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

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



Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 8:59:36 AM)

So all you have to do is deny that there are any links, and scream 'racist', and you have proven what exactly?  That revisionist history and denial is a substitute for rational thought?

If you had bothered to read my posts, you would know where I am coming from, which is a position that both sides are guilty in this long standing cycle of violence, as history can attest...for those who will read all of it.




philosophy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 9:26:42 AM)

firstly, i haven't screamed 'racist'....i have simply noted that your stated position was easily interpreted as such. As for your suggestion that i read stuff, i heartily concur......now, where's my link to somewhere which catagorically and undeniably states that the Nazis didn't invent the holocaust, but were given the idea by some arabs.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 9:43:53 AM)

Your position (and playing games with the links I already provided, such as altering what I actually said and moving the goalposts), is easily intepreted to be that of a Holocaust denier. There is nothing racist about anything I've said, so we can also add 'liar' to your resume.

I've posted my links showing that the Nuremberg trial transcripts support the assertion about al-Husseini promoting the 'Final Solution' to the Nazis, now let's see your's refuting them, instead of more lame denials.

(Don't anyone hold their breath, it will be a long wait..unless he goes right for the David Irving material).



meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 11:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Ben Gurion was a politician focusing attention on his target of choice at the moment.Were his lips moving when he said that?

And you have done everything you can to avoid addressing the fact that the Holocaust immediately preceded your 1948 cut off, and was directly engineered by Arabs who sold it to the Nazis to achieve Arab goals of eliminating the entire Jewish race, not just Zionists. Just as Arabs  moved the Transjordanians into those 'ancestral Palestinian homes' that you cite as a good enough reason for the cycle the violence.

By selectively trumpeting the propaganda for only one side, and by repeating revisionist history about the Holocaust, what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

If you don't want to be called a Holocaust denier, then don't use their arguments practically verbatim, use all the facts.




There is no answer to that other than to say you are talking absolute nonsense. Most of the Arabs fought with the British against Germany. Avraham Stern, the leader of the Jewish Lehi terrorist gang, offered to fight for the Nazis so they would see emigration as the final solution.  The Germans weren't interested, they had set their mind on extermination.  If anyone is missing the point it is you with your off the wall conspiracy theories. The Germans planned and executed the holocaust, the Arabs did nothing of the sort.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 11:36:46 AM)

Denial...it ain't just a river in Egypt....but apparently, for you it is easier than providing proof that my quotes from the Nuremberg transcripts are false.





meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 11:43:27 AM)

So now you are telling me the holocaust was an Arab idea carried out by the Germans? Britain and Germany were vying for support from the Arabs in their war against eachother, the fact that some Arabs might see the final solution as their solution doesn't surprise me but then the Croats saw the same solution and the Poles and some French and whoever Germany conquered there were always some willing collaborators willing the Germans to solve what they perceived as their problem. Despite the lowlife that was willing help the Germans in their work, the holocaust remains planned and carried out by the Germans.

You're going to tell me there were gas chambers in Damascus next.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 12:15:26 PM)

quote:

So now you are telling me the holocaust was an Arab idea carried out by the Germans?


I'm telling you (again, some more), that both sides believe they are justified, based on things that happened before 1948. And that I don't think either one of their justifications rises to the level of a 'right' to wage war/terrorism.

There is ample evidence that many Arabs believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true, even though they are debunked as czarist forgeries (care to guess where they got that idea? Look up Goebbels 'Jewish quotes', and see who translated them into Arabic),
there is documented evidence that al-Husseini persuaded/collaborated/helped engineer/whatever you want to call it, the Final Solution, (as in killing every Jew on the planet) to attain Arab supremacy...which was not exactly an original goal of the Nazi Party.

I've also been telling you that those Palestinians whose homes were stolen, and families were killed by Israelis in 1948 were not all living in those homes for hundreds of years...some were put there by the machinations of the entire Middle Eastern geopolitical/neocolonial crap...such as pushing refugees from all over into Transjordan, and then labelling them 'Palestinians'.

And I've been telling you that it hasn't escaped everyone's notice that the Shah of Persia named his country 'Iran' for a reason... a reason that sends a powerful message.

So I guess what I have been politely (and unsuccessfully) telling you, is that you don't know what you think you know, and it would be a good idea if you read all of history, not just one side's propaganda.
.
Try it, it will change your world.

quote:

You're going to tell me there were gas chambers in Damascus next.



Siiiigh...I've already linked to the Arab hit squads killing off Jews in the Middle East, before WWII, (see Churhill's intervention) and the mufti at the gas chambers...WTF do you want?




meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 12:56:49 PM)

Now you are talking complete nonsense. Iranians have been known to call themselves Ayran since forever, maybe as early as Xerxes (Can't remeber right now). They are an Indo-European people that are thought to have migrated from the Caucusus thousands of years ago. The name has nothing to do with stupid Nazi race theory or at least it was the Nazis out of ignorance honed in on the name.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Aryan

As for those Arabs whose homes were stolen not having their homes stolen but actually being planted there, well I'll tell my friend whose thinks his father was forced out of his home with his mother and had to walk from Jaffa to Jordon with his two eldest siblings on his back that his father and his fellow refugees were liars and fantasists.



Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:26:03 PM)

So you are saying that you know more about why the Shah of Persia chose to change the name of Persia to Iran, than he himself did? I didn't say he invented the word, I said he chose to use it to send a message.

And it is shame that you resort to the childish game of altering what I said...I also never said the homes weren't stolen, I said they were stolen, but that some of those the people had not been in the nation of Palestine for hundreds of years, some of them were refugees from elsewhere, placed as political pawns.

Simple fact, is that you are promoting an agenda, and instead of admitting that both sides are wrong, and seeing the flaws in both of their arguments, as I do, you want one side to be right, and the other side to be the 'evil them'. That makes you a pawn and ultimately a promoter of violence. It also makes you a sucker for things like the 'massacre' at Jenin.

And it is why you can justify cherry picking words out of context from people's posts, or from documented accounts of history, and declare inconvenient reality as nonsense, or non-existent. You have a game to 'win'  And we all know that 'all's fair', right? 

But it also puts you firmly in the camp of 'walks like a denier, talks like a denier, must be a denier'.



meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:31:25 PM)

Whoever reads this, if they have the patience and the will to live, will make up their own mind.



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:32:26 PM)

 
meatcleaver:  The problem with your argument is that 750,000 Arab Christians and Muslims were expelled from their homes and lands in 1948 by Zionists.

And the problem with this statement is that it focuses on this one event alone without going into details about what was going on before and during the time that they got “expelled”.  Your statement, as well as the rest of your argument, does not explore the factors that lead to their being “expelled”, which includes Arab involvement.

meatcleaver:  To start anywhere else in the history of this conflict is futile because the other side can always point to some incident before the one you choose to start at.

Negative.  Narrowing it down to the 1948 “expulsion” is nonsense given the events that were taking place between the two groups during this period.  When you have Jewish towns coming under attack from Arab militants using Arab towns as a base, and a war is fought that involves not just the Arabs within Palestine, but with Arabs from surrounding countries, people are going to take drastic actions.  Many Israel detractors want to talk about this “expulsion”, but get amnesia when it comes to the attacks that the Jews came under in the hands of the Arabs during that time. 

meatcleaver:  The idea was that the land was supposed to be split by agreement. The Zionist refused to wait for an agreement and started expelling Arabs before the British had even left Palestine.

Neither side was willing to come to an agreement.  The British proposal was not acceptable to either the Jewish Palestinians or Arab Palestinians.  When the UN finally decided to divide the land and decided who got what, the Jews were pleased, but the Arabs were not, even when they were going to get the larger segments of the area in dispute.  Prior - yes PRIOR - to 1948, the Arabs instigated violence against the Jews and their interests.

meatcleaver:  More shame on the British

There was nothing they could do to have an agreement in that area.  The Jewish Palestinians objected to what the British recommended because it would have given the Arab Palestinians a majority vote, and the Arab Palestinians rejected it because they did not want the Jewish Palestinians to have any vote or say at all.  However, once the UN came up with their plans, the Jews accepted it, the Arabs did not.

meatcleaver:  and it is shameful now that Blair is cheering Israel on

There is nothing shameful about cheering a nation that is fighting for its survival against a terrorist group that wants nothing more than the complete elimination of Israel.  Maybe if Hezbollah did not do things like conduct raids into the Israeli side of the border with the attempt to kidnap Israeli soldiers, they would not be subjected to severe pounding.

meatcleaver:  while refusing to acknowledge the wrongs that the Zionists did

They did have extremists, like Ben Gurion (sp) et al.  Wrongs that the Jews did? How about the wrongs committed by the Arabs? Whatever wrongs the Jews committed - whether it is just perceived or actual - is past.  And it was in response to similar wrongs committed by the Arabs. 

This is like a couple getting into an argument, and voicing the wrongs they committed in the past, like what the husband did that one cloudy day three years ago, instead of trying to solve the current problem going on. 

meatcleaver:  and the culpability of the British in the plight of the Palestinians.

First, there is nothing the British could have done to come up with an agreement palatable to the Arabs, especially when their plan called for two sides - that did not want to share power with each other - to share power.

Second, what about the plight of the Jews? The Arab fighters attacked the Jewish towns under the noses of the British.  Keep in mind that back in 1948, both Jews and Arabs saw themselves as Palestinians.

meatcleaver:  My best friend's father, mother and his two eldst siblings were expelled from their home at gunpoint by Zionists and made to walk 40 miles or so with his children on his back and what few belogings he could carry. He was lucky because he had contacts and managed to get a British passport and went to Britian and on to Canada where he made a success of himself. However, he still died an angry man and he said he was not angry because of what was taken from him but the fact that the Zionists have never been big enough to admit what they did while demonizing those innocent people they stole the land from.

I watched a clip of a show that took place on one of the Arab TV programs.  The guest was a part of that mass exodus from Israel.  He said that one of their community leaders, and Arab, gathered people together and told them that they had to leave the community.  An ARAB told them to leave.   

So there you have it.  Two opposing accounts of the “expulsion”.  You state it as if it is carved in stone, but whether it happened as the Arabs claimed it happened, or as the Israelis claimed it happened, is subject to hot debate.



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:36:47 PM)

EnglishDomNW: What part of this are you failing to grasp? If you steal someone's land, and they object to it, did they start the conflict or did you?

And what part of the statement, “Keep in mind that both Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine and considered themselves Palestinians,” is hard to grasp?

Additionally, what part, “the Palestinians had an opportunity to have more than what they currently have, but they blew it when they - and their Arab allies - attacked Israel” is hard to grasp?

The Israelis did NOT steal what was ALSO theirs in the first place.  They were willing to accept less under a UN proposal, but the Arabs did not want to have anything to do with it and they attacked.  When the cease fire ended, did the Arabian Palestinians get their land? NO.  And check this out, the surrounding countries controlled what was supposed to be in “Palestinian” hands. 

The combatants got together and drew up a cease fire.  It was a Jew/Arab agreement, NOT a Jew/Palestinian agreement. 

Why?

Because back then, the Jews accurately considered themselves as Palestinians.  The area was called Palestine, and it had Jew and Arab inhabitants.  This was not a case of Jews seeing themselves as Israelis and Arabs seeing themselves as Palestinians.  The fact is that there were Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians.  BOTH saw themselves as PALESTINIANS. 

EnglishDomNW: You constantly fall under the spell of the word "terrorist".

Wrong. Don’t mistake my knowing the difference between legitimate military action and terrorism as “my being under the spell” of anything.

EnglishDomNW:  There's this amazing belief instilled in your head

Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.

EnglishDomNW:  that if Hezbollah kills someone, that's an evil terrorist act (which indeed it is)

The only thing that you said on your post that I agree with.

EnglishDomNW:  but if Israel kills people on their way to hospital in a clearly marked ambulance, that's legitimate because they "may" have been transferring weaponry.

There is no “MAY” about this.  I will trust the judgement of a couple of combat pilots working together with special forces on the ground over what is being said by newscasters or talking heads acting as armchair generals.  IF they deliberately shot an ambulance, said ambulance was not doing 100% humanitarian missions.  It was being used as part of the enemy’s combat logistics operations.

EnglishDomNW:   As someone who claims to be a "Mustang Officer" (that still makes me LOL),

Like I have said to a couple of other posters, I will be willing to send docs to a trusted poster and have that poster verify my military status.  Just let me know and I will find a trusted poster.

Second, you are willing to use this fact to show that “I should have known ‘better’” about a topic, but REFUSE to use this fact to consider that my assessments and posts here as it relates to their conflict are partially based on my military background.  That does not speak well for that “integrity” department, don’t you think?

EnglishDomNW:   you ought to know what the Geneva Convention says about that act.

Geneva Convention protection STOPS as soon something that is supposed to be serving 100% in a non combatant capacity ceases to be used only for non combatant purposes but also for combat support/combat ops purposes. 

Our Rules of Engagement permit our troops to fire on an Ambulance and treat it as an enemy asset as soon as it becomes apparent that it is being used to support the enemy’s combat operations. 

EnglishDomNW:   There's a huge danger of people like you over-expressing the word "terrorist".

There is no danger in people like me knowing what constitutes terrorism and what does not constitute terrorism.  There is; however, danger with people that loosely throw the terrorism definition around.

EnglishDomNW:  Trust me on this. If Hezbollah attacked an Israeli ambulance carrying victims of attacks in the North to the hospital, you would be on here typing up 400 pages of condemnation.

WRONG.  Where are my “other” 400 pages of condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel that I have written?  For your assumption here to be true, you would have to show me the other 400 pages of “condemnation” that I have written in relation Hezbollah terrorist attacks. 

If they did that, which is something I expect them to do anyway, I would just cheer the Israelis more.

EnglishDomNW:  And you know it.

I know what my cognitive process is, and I know for a fact that if Hezbollah launched a rocket against an Israeli ambulance, I would not type 400 pages of condemnation.  See above for my normal reaction.

EnglishDomNW:  Where did I suggest that's what Israel needs to do? The answer is I didn't. That's what YOU said, not me.

Oh really?

quote:

EnglishDomNW  Israel knows what it needs to do too.

That is as asinine as saying that the U.S. knows “what it needs to do” to prevent Al-Qaeda from attacking it again, you know, starting with our mass conversion to Bin Laden’s version of radical Islam.

Saying that Israel “knows what it needs to do too” is like saying that the U.K. knew what it had to do to prevent Germany from attacking its shipping - like surrendering to the Nazis right off the bat. 

But the fact of the matter is that Israel was the one that was harassed for months, it is the one that is bending over backwards to secure peace, it has been patient, and now they have dropped their foot. 

Now that they are on a roll, that they have the upper hand, THEY are the ones that set the terms for when THEY stop.  Hezbolla has no other recourse but to meet Israeli demands, or continually get attacked. 


let me reconstruct the discussion:

HFC: Hezbolla knows what it needs to do to stop the Israelis from delivering them their own hind quarters on a silver platter.

EDNW: Israel knows what it needs to do too.

OK, lets stop here and look at what is going on.  I talk about what Hezbolla needed to do for Israel to stop attacking them. 

WHAT is it that they needed to do to stop the Israelis from handing them their hind quarters on a silver platter? Answer? Meet Israeli demands.

You came back and explained that Israel also knows what it needs to do.

WHAT does it need to do? Fallow Hezbolla demands maybe?

Which I followed with..

The U.S. knows what it needs to do too…(As far as stopping Al-Qaeda attacks)

WHAT does it need to do?

For starters, mass conversion to Islam - Bin Laden’s version of it.  See where that goes?

EnglishDomNW:  "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." - David Ben-Gurion

First, you do realize that he made this statement on a backdrop of months of attacks that the Jews endured in the hands of the Arabs BEFORE he made that statement, do you? 

Second, dwelling on who attacked who first is like two kids not wanting to come to an agreement because they are to busy arguing about who “started it” first.  The important thing is what can be done TODAY. 

Third, as I previously stated, his opinion does not reflect the views of the majority of the Israelis today.

Fourth, check this statement out, which applies to our current time:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/06/10/1623710.html

“We have inherited a culture of denial, of too often refusing to acknowledge our own responsibility for the widespread malaise that has left most of the Arab-Muslim countries in economic, political and social disrepair.” - SALIM MANSUR

EnglishDomNW:  Fine. I'll bring some friends over, we'll take over your house tonight and you can recognise my right to live in it. Would you do that? Or would you remove me any way you could.

Your analogy does not fit what happened.  In order for your analogy to work, you would have to adjust it to match what really happened in that area.

First, you and a couple of your friends would have to be my relatives.  You would come at my invitation, as my being one of the residents, in opposition to our common foes (also a resident both now and when you were a resident) when both of us were under the same roof.  The remainder of your friends would have to be distant cousins who moved out long before either one of us could remember their moving out. 

Once you guys arrive, these hostile resident (your former co residents) starts attacking all of us.  To make matters worse, their relatives come in and together, they try to evict ALL of us. However; together with your friends, we force the hostile resident’s allies back to their homes and confine our hostile fellow residents to a couple rooms in the house while we take the remainder of the rooms.  We kick the most violent and hostile residents out.

EnglishDomNW:  Do you see how obvious your tactics are becoming?

Not a tactic, but me pointing out the obvious.  

EnglishDomNW:  I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Not quite, again…

“there is a difference between something being said in a book that not everybody takes literally, and a charter law that is used to dictate ongoing official organization policy” -herfacechair

That is in no way, shape, or form an indorsement, or agreement, with anything that you stated. 

Plain and simple, I was not agreeing with you.  Unlike the Torah, something that not all Jews take literally, those in power with the PLO do take article 15 seriously.  If they did not take that seriously, they could easily strike that article out. 

Hence the difference between a book that not everybody takes seriously, and an article/charter THAT dictates ongoing official policy. 

EnglishDomNW:  What a copout.  Do you see where your thinking is all wrong now?

No copout here, and no, my thinking is NOT wrong.  Plain and simple, if Israel’s enemies stop using cheap tactics like hiding their weapons and military operations in locations that would normally not come under fire, they could cut down on the number of civilian deaths that result from Israeli retaliatory strikes. 

Hezbollah deliberately hides and operates among the civilian population in hopes that they would not be shot at.  They know that if they DO get shot at, they would draw civilian casualties and cause public sentiment to side with them. 

Is my thinking wrong? NEGATIVE.  Does it accurately point out battle field tactics employed by Hezbolla, Hamas, etc? DEFINITELY.

EnglishDomNW:  You are excusing the most appalling acts simply because you happen to politically agree with the side that is guilty of perpetrating them.

WRONG.  I know precisely what I am thinking, and in no way shape or form am I thinking what you ASSUME I am thinking. 

What you dismiss as appalling acts are the Israelis actions to neutralize a threat.  What is going on here is that you are REFUSING to see this from the vantage point of the people carrying out this war.  The Israelis WILL NOT deliberately attack an ambulance if it is only being used to transport injured people.  If they do attack it, there was a VERY good reason for doing so. 

Again, you are not going to get that perspective from the news.  Keep in mind that the journalists are not the one sitting in the cockpit, or on the ground painting targets.

EnglishDomNW:  Quoted again.  Enjoy reading If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" - David Ben Gurion.

A quote for a quote, one that deals with today’s realities:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/06/10/1623710.html

“Instead of acknowledging the reality of the Arab-Muslim world as a broken civilization, we Muslims tend to indulge instead in blaming others for our ills; deflecting our responsibilities for failures that have become breeding grounds of violence and terrorism.” - SALIM MANSUR

EnglishDomNW:  Finally, let me ask you to answer a direct question with a direct answer. That means with a Yes or a No. (Red Herring Question)

Here is why...

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

“Curious that Hamas has no intentions of recognising Israel's right to exist.  The Torah refuses to recognise the same thing. The Jewish religion itself refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist.  In fact, Israel's very existence today carries with it a very grave response from God Himself just by existing.  He will lead the Jews back to Israel, not the Zionists.


WHAT does the Torah refuse to recognize?

The SAME thing.  WHAT is this “thing”?

Answer: Israel’s right to exist. HENCE the question that I am going to repeat to you instead of answering your question, which has nothing to do with both what you stated above and with my following response.

EnglishDomNW:  Does the Torah forbid the state of Israel to exist in its current form, Yes....or No. Answer in one word please. (I bet you won't)

AGAIN,

Show me a specific phrase from the Torah, or from the Jewish faith, that specifically states that Israel “does not” have the right to exist.

One more time, what you said:  “Curious that Hamas has no intentions of recognising Israel's right to exist.  The Torah refuses to recognise the same thing.



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:40:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irishbynature

Herfacechair[;)] Again...more info for you on the DC! (Since I do SO enjoy keeping you updated on their success!!)[8D]

Chicks Go Platinum
(June 21st) Taking The Long Way sold a little over 130,000 copies this week and stays at the top of the country album chart and #2 in the all-genre chart. SoundScan now records 1,103,443 copies sold, enough to earn the Chicks another tattoo. A #1 congratulations ad from the studio the Chicks used to record their CD appeared in the June 24th issue of Billboard magazine.

 
Still Atop The Country Chart
(June 29th) Taking The Long Way sold 86,811 copies during the last week to remain at #1 on Billboard's country album chart

Nothing changes folks like babies and war, and since the release of their last album, 2002's Home, the Dixie Chicks have been forever altered by both. If that album showcased the trio as precocious young adults, Taking the Long Way finds them sobered and matured, and in a grown-up state of mind. Produced by the celebrated Rick Rubin (Johnny Cash, Red Hot Chili Peppers), who saw the Chicks as "a great rock act making a country album, not a country act making a rock album," their new record impresses both as beautiful sonic tapestry (peppered with myriad Beatlesque hallmarks) and forthright yet vulnerable portrait of three women shaken by the personal and political events of the past few years. As they make clear in the defiant "Not Ready to Make Nice," they still smart over the backlash from their 2003 Bushwhacking. But as they assert on the equally autobiographical "The Long Way Around," they could never "kiss all the asses that they told me to" and just follow others aimlessly--and silently--through life. This means that the Chicks are simultaneously prideful and scornful of celebrity ("Everybody Knows"), and that as new mothers they increasingly treasure the refuge they find in life with their families, out of the spotlight ("Easy Silence," "Lullaby," "Baby Hold On"). The push and pull of both passions drive this record, which also touches on the personal issues of infertility (with which sisters Martie Maguire and Emily Robison both dealt) and Alzheimer's (from which Natalie Maines's grandmother suffers). The trio crafted all 14 cuts with the help of such writers as Sheryl Crow, Gary Louris, Mike Campbell, and Keb' Mo', laying out their lives as honestly and intimately as they might in their diaries. For that reason, on first listen, Taking the Long Way seems too somber--in need of a bit of levity and more than a couple of uptempo songs (like the sexy, '60s-flavored "I Like It") to resonate for the long haul. It also seems to lack the writing quality that Darrell Scott, Patty Griffin, and Bruce Robison brought to Home. But on repeated plays, those concerns dissipate. By the last cut, the R&B/gospel offering "I Hope," the Chicks have chronicled their journey with as much spirituality as spunk, their pain deeply ingrained in their protests.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000F7MG4G/103-9399870-4332654?v=glance&n=5174

[sm=biggrin.gif]



This point was already brought up before, so I am going to bring back a couple of points,

“But that is not going to change the fact that they took a hit immediately after one of them made her irresponsible comment” - herfacechair

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/16/maines.bush.ap

“Now, your point that sales did not take a hit does not prove wrong the fact that there was a backlash, and failed to address that since people boycotted her CD’s, that was an opportunity cost that was forever last.  Take those sales numbers that you tout, and add an additional amount that would have equalled what they would have made had Natalie not make her comment.  No matter which way you look at it, they still took a hit! And THAT was the contention of my side of the argument.” - herfacechair

No matter how much success they are having now, there is always going to be lost revenue resulting from people that boycotted their music before, and from those who are still boycotting their music. 

For example, from your own references.

Chicks Go Platinum:  SoundScan now records 1,103,443 (How much more would have been sold if NOBODY was boycotting their CDs? copies sold, enough to earn the Chicks another tattoo

Still Atop the Country Chart:  Taking The Long Way sold 86,811  (How much more would have been sold if NOBODY was boycotting their CDs? copies during the last week to remain at #1 on Billboard's country album chart

It does not matter if they are succeeding, or how long they will succeed, my point still stands, that they took a hit immediately after Natalie made her statement.  Additionally, as long as there are still people not purchasing their CD’s, they are continually falling short of what they could be doing.  Past revenue opportunity lost can’t be recovered. 

No amount of numbers that you show is going to change that fact.

Given the people that are not buying her CDs where they would have purchased them before, there is always going to be an opportunity cost for Natalie’s statement. 

As you can see from these pointers, my world is not going to be ruined if the Dixie Chicks are doing well.  My point was NOT about their “never succeeding again”. 



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:42:54 PM)

irishbynature: Forgive me, but I'm enjoying ruffling herfacechair a bit myself

Actually, you and the other posters are not ruffling me at all, what I have stated before:

Me personally, I know people will not change their minds when I rebut them.  But that is not the purpose of my rebuttals.  Arguing with someone I know has absolutely no intentions of agreeing with me just adds to the fun of the debate, as changing his/her mind is not my objective. - herfacechair

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.

However, I do have to thank you for helping me work on one of my objectives - making this a 200 + page argument.  ***crosses fingers and hopes***   



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:44:19 PM)

Arpig:  You have fallen prey to your own insecurities.

Don’t confuse pure observation and correlation as “falling prey to one’s own ‘insecurities”.

Arpig:  You repeatedly say you are rebutting the post made by "liberals".

And I am rebutting posts made by liberals.  But that is not the only thing that I am saying: 

Me personally, I know people will not change their minds when I rebut them.  But that is not the purpose of my rebuttals.  Arguing with someone I know has absolutely no intentions of agreeing with me just adds to the fun of the debate, as changing his/her mind is not my objective. - herfacechair

Though I am going to rebut every liberal post, there are posts from posters that are not liberal that I am going to rebut - if I disagree with their post.  

quote:


You presume to know the political affiliation of posters, when you do not.

I am not a Liberal. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Liberal party. It just goes to show, you have a very narrow and fixed point of view, and you will make some rather broad and startling assumptions about the world in general, and about the members of Collarme in order to make things fit into that skewed vision of reality.


That’s a big negative.  There is no “you presume to know the political affiliations of posters, when you ‘do not’”, here about whether someone is a liberal or not.  And it does not matter if you identify yourself as a liberal or not.  I’ve known a couple of alcoholics that denied being alcoholics.  They denied this up and down.  Does that mean that I had a “skewed” vision of reality? NO. 

I’ve tracked this thread long before I placed my first post here, as well as tracked many of these threads while remaining as a “lurker”.  If you voice the talking line that I’ve seen in forums such as the Democrat Underground, and if your talking points match those of liberal organizations, talking heads, etc, then chances are real good that you are a liberal.  Hence, I am not the one that has a “narrow” and “fixed” point of view.  I am just calling a spade a spade. 

Oh, and speaking about having a narrow and fixed point of view, I am not the one that made this statement: “When choosing their candidate, they wanted an appealing and obedient good fella, and they got one”. 

Arpig:  Like I said before, can I have some of what you are smoking?

  If you want to do what I am doing, I would recommend that you quit smoking - whatever it is that you are smoking as I do not smoke. 



herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:46:16 PM)

philosophy: .........after the amazing linguistic diarrhea of herfacechair, i'm still laughing at this from the first page of this thread.....

Yet the same poster says this: “so, everyone should lower their voices….” And this “slap everyone down to the lowest volume.” 

quote:

so, everyone should lower their voices just so as the poor diddum who cant be assed to get on a stage or put themselves out there for criticism doesn't feel a bit insecure. The poor love may well have as many beliefs, ideas and opionions but clearly lacks the talent, desire or bravery necessary to get on a stage. Still slap everyone down to the lowest volume and just let the government tell you what to do, poor thing, thats bound to work.........


Actually, that is not what she meant by those words.  If you read the entire post that she made, you would also have caught this statement:

“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.

The underlined section was the theme of her post.

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.

philosophy: oh yes, and i also laughed at those who suggested that the DC's had a right to free speech but not on non-US soil. American first, human second?

When we are engaged in an enemy that could take her statement and others like it out of context, the more appropriate word is common sense first. 



meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:46:25 PM)

Had too much to drink to answer in full at the moment but to say Israel is fighting for its survival because of a few inaccurate Qassam rockets is a nonsense and just an excuse for its excessive use of force and killing of innocent civilians. Imatar Rabinovich, the ex-Israeli ambassador to the US let the cat out of the bag on BBC today when he said that Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the USA against Hezzbollah because Washington sees Hezzbollah fighting a war by proxy for Syria and Iran. This sounds more like the truth and explains the Israel's over reaction.



mistressandy -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:51:52 PM)

the reality of the arabs and the jews is they must live in peace ,they both have been on this planet together for a long time, and no group is going anywhere however the jewish people were kicked out of every arab nation ,the zionists are extreme but isreal has to be, they saw what happens to them when they try to be civil, they could give back all the land and it still
wouldn,t be good enough for the arab nations now isreal has to do what it has to do and i say its about time the world stood up and back the smallest country in the world
isreal will live  on and i thank g-d for that



meatcleaver -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 1:57:12 PM)

Lebanon is smaller than Israel and while Israel is a nuclear power and has the military power of a large European nation, Lebanon has virtually no military and is defenceless. Unless you are one of those people that see ambulances carrying the wounded to hospital as a threat to the existence of Israel.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/25/2006 3:58:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

EnglishDomNW: What part of this are you failing to grasp? If you steal someone's land, and they object to it, did they start the conflict or did you?

And what part of the statement, “Keep in mind that both Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine and considered themselves Palestinians,” is hard to grasp?
 

 
Exactly
 
quote:



Additionally, what part, “the Palestinians had an opportunity to have more than what they currently have, but they blew it when they - and their Arab allies - attacked Israel” is hard to grasp?

The Israelis did NOT steal what was ALSO theirs in the first place.  They were willing to accept less under a UN proposal, but the Arabs did not want to have anything to do with it and they attacked.  When the cease fire ended, did the Arabian Palestinians get their land? NO.  And check this out, the surrounding countries controlled what was supposed to be in “Palestinian” hands. 

The combatants got together and drew up a cease fire.  It was a Jew/Arab agreement, NOT a Jew/Palestinian agreement. 

Why?

Because back then, the Jews accurately considered themselves as Palestinians.  The area was called Palestine, and it had Jew and Arab inhabitants.  This was not a case of Jews seeing themselves as Israelis and Arabs seeing themselves as Palestinians.  The fact is that there were Jewish Palestinians and Arab Palestinians.  BOTH saw themselves as PALESTINIANS. 

You seem to be arguing against your own point here
quote:



EnglishDomNW: You constantly fall under the spell of the word "terrorist".

Wrong. Don’t mistake my knowing the difference between legitimate military action and terrorism as “my being under the spell” of anything.

I'm sure if a family dies from a hail of rockets in the North of Israel, you will (correctly) denounce that act, the same as any right-thinking individual would.  It's a savage act.

Yet your instant reaction is to defend Israel launching a rocket attack on a clearly marked ambulance ferrying injured civilians to the hospital and describe that as "legitimate military action".  Trust me on this - somewhere in the world right now, someone is declaring Hezbollah's deeds as "legitimate military action".  And in the middle of your ludicrously biased opinion and theirs are the civilians on both sides.

I don't have any problem with you, herfacechair, other than you are so determined to prove that one side is wholly good and the other is wholly evil that you render your own opinions as meaningless. 
quote:

.

EnglishDomNW:  There's this amazing belief instilled in your head

Not a belief, but assessment based on experience, research, and reading/watching multiple news reports.

EnglishDomNW:  that if Hezbollah kills someone, that's an evil terrorist act (which indeed it is)

The only thing that you said on your post that I agree with.

EnglishDomNW:  but if Israel kills people on their way to hospital in a clearly marked ambulance, that's legitimate because they "may" have been transferring weaponry.

There is no “MAY” about this.  I will trust the judgement of a couple of combat pilots working together with special forces on the ground over what is being said by newscasters or talking heads acting as armchair generals.  IF they deliberately shot an ambulance, said ambulance was not doing 100% humanitarian missions.  It was being used as part of the enemy’s combat logistics operations.

But it wasn't.  It was carrying civilians that had already been wounded to the hospital.  And anyone but an extreme zealot would be condemning it.

quote:



EnglishDomNW:   As someone who claims to be a "Mustang Officer" (that still makes me LOL),

Like I have said to a couple of other posters, I will be willing to send docs to a trusted poster and have that poster verify my military status.  Just let me know and I will find a trusted poster.

Second, you are willing to use this fact to show that “I should have known ‘better’” about a topic, but REFUSE to use this fact to consider that my assessments and posts here as it relates to their conflict are partially based on my military background.  That does not speak well for that “integrity” department, don’t you think?

I think the reason I question your status is possibly because of your posts, not despite them.
quote:


EnglishDomNW:   you ought to know what the Geneva Convention says about that act.

Geneva Convention protection STOPS as soon something that is supposed to be serving 100% in a non combatant capacity ceases to be used only for non combatant purposes but also for combat support/combat ops purposes. 

Our Rules of Engagement permit our troops to fire on an Ambulance and treat it as an enemy asset as soon as it becomes apparent that it is being used to support the enemy’s combat operations. 


The Geneva Convention, articles 19 to 22 states that no medical service vehicle may be attacked unless the vehicle is being used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy (it wasn't but regardless, the article continues) 
 Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded (none of which apparently took place).

What's even worse is that on tonight's news, Israel killed four UN peacekeepers one from Canada, one from China, one from Finland and one from Austria. (Let me guess, "they could have been hiding missiles", right?) in an apparently deliberate attack.  And on top of that, the rescue team that was sent in were also attacked as they cleared the rubble.

I don't think there's a person on this board that wouldn't condemn this act, possibly excluding you, who will invent some military reason why Israel had to do it.

Also today, Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets into the North of Israel killing a 15 year old girl.  At least we can all condemn that act of evil, even you.

Condemn both sides herfacechair.  Because believe me, they both deserve it.
 
 
quote:
EnglishDomNW:   There's a huge danger of people like you over-expressing the word "terrorist".

There is no danger in people like me knowing what constitutes terrorism and what does not constitute terrorism.  There is; however, danger with people that loosely throw the terrorism definition around.

EnglishDomNW:  Trust me on this. If Hezbollah attacked an Israeli ambulance carrying victims of attacks in the North to the hospital, you would be on here typing up 400 pages of condemnation.

WRONG.  Where are my “other” 400 pages of condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel that I have written?  For your assumption here to be true, you would have to show me the other 400 pages of “condemnation” that I have written in relation Hezbollah terrorist attacks. 

If they did that, which is something I expect them to do anyway, I would just cheer the Israelis more.
 

 
I have no doubt you would too. 
quote:




EnglishDomNW:  And you know it.

I know what my cognitive process is, and I know for a fact that if Hezbollah launched a rocket against an Israeli ambulance, I would not type 400 pages of condemnation.  See above for my normal reaction.


EnglishDomNW:  Where did I suggest that's what Israel needs to do? The answer is I didn't. That's what YOU said, not me.

Oh really?

quote:

EnglishDomNW  Israel knows what it needs to do too.

That is as asinine as saying that the U.S. knows “what it needs to do” to prevent Al-Qaeda from attacking it again, you know, starting with our mass conversion to Bin Laden’s version of radical Islam.

Saying that Israel “knows what it needs to do too” is like saying that the U.K. knew what it had to do to prevent Germany from attacking its shipping - like surrendering to the Nazis right off the bat. 

But the fact of the matter is that Israel was the one that was harassed for months, it is the one that is bending over backwards to secure peace, it has been patient, and now they have dropped their foot. 

Now that they are on a roll, that they have the upper hand, THEY are the ones that set the terms for when THEY stop.  Hezbolla has no other recourse but to meet Israeli demands, or continually get attacked. 


let me reconstruct the discussion:

HFC: Hezbolla knows what it needs to do to stop the Israelis from delivering them their own hind quarters on a silver platter.

EDNW: Israel knows what it needs to do too.

OK, lets stop here and look at what is going on.  I talk about what Hezbolla needed to do for Israel to stop attacking them. 

 
Indeed let's stop here. 



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625