RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks?

RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:19:21 PM)
Lilmissbossy: Of course, you don't mention what Israel needs to do in order for the rockets to stop raining down on it, that would be "unbiased". I don’t know if the “fair and balanced” BBC mentioned this or not, but Hezbollah has been attacking Israel’s northern positions and have been attempting to kidnap Israeli soldiers LONG BEFORE this current conflict erupted. The Israelis are just now getting around to dealing with them. So no, the Israelis don’t need to “take the first steps” to get those rockets to stop raining down on them. Hezbolla knows what it needs to do to stop the Israelis from delivering them their own hind quarters on a silver platter. Second, there is no giving in to Palestinian demands. Hamas has no intentions of recognizing Israel’s right to exist. In fact, charter 15 of their charter calls for the complete liquidation of the “Zionist” presence in Palestine.” Bear in mind, the Palestinians take claim to all of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank. So, anything short of turning over ALL of Israel to Hamas is not going to satisfy that terrorist group. Lilmissbossy: To suggest Israel is some innocent bystander victimised by all and sundry and everyone else has to appease its action in order to achieve stability is ludicrous. Tell that to the Israeli soldiers who almost got kidnaped months ago while standing guard at the northern Israeli border. Israel is not asking people for appeasement. They want Hamas and others to recognize its rights to exist. It made big concessions to try to secure peace from these groups. They want these groups to leave it alone. But, when you are surrounded by terror groups that don’t believe that you have the right to exist as a country, who constantly work toward that aim, I can’t blame the Israelis for taking the defensive actions they are taking now. Lilmissbossy: You're never going to achieve any kind of settlement until people stop pointing fingers in a "you started it" way. Actually, you are never going to achieve any kind of settlement when the people that you are supposed to be living “in peace” with, have this as one of their charter items: “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine.” - PLO Charter, Article 15 NOTE: Palestine, in their eyes, is all of Israel. The Arab homeland includes what was formerly the Moorish Califa. Lilmissbossy: Portraying Israel (or Palestine) as the innocents is pointless since its blindingly obvious to the world that they're as bad as each other. No. Israel is willing to do everything it can to secure long lasting peace. The Palestinian leadership knows what it has to do to secure long lasting peace. Article 15 of its charter is one of the things that stops it from doing what they need to do to secure peace - and statehood.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:20:31 PM)
meatcleaver: I think the idea of eliminating Israel has long past for most mainstream Arabs. But we are not talking about mainstream Arabs, we are dealing with radical ones… “The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine.” - PLO Charter, Article 15 They have not struck this article out of their charter.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:22:28 PM)
SCORPIOXXX: How the hell did we get from the Dixie Chicks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict??? Back to the Chicks and the CountryWestern stations that banned them: how typical of the Re-thug-clicans and the redneck crackers: they squawk the loudest about patriotism and being true americans, but they are always the first ones to suppress free speech!!! The hypocrites... Now, if the Dixie Chicks were sitting in a jail cell for what they said, then you would have a point about their freedom of speech being violated. Heck, the very republicans and “red necks” that you complain about would have been outraged if Natalie were thrown in jail for what she said. However; since when was boycotting someone’s music “oppressing the freedom of speech?” They are still free to say what they want to say. They are just going to have to get used to having a certain number of people not listening to them. Many are exercising their freedoms to choose what to purchase and what not to purchase by boycotting the Dixie Chicks. Keep in mind, the constitution protects us from the acts of the government. It does not protect the Dixie Chicks from the free market actions of a segment of their customer base.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:23:36 PM)
SCORPIOXXX: However: thank you for proving my point! You said she is a singer, therefore she should just sing without a political word in her music... Last I heard, she has the Constitutional right to sing whatever she wants -- just as the religious right can have their rock singers, such as they are, proselytizing their faith... That is not what she said… “i love the music....but dang she seriously ticked me off with her comments.....she is not a political person...she is a singer...she should keep to singing and stay out of politics or it ticks off her base....” - earthylaughter earthylaughter was clearly addressing the comments that the Dixie Chick singer made, not her song.

CrappyDom -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:36:14 PM)
It amuses me how cowardly Republicans are. The Middle East, united and with Russias backing, couldn't defeat Israel. Now, a tiny band of them has been used as an excuse to dismantle our freedoms, tear down our once high standards of morality, all to ensure a our cowardly republicans can sleep at night. What is ironic is what they believe is making them safer isn't, the future they see comming won't, and what is comming they created and will devestate them in some ways more than the rest of us.

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair ....I was back before this, to test a new tactic that would allow me a chance to dismantle every liberal argument - or the ones that I picked - and prove them wrong. It worked like a charm and I am using that tactic here. No, you are using sophomoric tactics from debate club, including those of cherry picking, and creating out of context strawmen instead of addressing what has actually been said. You are also making assertions not supported by facts in evidence, moving goalposts, and employing argumentem ad hominem. Hardly anything that you came up with, therefor there is no need to 'test' it. As far as working like a charm, I wouldn't be so quick to call having your logical fallacies identified, a success. And you are arguing with everyone on the thread, including those who aren't defending the Dixie Chicks. Should we be impressed? Cuz I'm getting bored myself...you started off with some interesting premises, and a few nice references such as the Giap bio...but instead of putting them together in a coherent manner, and letting that be tested, now you won't even talk about what the Venona cables actually showed.

mari49x -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:40:29 PM)
Is this a BDSM site?

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:43:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mari49x Is this a BDSM site? Hey you...watch the off topic remarks...this is Off Topic and no BDSM posts are allowed.[:D]

mari49x -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 8:54:08 PM)
Well ... I belong to the "Apathetic" Party ... and I think if everyone did, we'd all get along better. Is that "on subject"??? [sm=argue.gif]

Saraheli -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:00:29 PM)
Next time you answer me, or anyone else, try doing it like we're people, your condescending attitude makes me want to disregard what you say without even reading what you say. I'll admit it right now, no I didn't read everything you replied. I skimmed it before reading, and I saw that you didn't bother coming up with anything new. quote: Unsure? WRONG. I KNOW George Bush’s position when it comes to the War on Terrorism. Ahh, so along with being a "Mustang" officer, you're a confidant to the president. Wow, where Do you find the time? quote: Actually, she was not thinking about that at all. Oops, add mind reader to the list too. Honestly, did you think I'd click on that link and read it? Wrong! What do I care if someone else thought you were wrong and you didn't. You're trying to prove that you're right, by quoting yourself. You'll forgive me if I am not swayed.... quote: I don’t mean to sound crass and vein, but I have to tell it like it is. Don't worry, it's more crass and arterial, and let's not forget holier than thou.

MisterBAR -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:20:19 PM)
Well, you know, when the original controversy came out, Mr Bush that you love to hate pointed out it was a free country and they could say what they want, thus demonstrating far more class than most of the name-calling seen here, and a finer understanding of Constintutional niceties, too.

Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Lilmissbossy: Portraying Israel (or Palestine) as the innocents is pointless since its blindingly obvious to the world that they're as bad as each other. No. Israel is willing to do everything it can to secure long lasting peace. Too funny. How can I take you seriously. More importantly, how can anyone from the Lebanon take you seriously. My point about you "spamming the boards" isn't that you aren't simply replying to other posters, it's that you post 500 words when 5 will do. Again, I can already anticipate your "I am giving informed and researched answers" but that simply isn't the case. You respond to the simplest question with mind-bogglingly unnecessary text. Example. You asserted that we attacked Iraq but not China because China didn't fly a plane into a building. I pointed out (informed you, apparently) that Iraq did not either. And if you believe they did, I gave you this option. quote: Lilmissbossy: Give me the date and time this happened. Your answer? quote: A symmetrical warfare concept statement that is not applicable to the asymmetrical war that we are currently involved with. Redirect that question to reflect asymmetrical warfare, so that you will get a response that reflects our current reality. This, herfacechair, is what the political world calls "waffle". Careful avoidance of a direct answer by typing something unrelated in the hope it will deflect away from the fact you were wrong. I'm not expecting you to type "ok I was wrong" But you were. (And by the way, if you asked my 8 year old brother if he's in the real army or just pretending, he has the maturity to say "I'm just pretending".)

Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:29:39 PM)
Sara, just respond with "You're wrong and I'm right". It's what he's doing only using slightly longer sentences [;)]

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:32:19 PM)
And I'll bet your 8 year old brother can spell 'L.D.O.' as well.[:D]

Saraheli -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/20/2006 9:39:38 PM)
Now that is the most sensible thing I have seen in this thread in a long while

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/21/2006 2:20:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair EnglishDomNW: You're really killing this thread, and any form of debate, herfacechair. Considering that the other side has not presented me with any convincing evidence that they are right, and considering that their positions don’t stand up to scrutiny, I would say this would not be off the mark. You're wrong and I'm right. *quote:* EnglishDomNW: I think i'll just leave you to post another 40, 40 posts are nothing. I’ve argued across 40 pages in one thread, and I even argued in a thread that reached 225 + pages. Don’t know how many threads I argued across there though. You're wrong and I'm right. quote: EnglishDomNW: but just some advice. The whole point of debate is to exchange views and opinions, not spam the board with your own in some slightly disturbing determination to be right. And views/opinions are being exchanged. You see, I see the views and opinions of the posters that I disagree with, read their posts, disagree with them, and post my assessments. If theses posters send a second round my way, the process repeats and I send my response back. So you see, views and opinions are being exchanged. But when both sides of the argument have no intentions of agreeing with each other, you can’t expect that much “finding the middle ground”. Meaning, just because views and opinions are being exchanged, that does not meant that either side has to agree with the others. Finally, considering that I am addressing multiple people with multiple posts, it would only be natural that my responses come one after another. I don’t call that spamming the thread. That is just how it works. You're wrong and I'm right.

irishbynature -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/21/2006 3:45:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair SCORPIOXXX: How the hell did we get from the Dixie Chicks to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict??? Back to the Chicks and the CountryWestern stations that banned them: how typical of the Re-thug-clicans and the redneck crackers: they squawk the loudest about patriotism and being true americans, but they are always the first ones to suppress free speech!!! The hypocrites... Now, if the Dixie Chicks were sitting in a jail cell for what they said, then you would have a point about their freedom of speech being violated. Heck, the very republicans and “red necks” that you complain about would have been outraged if Natalie were thrown in jail for what she said. However; since when was boycotting someone’s music “oppressing the freedom of speech?” They are still free to say what they want to say. They are just going to have to get used to having a certain number of people not listening to them. Many are exercising their freedoms to choose what to purchase and what not to purchase by boycotting the Dixie Chicks. Keep in mind, the constitution protects us from the acts of the government. It does not protect the Dixie Chicks from the free market actions of a segment of their customer base. [:D]They'll sing but they won't shut up. That seems downright American.

Level -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/21/2006 4:19:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mari49x Is this a BDSM site? Yes, with sections such as this for non-kink subjects. Don't like these topics? Go down the hall until you hear the moans and voila, you'll find kink.

Level -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/21/2006 4:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Level: Hmmm. No, I'm right. No, your explanation failed to stand up to scrutiny. You’re wrong. Nope. cups hand to ear and listens to all the angels in heaven sing "Level is right, Level is good, listen to Level, you know you shoulllllllllddddddd......

Lilmissbossy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/21/2006 5:56:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Nope. cups hand to ear and listens to all the angels in heaven sing "Level is right, Level is good, listen to Level, you know you shoulllllllllddddddd...... lol

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125