too funny!
Al Qeada has "rights" now?
OK, let's let them all out of jail and let them go in your neighborhood!


Since four of them are now walking around free in Britain and have been exonerated of any wrong doing and declared has having done absolutely nothing to justity their incarceration by the Blair government of all institutions, one has to question why they were locked up for so long in the first place.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 7/18/2006 1:06:38 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 2:26:49 PM   
LotusSong


Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline
Actually, I'm really sad today.  With Israel and Lebanon having at it.. and the Shiites and Sunnis battling each other.. I think America should be insulted.. I mean,  there we are to bless them with democracy and here we are.. just having to watch them ignore us while they kill each other off!

Damn, no manners at all!

Then we have Geroge the Lesser deciding the role of every living cell on earth based on his definition of morality.  Had he seen my mother languish for 25 years with Parkinson’s.. and knew he might have been able to help  find a cure aside from his banality, he’d get a whole new idea of immoral.


_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 3:33:49 PM   
Lilmissbossy


Posts: 81
Joined: 6/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Too funny!
Al Qeada has "rights" now?
OK, let's let them all out of jail and let them go in your neighborhood!


What's "too funny" is that you didn't take the time to read what was posted and instead threw out some weird, kneejerk "They're Al Qaeda!" statement.

I'll point it out again for you popeye, please digest.

The men were kept in a prison camp for 3 years.

They were released without any charge whatsoever.

Or, if you really want to exercise your lack of thinking, ask yourself why you called these men "Al Qaeda".

And then get your lawyer to provide evidence that supports your accusation.  

(Please try and think before you post)


< Message edited by Lilmissbossy -- 7/18/2006 3:40:17 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:38:20 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
www.protestwarrior.com

http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?thumb=4

Hollywood ACTIVISM … now THAT’s Entertainment!

Note:  I am going to address the posts in the order they came in.  If you do reply while I am in the process of posting, I may not get to you tonight.  But I will get with you later this week, or maybe next week.  Considering that there is an overwhelming number of posts arguing from the left, I am about to turn this thread into a “fair and balanced” thread, balancing it out with the other side of the argument. 

(in reply to Lilmissbossy)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:39:30 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
irishbynature: The aftermath of her words are what really bothered me. I'm sure many of you saw people lining up and burning their CD's, and even, throwing them in piles for a bulldozer to crush.  

If you were not bothered by the comment made by the singer, in the setting it was given in, and given the possible comfort the enemy would get by it, then you should not be bothered by people exercising their freedom of expression.

irishbynature: History demonstrated to us that the Nazis engaged in this behavior. This is what bothered me the most.

Inductive fallacy.  This is like assuming that an apple is an orange because it is round like an orange.  Whether the book burnings were voluntary or coerced, the NAZIs played a role in bringing it about.  To make that comparison similar to what happened here, you would have to show that the fans did this as a result of encouragement or lobbying by the Republican party.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:40:32 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
Level: It bugs me that country radio, or much of it, has such a narrow mind that they can't find their way to playing their music anymore. It's their right to do so, and it's my right to think they're dumbasses for doing so.

I would not chalk it up to narrow mindedness, but catering to their consumers.  Lets look at this scenario.  A singer oversteps her bounds in the eyes of many of her customers.  They get outraged.  Her music is played on the radio.  The consumers get outraged at the radio stations and start inundating the radio station’s phone lines.  He can ignore their pleas and continue playing their music.  But he knows that if he does not listen to their complaints, his customers will turn to his competitor WHO IS going to listen to their pleas - and stop playing the music in question.  That is an example of capitalism at work.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:41:46 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
peterK50: I have no problem with people using their celebrity to voice their opinions, I think it is their right & duty.

Yes, but along with that right and duty comes responsibility to not say something that would give hope to our enemies and or demoralize the troops. 

peterK50: Sometimes it's not obvious how bad things are until you look back on them.  Having lived through the Vietnam era I can attest to that &

The appeasement activist activities of the Vietnam War (peace protestors) is a perfect example of what you talk about here.  What they were doing was BAD, but it was not obvious to the rest until this came about:

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmb009.php

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!" - From the memoirs of General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general
 
peterK50: I believe the current regime will be looked on with great distain in the future.

Ummm, nope.  I am going to use history as a precedent for this section and bring up Ronald Reagan.  I lost count of how many times people lambasted him, insulted his intelligence, and accused him of trying to cause mass conflagration.  His policies were going to lead to war and destruction of civilization.  We were simply headed to hell in a hand basket. 

Today? He is seen as one of the greatest presidents that we had.  Abraham Lincoln was in the same boat, he got pulverized by the media. 

The reality is that George Bush is going to be seen as one of the greatest presidents that the U.S. had.  It is not going to stop there.  He is going to be seen as one of the greatest world figures.  And it is going to be as a result of his foreign policies as well as his domestic economic policies.  Mark my words. 

The Clinton REGIME on the other hand? One of the worst that we had.  Talk about incompetency. 


peterK50:At the Nuremburg war trials at the end of WWII an S.S. General was asked , How the Holocost happened? His reply was simple , "One step at a time"

I also built my daily swim up to two miles, one step at a time.  Does that make me comparable to Hitler? There are allot of things that we do that are done, “one step at a time.”  Comparing the NAZIs of WW II with the Bush Administration of today because of things that appear to be similar is nothing but inductive fallacy.  Especially when there is a S#$% load of differences between the two.

< Message edited by herfacechair -- 7/18/2006 7:42:34 PM >

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:44:30 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: feastie



I tossed my DC cd's.  I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think that people of celebrity often take their celebrity too far and abuse it.  Natalie Maines did just that and lost any respect I personally had for her. 



I don't think music stars, movie stars, tv stars have any better opinions on the world and politics than the rest of us do.  I believe it is wrong for them to use their celebrity as a platform to push their personal beliefs and agendas on the rest of us.  I'm not gullible enough to fall for it, but there are many people that are, just because they've seen such and such in a movie or on tv.



I don't think celebrities should be allowed to make their voices louder than mine, as I have just as many beliefs, ideas and opinions about politics and the world at large as they do.  I just don't have the availability of a stage and a microphone.



I avoid the movies, music, etc., of celebrities who have political agendas they present in public. 



I don't really care what Natalie Maines thinks of George Bush.  What I do care about is that she maligned the President (it could have been Kerry, or Ronald McDonald, it wouldn't have mattered), on foreign soil in a very public way.



This is the type of thing that makes our country weaker, not stronger.  It makes us appear weak to the very people who wish to do us harm.  Thanks for opening that door a little wider, Natalie, ya idiot.

 
COF@#$ING SIGNED!

Here is one thing that these celebrities don’t realize…

That many of us see them as professionals that act out make believe stories.  Many are paid handsomely to act out a fantasy plot. 

They are pampered and generally get their way.  When their closest support kisses up to them, somehow, they get carried away and project that to the rest of the country. 

Couple that when they overextend their perceived ability to “make a difference”. 

Reality hits them hard on the face when they receive a bunch of “BOOs” and when they get wind that many people are refusing their work. 

They are professional actors.  They are NOT politicians skilled at making policy, and they are not the professionals charged with carrying out that policy. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:45:31 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
pahunkboy: Clear channel had no right to ban their music!

Actually, they do when they have to deal with ratings and customer demand.  It boils down to being able to go above the break even point.  They could have said, “screw you!” and continued to play her tunes.  Apparently, there was enough pressure from enough customers to make them ban said music.  Staying in the green is much better than being in the red, and if banning someone’s music would help them to that end, then they have a right to do that.  It is the free market where customer sovereignty rules supreme.

pahunkboy:  I can take or leave their tunes.

So can anybody else - along with the option to ignore everything else offered by the company until they drop said tunes. 

pahunkboy:  It was sorta distasteful to ran THERE- and not HERE. IMO the opinion should have been voiced on US soil...it looks like- well fishy- that they blab there 1st.

Actually, the opinion should not have been expressed anywhere it would have garnered attention from our enemies.  One more voice on our side of the fence speaking their corporate line is an extra boost of support in their favor, one that contributes to lifting their moral.

pahunkboy: When i go to the dentist- i coul;d care less who he did in bed- and if he supports the war- my concern is competent performance of service.

If my dentist opposed the war, that alone would not encourage me to find another dentist. 

But if I found out that said dentist was actively undermining the president as he prosecutes the war on terror, I will take my business to a dentist who is not involved in such activity. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:47:09 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
MyMasterStephen: Free speech is weakness now, is it?

That is not what she communicated.  Free speech is not a weakness.  It is a failure to exercise the responsibility that comes with any right that we have that is a weakness.

MyMasterStephen:  Celebrities who can be heard should be stifled, whilst the "little people" who have minimal influence can speak freely?

She is not advocating that we “tape their mouths shut”.  In fact, this is what she said:

“I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think that people of celebreity often take their celebrity too far and abuse it.” - feastie.

Meaning, they are opinion leaders.  They have the power to galvanize large blocks of people.  Using their celebrity status to regurgitate the enemy’s talking points is very irresponsible and encourages the wrong people. 

One of her points, which is shared by a large number of Americans, is that with our right to free speech comes responsibility.  Another point that she is getting across is that the rest of us see them as popcorn farts when it comes to expressing an opinion on a politician or his/her foreign policy.


MyMasterStephen:   Dissent should be stamped down and debate should be censored.

Nothing of her message advocated that we stamp out dissent or censor debate.  People CAN disagree with the war.  If they support the troops, then they need to exercise some common sense and not say something that would encourage our enemies to hang on.  Openly opposing the war on a medium accessible to the enemies encourages them to keep fighting.  Please see the Vietnam General’s statement above.  The terrorists think that they could replicate that part of our history, thanks to people that openly undermine the administration and the troops.

MyMasterStephen:   An interesting concept of democracy...

Actually, expecting people to be responsible with their rights is a part of the democracy concept.  Otherwise, as our founding fathers put it, there would be complete chaos.

MyMasterStephen: How strong is the nation which cannot accommodate freedom of speech - and, of necessity, freedom of thought? 

The question should be, how strong is a nation whose member’s can’t restrain their freedom of speech when such would lead to “lose lips sinking ships?”

MyMasterStephen:  What DID you people achieve on the 4th of July?

Interesting you said that, because many of the people that made our 4th of July possible - our founding fathers - also recognized that “we can’t have too much freedoms”.  Which brings us back to the concept that with our rights comes responsibilities.

MyMasterStephen:  No wonder people the world over hold you in contempt

Actually, people around the world hold us in contempt because far to many of them don’t bother to take the initiative to find out what is really going on - beyond what their media is telling them.  We have a media establishment that directs their people’s attention to America’s perceived faults.  This being done to divert attention to the more serious things going on at home.  Add to that way to many people who would rather be spoon fed their information instead of getting off their hind ends to research the facts.  Take these together and you will see why misguided people hold us in contempt.

Here, let me show you…

Your news sources:  France, Russia, Germany, etc try to stop the stop the U.S. from being “belligerent”.

What a little initiative would show these foreign news viewers:

France, Russia, Germany, etc try to stop the U.S. and the U.K. from stopping one of their cash cows.  Said countries were defending their own interests.  Without this interests, and should interests be gain by going into Iraq, these countries would have been with the U.S. and U.K. in hopes of getting a new income stream. 

Here is another thing that I noticed, in those countries with strong socialistic tendencies, the idea of personal responsibility and accountability seems to be a foreign concept.  So when we hold a madman accountable and responsible for his actions - as a NECESSARY part of maintaining our security - they freak.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:48:18 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
irishbynature: So celebrities shouldn't voice their opinions?

That is not what she is saying.  I can break down what she is getting across into these two options:

(1) They are free to voice their opinions, but we are free to express our displeasure at her doing so by refusing to purchase their products.

(2)  They are free to voice their opinions, but they also have the responsibility to not use it to our enemies advantage.

(3)  That they should bear in mind that however they think they are coming across, a good number of us simply see them as popcorn farts.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:49:25 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
servantforuse: The Dixie Chicks can say whateer they want to say, but words have meanings. i also have the right to not listen to their music and no longer buy a concert ticket to see them. They have canceled several concerts because of low ticket sales. Such is life.

Hence the elephant in the room that many miss when they claim that people and organizations are trying to “stifle” free speech.  Free market economy and customer sovereignty. 

Oh my god! They are violating so and so’s freedom of speech! All the while condemning the people doing the boycotting while forgetting that THEY are exercising THEIR freedom of speech and expression via the boycott.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:50:56 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
LaTigresse: What most of the narrow minded country music fans that have bashed this group, for being esentially American, do not realize is that by their very attitudes and behaviour THEY represent the United States in a much worse light not any celebrity or entertainer.

Not quite.  This is an example of what I am talking about, praising one group for exercising its rights, while vilifying the other group that happens to also be practicing its rights.

What you are labeling as “narrow minded” is other Americans exercising their rights to free speech and expression.  Yes, they understand that the DC have a right to free speech and expression.  However, they will turn around and exercise their rights to NOT purchase any of the products that the Dixie Chicks pump out.

You lightly touched up on another thing that makes us great - our willingness to hold people accountable for their actions.  Many of their refusals to purchase Dixie Chick CD’s is a part of their holding them accountable for being a mouthpiece for the enemy - for FREE.


LaTigresse: If the day comes when ANY United States citizen cannot voice their opinion of ANY government official then everything my family members and all other soldiers that have served and continue to serve for turns into worthless rhetoric.

Bear in mind that our constitution protects us from actions of our government.  They do not protect us from the actions of our fellow countrymen.  Laws had to be made to cover that.  But there are other areas - completely legal - where we can hold our fellow countrymen accountable for failing to exercise responsibility with their freedom of speech. 

What does undermine the contributions and sacrifices of our service members is celebrity activism that toe our enemy’s corporate line.

Do you want to make sure that the sacrifices of our service members don’t go in vain? Then pressure the Communist News Network and the More S#$%Y Nonsense By Communist network to start reporting the good that is taking place in Iraq with as much gusto as they report the bad.

That has been a chief complaint that our troops had of the media.


LaTigresse: In this country we like to pretend to be oh so open minded and proud of our freedoms while our fears and narrow minded opinions are actually driving us backwards.

What is funny is that there is no mention about our loving to hold people accountable for the actions.  We are open minded.  But we have the common sense to keep our mouths shut if it would hurt our cause.

What IS driving us backwards is the general media’s failure to give us the news straight, their failure to separate news from bias. 

For example, I highly doubt that many people who fallow the network news as their main source of news realize the gravity of what we are facing. 

I mean, if any woman on here - that opposes the war - knew what we were up against as a civilization, every single last one of them would be supporting this ASYMMETRICAL war and the ASYMMETRICAL tactics and planning that we have to resort to.

If our enemies win, there would be no such thing as a female domina.  If our enemies win, you could give up your drivers licenses.  Don’t even think about riding in the shot gun position.  Have you ever taken a walk with a man that was not your relative? Things you take for granted now, would get you summarily executed under the strict Islamic law that our terrorist fascist enemies hope to impose on the world. 

And here we have an example of a person - who would have the most to lose - badmouthing the very man that is coordinating the fight against these madmen.


LaTigresse:  As an American I support anyone's right to voice their feelings and opinions wether I agree with them or not.

And so does everyone else on this thread that are lambasting the singer for being irresponsible with hers. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.199