It's Over for Letterman

Onceler said:
"I seek to defend the millions that simply stopped paying and spoke with their wallets. Those people merely expressed a different side of that same Amendment."

That's certainly oversimplifying what went on.

Do you think America is or would be a better place without criticism of the sitting President?
Click to expand...
I do not, nor did I say that, that is another strawman.

The vast majority of the people simply did exactly what I said. Chose not to support monetarily a political platform that digressed from their own. "Oversimplifying" would be when somebody reduces it to what the worst of a minority of a tiny percentage of people did.

They were upset that the platform lent to somebody through their support was used to promote what they believed to be a negative political ideation. They were vocal and they directly stopped funding that platform.
 
Damocles said:
I do not, nor did I say that, that is another strawman.

The vast majority of the people simply did exactly what I said. Chose not to support monetarily a political platform that digressed from their own. "Oversimplifying" would be when somebody reduces it to what the worst of a minority of a tiny percentage of people did.

They were upset that the platform lent to somebody through their support was used to promote what they believed to be a negative political ideation. They were vocal and they directly stopped funding that platform.
Click to expand...

The Dixie Chicks situation was not people just choosing not to buy Dixie Chicks. It was an organized campaign to shut them up - to silence their opinion through intimidation. People organized boycotts of their music, of radio stations, concerts, et al.

It sent a chill through the entire entertainment industry. "Dixie Chicked" became part of the lexicon. Many Americans who might otherwise have spoken up and voiced an opinion kept their mouths shut.

Ergo, the INTENT of the effort was simply to silence an opinion, and that was its EFFECT. That's why I asked if you think it's good for America to have no criticism of a sitting President - because that was all they were trying to do. It's no different from trying to pass legislation imposing a fine or jail time for such criticism.

I supported everyone's right to organize boycotts & do what they did - as you said, it's all part of free speech. I just thought their efforts were the antithesis of what it means to be an American & support the marketplace of ideas, and pathetic.
 
Onceler said:
The Dixie Chicks situation was not people just choosing not to buy Dixie Chicks. It was an organized campaign to shut them up - to silence their opinion through intimidation. People organized boycotts of their music, of radio stations, concerts, et al.

It sent a chill through the entire entertainment industry. "Dixie Chicked" became part of the lexicon. Many Americans who might otherwise have spoken up and voiced an opinion kept their mouths shut.

Ergo, the INTENT of the effort was simply to silence an opinion, and that was its EFFECT. That's why I asked if you think it's good for America to have no criticism of a sitting President - because that was all they were trying to do. It's no different from trying to pass legislation imposing a fine or jail time for such criticism.

I supported everyone's right to organize boycotts & do what they did - as you said, it's all part of free speech. I just thought their efforts were the antithesis of what it means to be an American & support the marketplace of ideas, and pathetic.
Click to expand...
And again, that chill represents the loss of their audience. That audience has as much right to express their opinion for or against the political stance of the performer. When taking those stances it is realistic and wise to expect a performer to estimate the reaction of their own audience.

And saying it is the "antithesis" of rights to practice those rights is silly. It is the "antithesis" of what you believe that irritates you. You want those expressions to be what you support, these ones were not. Often such things happen in the marketplace of ideas.

I believe that the constant pressure on them to stop practicing their rights "this way" is doing exactly what you are saying they are doing (it is what works in the marketplace of ideas, each side works to make themselves the "good guys"), but I'm not silly enough to say that it is the "antithesis" of the marketplace of ideas.. It IS the marketplace of ideas, that is what defines it, what drives it.
 
:viol: for the Dixie Chicks.

Funny, they are still going around speaking their mind and making music..They just aren't making any money and Speaking for country music fans anymore....Let's give a big waaaa for them...:)
 
meme said:
:viol: for the Dixie Chicks.

Funny, they are still going around speaking their mind and making music..They just aren't making any money and Speaking for country music fans anymore....Let's give a big waaaa for them...:)
Click to expand...

Double platinum.

Largest selling female group of all time.
 
Damocles said:
And again, that chill represents the loss of their audience. That audience has as much right to express their opinion for or against the political stance of the performer. When taking those stances it is realistic and wise to expect a performer to estimate the reaction of your own audience.

And saying it is the "antithesis" of rights to practice those rights is silly. It is the "antithesis" of what you believe that irritates you. You want those expressions to be what you support, these ones were not. Often such things happen in the marketplace of ideas.

I believe that the constant pressure on them to stop practicing their rights is doing exactly what you are saying they are doing (it is what works in the marketplace of ideas), but I'm not silly enough to say that it is the "antithesis" of the marketplace of ideas.. It IS the marketplace of ideas.
Click to expand...


Do you see any difference in making an individual choice not to purchase music from the Dixie Chicks, and organizing a boycott of them, or a radio station that plays their music?
 
Onceler said:
Do you see any difference in making an individual choice not to purchase music from the Dixie Chicks, and organizing a boycott of them, or a radio station that plays their music?
Click to expand...
Not in any real manner. They did not want to support them monetarily, they know they get their money from advertising, etc.

No, I think all of it (except Illegal threats, which I hope were prosecuted) was people practicing their rights after somebody chose to use the platform lent them by those fans to venture into politics. Each of those things are tools used by both sides of the political spectrum at different times.

Those who joined in boycotts were more vocal than the majority who simply stopped spending money.

The vast majority were simply people who didn't go to concerts in the areas that they went were so few showed up, and were they reason they began to call themselves "rockers" rather than "country" and sought and gained a different audience. I'm happy for them. Their new fans will not do the same thing, nor will the people who did it last time have any power. They've inoculated themselves by finding an audience who does not mind supporting their political platform.

In reality both sides practiced their rights, nobody was refused them.
 
Tell you the truth, who gives a hoot about the Chicks..they are no one of importance anyway..Just a bunch of spoiled musicians..

more friggen power to them...you know that saying though, Just shut up and sing..That is all their audience paid for, not their political opinion during the show..People probably can't afford to go see them today, anyway..But, here's a big waaaaa for them..
 
Onceler said:
The Dixie Chicks situation was not people just choosing not to buy Dixie Chicks. It was an organized campaign to shut them up - to silence their opinion through intimidation. People organized boycotts of their music, of radio stations, concerts, et al.

It sent a chill through the entire entertainment industry. "Dixie Chicked" became part of the lexicon. Many Americans who might otherwise have spoken up and voiced an opinion kept their mouths shut.

Ergo, the INTENT of the effort was simply to silence an opinion, and that was its EFFECT. That's why I asked if you think it's good for America to have no criticism of a sitting President - because that was all they were trying to do. It's no different from trying to pass legislation imposing a fine or jail time for such criticism.

I supported everyone's right to organize boycotts & do what they did - as you said, it's all part of free speech. I just thought their efforts were the antithesis of what it means to be an American & support the marketplace of ideas, and pathetic.
Click to expand...

Organizing a public protest of like minded people is a First Amendment principle! Protesting does not have to be a bunch of halloween characters sceaming obscenities.
 
Why would they call for an arrest? What reason was there to arrest them?
No answer to this strawman?

...Name the mainstream (note mainstream) republican that threatened their life. Just one...

Since I don't know where on the political spectrum those people fit, I can't answer this. In any case, your comment is bogus because you don't know any more than the rest of us which of those making threats were mainstream. If you really meant "a mainstream republican in the public arena", you didn't say that.

...Then you would win, otherwise this is just a strawman based on their PR campaign during their comeback...

Having a PR campaign doesn't mean they overinflated or even lied about everything that happened to them because of their comments.

...During that time there were undoubtedly some who did do that, but not even close to a percentage of those who simply "spoke" against their political grandstanding on the platform they helped them to gain with their support.

It only takes one person to act out on a death threat, as we saw in the Tiller murder.

There's a difference between expressing displeasure at the cash register and making foul comments like "Traitors," "Saddam's Angels," "Dixie Sluts", and even death threats. Those actions were vicious and dangerous.

...Again, please check my words. Which mainstream republican threatened their life?

Your insistence that it had to be a mainstream republican is laughable. Again, please check my words. What difference does it make how conservative the person was? Where the Dixie Chicks supposed to shrug off the threats because they were made by, according to you, the lunatic fringe?

...Pretending that both sides don't have their nuts that threaten lives is only pretense...

I haven't "pretended" anything and did not generalize the situation, while again you're inferring you know what I really meant. This isn't about general violence, it refers to a very specific situation that applied to three people.


...but it is remarkable that you must resort to the absolute fringe to get the emotive power behind your words here.

You really need to watch your tendency to put your words into others' posts and focus on the written comment only.

...If I constantly sought the worst of those who carry a D to say that all "D's" were some way, it would likely be because I was partisan-blind.

Except I didn't say that, you did. You've been trying to sidetrack this from the specific to the general since the beginning.

...During this period, according to a pretty good wiki article, at one concert they had metal detectors, at another there was a threat specific enough to have one member of the band escorted to and from the airport. I dislike the people who threatened them, I hope they were arrested and prosecuted.

Some general threats and one very specific threat.

The Wiki Article /http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm


The constant drumming of "The Dixie Chicks" and "Rs are against the 1st Amendment" going together is who suggested it. They spoke against the war, while expecting to keep an audience largely made up of people who supported it.

I said the Chicks had the First Amendment right to speak out against the war, nothing more, nothing less. You turned it into the direction of money. Your exact comment: ...There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that protects you from loss of earnings that you may have because your audience feels differently...

...And again, which mainstream republican even called for their arrest, let alone their death, for the use of their 1st Amendment right?

And again, what difference does it make? You're muddying the issue with your insistence that the threat was only valid if a mainstream republican said it. Death by mainstream republican or death by lunatic fringie is still death.

...Nobody in the mainstream suggested they didn't have the right to say it...

I guess it depends on how you define "mainstream". I suggest that most fans of the group were mainstream Americans who were incensed that the Chicks would speak out against a president and a war that conservatives supported.

...You continuously get upset for others using the same right, and try to shut down conversation with the emotive "they threatened their lives!"

Where have I "continuously" gotten upset over people using free speech? Where have I tried to "shut down conversation"? You really do need to watch your tendency to attribute your own motives to others.

The overwhelming majority of those people never threatened anybody in their lives, let alone the Dixie Chicks with anything more than simply the loss of their support.

...And the hate mail, the demonstrations, the loss of sponsorship, the silly calls for bulldozing their CD's...

...Dragging the conversation down to the lowest of denominators because you do not have the ability to bring this back up to a logical discussion doesn't make you right, just more emotive.

Sorry, everything I wrote was based on fact: The Dixie Chicks spoke out against the war. Fans protested the Chicks' comments. Death threats were made. Hate mail was received. Their careers floundered temporarily. Their popularity was recouped. You, on the other hand, have consistently placed your emotions into my comments and tried to turn the topic from speech freedom into loss of money.

Where and how you spend your money can be as much of a 1st Amendment expression and for some is the only one that they have that has any power when those people they support with money start their forays into the political realm.

Again, your comment about money bears no relation to my original assertion that the Dixie Chicks had every right to speak out against a war they protested. If you agree they had that right, why do you keep throwing money into the equation when I never did? Are you trying to deflect from the overheated hysteria that arose over their remark?

I don't seek to defend the people who sent them threats, that's simply illegal, I seek to defend the millions that simply stopped paying and spoke with their wallets. Those people merely expressed a different side of that same Amendment.

And I never said anything different. My point was this group had the right to protest the war without being ostracized for it, and the money business is irrelevant.

...Were my audience largely made up of people who voted for Bush, I would not expect there to be no negative reaction to my expression once I ventured into the political arena if I consistently spoke against him.

Yet they didn't "consistently" speak against him, they made one comment at the concert and it blew up from there.

They have as much right to simply stop supporting people with money who will use that money and fame to create a platform for ideas that are not remotely compatible with their own.

Again you've turned this from free speech rights into money. Perhaps that's the real difference between liberals and conservatives. You know as well as I do that in 2003 those who protested the war were called an un-American terrorist supporters by the highest levels of government. False dilemmas were commonplace. george bush: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." karl rove: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

If you still refuse to look at the larger picture rather than narrowing your focus to the money angle, more's the pity.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Organizing a public protest of like minded people is a First Amendment principle! Protesting does not have to be a bunch of halloween characters sceaming obscenities.
Click to expand...

To shut people up. To silence an opinion they simply don't like.

I don't think that embodies the spirit of what it means to be an American and live in America. That's my opinion.
 
Damocles said:
Name the mainstream (note mainstream) republican that threatened their life. Just one. Then you would win, otherwise this is just a strawman based on their PR campaign during their comeback. During that time there were undoubtedly some who did do that, but not even close to a percentage of those who simply "spoke" against their political grandstanding on the platform they helped them to gain with their support.



Again, please check my words. Which mainstream republican threatened their life? Pretending that both sides don't have their nuts that threaten lives is only pretense, but it is remarkable that you must resort to the absolute fringe to get the emotive power behind your words here. If I constantly sought the worst of those who carry a D to say that all "D's" were some way, it would likely be because I was partisan-blind.

During this period, according to a pretty good wiki article, at one concert they had metal detectors, at another there was a threat specific enough to have one member of the band escorted to and from the airport. I dislike the people who threatened them, I hope they were arrested and prosecuted.

The Wiki Article



Who said it? The constant drumming of "The Dixie Chicks" and "Rs are against the 1st Amendment" going together is who suggested it. They spoke against the war, while expecting to keep an audience largely made up of people who supported it.

And again, which mainstream republican even called for their arrest, let alone their death, for the use of their 1st Amendment right? Nobody in the mainstream suggested they didn't have the right to say it, they just said they would no longer give them the platform from which to speak. If the Dixie Chicks were going to continue to have the platform, it would be with money from a different source of fans.

You continuously get upset for others using the same right, and try to shut down conversation with the emotive "they threatened their lives!" The overwhelming majority of those people never threatened anybody in their lives, let alone the Dixie Chicks with anything more than simply the loss of their support.

Dragging the conversation down to the lowest of denominators because you do not have the ability to bring this back up to a logical discussion doesn't make you right, just more emotive. Where and how you spend your money can be as much of a 1st Amendment expression and for some is the only one that they have that has any power when those people they support with money start their forays into the political realm.

The Dixie Chicks spoke their mind, so did their audience.

I don't seek to defend the people who sent them threats, that's simply illegal, I seek to defend the millions that simply stopped paying and spoke with their wallets. Those people merely expressed a different side of that same Amendment.

And as for "illegal war", many would agree, others would disagree. If you were a performer that had an audience made up of those that disagree with that statement it would be foolish to expect to keep that audience if you expressed that opinion in such a manner.

Were my audience largely made up of people who voted for Bush, I would not expect there to be no negative reaction to my expression once I ventured into the political arena if I consistently spoke against him.

They have as much right to simply stop supporting people with money who will use that money and fame to create a platform for ideas that are not remotely compatible with their own.
Click to expand...

The ever elusive "they". Never really showing themselves, but always "there".

See? :readit: I wrote it. It must be so.
 
meme said:
:viol: for the Dixie Chicks.

Funny, they are still going around speaking their mind and making music..They just aren't making any money and Speaking for country music fans anymore....Let's give a big waaaa for them...:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're crying all the way to the bank.

Wish I wasn't "making any money" like the Dixie Chicks.
 
meme said:
Tell you the truth, who gives a hoot about the Chicks..they are no one of importance anyway..Just a bunch of spoiled musicians..

more friggen power to them...you know that saying though, Just shut up and sing..That is all their audience paid for, not their political opinion during the show..People probably can't afford to go see them today, anyway..But, here's a big waaaaa for them..
Click to expand...

"Shut up and sing". Were you saying that about Toby Keith and the other uber-nationalists who supported the war?
 
Toby Keith has been over to visit the troop's countless times, how many times have the ditsy Chicks went?

nuff said...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top