Oh the left nutters finally have a love affair with the troops now that Obama is their president...hadn't you noticed?
It's Over for Letterman
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Oh the left nutters finally have a love affair with the troops now that Obama is their president...hadn't you noticed?
The ever elusive "they". Never really showing themselves, but always "there".
See?I wrote it. It must be so.
It reminds me of those exrea kids I have living with me that I have never met "Idon'tknow" and "Itwasn'tme". I tell the kids "I hope they move out when you do"...I get the feeling they will.
meme
New member
I wouldn't call it a love affair...they just don't "use" them today to try and embarrasses their "Dear Leader"..
If I liked a Toby Keith song, I'd buy it - in less than half a second. There wouldn't be one part of me that would think, "He supported Bush - I can't buy his music!"
I have seen and enjoyed movies from Arnold S., Chuck Norris, Bo Derek, Ron Silver, Kevin Costner, et al. - it has never even occurred to me not to go see them because of the performer's political views.
Frankly, I don't get it. I don't see what is so threatening about an opinion that differs from mine.
I have seen and enjoyed movies from Arnold S., Chuck Norris, Bo Derek, Ron Silver, Kevin Costner, et al. - it has never even occurred to me not to go see them because of the performer's political views.
Frankly, I don't get it. I don't see what is so threatening about an opinion that differs from mine.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yeah, he's so classy, putting up a photoshop of Natalie Maines hugging Saddam Hussein during one of his concerts.
Since you didn't answer the question directly, I'll take it that you support TK's nationalism but not the DC's protest.
They hardly silenced the Chisk's, butr they sure did let them know which side their bread was buttered on. In the case of any artist who perform for a public audience it is the audience who makes their public platform available to them and it will be the public who can remove it. You insist in not understanding that the Dixi Chicks audiance at that time was one that supported the presidents decision on Iraq. They organized a protest against the Chick's who used their bought and paid for stage to espouse an anti Bush message...It was and remains an equally fair use of the First Amendment!
Good grief, make it stop...
Waaaaahhh...Waaaahhh! Photoshopped photos!! Say it ain't so!
The frucking nerve! How dare the repubs DO WHAT THE DEMS HAVE BEEN DOING!!!
It sent a message to people in the entertainment industry & elsewhere to keep their mouth shut or else. It definitely created a chill for exercising free speech.
Maybe that's the kind of America you want to live in, where people feel afraid to speak out. It's not what I see as America, at least in spirit.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Oh boo, where is that small violin again for those poor poor chicks... and they were getting DEATH threats...Please, I bet country fans have more to do than waste time sending death treats to some snotty musicians...
Words have consequences, they found out the hard way through the money people were willing to give them....a big fat 0 from the country fans, they still have the pop music...
O'Reilly and Hannity get death threats all the time. Hell, I've even had death threats. It's the sign of the times in which we live.
They weren't afraid to speak out. They were just displeased with the reaction they got once they did.
Stupid for anyone not to know their audience when they make inflamed comments to a crowd that were present, and who later learned about it, that majority-wise supported the adminstrations decision(s).
They "chose" to have an opinion and to use a venue where people paid to hear them sing their songs that caused them to buy tickets in the first place. They were not there to hear a political op-ed, a rally of support against the president or the war, but a concert of the Dixie Chick songs.
The hazard of having an opinion and voicing it in the manner in which they did was realized. They stepped in it big time, but they're big girls and I am sure they will be wiser in the future. Don't you?
The very right you claim they had to voice it, is the very same right you are indicating is not the same right of those that did not agree with it.
Can we say "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y"?
Yes, we CAN!
Last edited:
Again, when you say they wanted to end their right to free speech, arrest is one indication that would show you were right. Nobody in the mainstream called for their arrest. Nobody said what they had done should end, just that it would not have their support any longer.
When you repeat constantly that they are "against" freedom of expression because they were practicing it, it is simply a strawman, an attempt to make others ignore that both sides were using the same freedom of expression.
What is bogus, is pretending that this was the reaction of the vast majority. Most simply stopped showing up for concerts. They moved to smaller venues and eventually sought and gained a different audience, they had alienated the one that they had before.
Nor does advertising the lowest common denominator make that denominator mainstream or even close to what the vast majority did, or supported.
Yes, but to color an entire political expression on that one person is silly. Like the idiot who went in and killed soldiers at the recruiter, should we assume everybody of his particular stereotyped group is part of that? Ignorant stereotyping is something the left wants everybody to avoid, except when speaking of people who threaten the Dixie Chicks?
There is a difference, one is an expression of anger. As I said, some were more vehement than others, but even those were in the minority. The vast majority never took part in any boycott other than by not spending money.
Idiocy, nobody suggested they "shrug them off", only that the people protesting were not largely made up of people who would do that, or did it. They made necessary adjustments and continued on with life, I support that and hope the people who threatened them were caught and prosecuted. It doesn't change that attempting to color the entire group who expressed their displeasure with the Dixie Chicks as the exact same as those imbeciles is only a strawman attempt to garner the "good guy" label.
And I refer to that same specific situation from a different perspective. It's preposterous to pretend that those fringe idiots were representative of even one percent of the people who expressed their "displeasure" with the Dixie Chicks.
Right, because your silly emotive rubbish and attempt to morally equate those expressing displeasure with the minute percentage who pressed into illegality couldn't be taken in any way but benevolently...
I have been specific, those protesting were using the same exact freedom you say was being curtailed. They have as much right as any other to use that right.
And?
Because that was the form of expression the fans used. Ignoring their right to express themselves while supporting the rights of only those you support is plain backasswards. The Dixie Chicks had the right to express themselves, and their fans had the right too.
Again, it is because you continually try to equate the lunatic fringe with the vast majority who simply expressed their rightful freedoms.
Again, silliness. They were upset that they used the voice that was given them BY THOSE FANS, to express opinion that was directly opposite of theirs. They used the platform built for them by those fans. Any performer would be wise to understand their audience especially when venturing into politics.
Idiotic, the "I'm the rubber, you're the glue" defense of a child. Where do you try to shut down conversation? It's easily found when you morally equate people who legally expressed themselves with the fringe who participated in illegal activity.
All of which were forms of expression. Except any threats or illegal activity that would threaten their person, which again were from a tiny minority of those who protested, and those who protested were also a minority of the entirety of people who simply just stopped buying albums or going to concerts.
The lowest common denominator is a fact in math as well, but it doesn't make it the central reality, nor does it make protesting the moral equivalent of the super-minority who would venture into illegal activity.
I agree with that right, but I also agree with the right of their audience to reject to continue to support them and express discontent. I "throw money" into it, because that was the tool they used.
They had no right to expect to continue to have the support of their audience. They have a right to say what they want, but not a right to a vacuum. Others can express their opinion as well.
Not quite, they continued in the same vein in each of their apologies. Again, they have a right to express themselves, but no right to the expectation that there could never be any reaction to what they had to say. They used a platform built by those fans, the fans objected to that.
And again, boycotts and other monetary devices are used by both sides consistently to practice their freedom of expression.
If you continue to pretend that their fans had no right to express themselves and ignore that monetary means were the only tool they had that was effective, then "more's the pity"....
meme
New member
Waaaaahhh...Waaaahhh! Photoshopped photos!! Say it ain't so!
The frucking nerve! How dare the repubs DO WHAT THE DEMS HAVE BEEN DOING!!!
Are you talking to me..? If so, I think you misunderstood my point, or I am misunderstanding yours..mine was the repetitiveness of Onclear, even though Damo keeps pointing out the truth...
If they were originally fans, they might be effective. If a bunch of lefties organized a boycott of orange juice because it was advertised on Rush Limbaugh's show... It could be effective if his fans didn't buy the juice in greater measure...
(Actually happened.)
Were you "embarrassed" for them?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Would this then be like the debate that was going on, a month ago, that was about making public the names of those that signed a petition against Gay marriages??
The only reason it was effective for the Dixie Chicks was because it was their actual audience. In order to regain their popularity it became necessary to seek a different audience. They were talented enough that they were able to do this, and I congratulate them. Those same people that objected before will not now, and do not... It is no longer their "voice" being used. They would be ineffective and largely isolated.
The Dixie Chicks have found the missing synergy...
meme
New member
absolutely right...Country music fans were more upset with the ditsy chicks going over to a foreign country and putting down the President while we had men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan...It wasn't them putting down Bush at all...
The chicks found out the hard way, country music fans are very patriotic...sucked to be them at that time...
Yeah - I think that's an embarassing use of a boycott.
I don't have a double-standard on this issue, much as you like to try to "nail" that. I have been pretty consistenly against most boycotts, right or left. I think about 90% of them are misdirected.