Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks?


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:52:33 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		subedana: I happen to like their music and always have. I may not agree with their oppinions but I will defend to the death their right to voice them from the roof tops if they choose to.

And would you support someone’s “right” to use derogatory terms to describe others? You know, the “S” and “B” words to describe the woman, the “B” word to describe the man?  After all, that would be “free speech”, right? If they were to go up to someone’s face and use one of those words - as per their free speech rights - you would not allow them to be subjected to getting the crap beat out of them, right? After all, you would defend their right to this “free speech” from the roof tops! 

The point that I am getting at is that nobody is trying to stifle their right to free speech.  My side of the argument is lambasting people like said singer for failing to exercise the responsibility that comes with the freedom of speech. 

Just as the person in my example has a responsibility to address others with proper respect and not use the “B” word to describe the woman that he/she is talking to.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:53:52 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		LaTigresse: AND if celebrities should not be allowed to voice their opinions

Nobody is forcing the celebrities to keep their mouths shut.  We’re just exercising our rights to NOT fork over OUR cash to their product.  If it happens that enough of us do that to the point that it hurts their bottom line, oh well. 

LaTigresse: then people with money should not be allowed to run for office.

So, only homeless people should run for president? I don’t know about you, but I would rather have someone that succeeded as a businessman at the executive helm than someone that did not have the foresight to forgo that bottle of beer and be more financially responsible. 

LaTigresse:  The way our elections work now, it is not the best person for the job, it is those with money that can afford the advertising campains that turn THEM into celebrities!

Actually, that is how it worked from our first elections.  Back when our founding fathers ran for office, for example, many offered booze at the voting booth.  Free booze to anybody that voted for candidate “A”.  It worked out that those with allot of money.  Technology and faces changed, but back then as well as now, if you did not have allot of cash, the idea of your being president was nothing but that - a dream.

Another note:

The media attention that they get may make them “celebrities”, but many of them have one thing that many celebs don’t - experience in the political arena as well as in policy.  Not to mention access to information that the celebs will never have access to in their lifetimes - unless they get into politics.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:55:35 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		PoinsonRoses:  Dixie Chicks had just as much right to state their opinion as the redneck hillbillies who came out with their flagwaving,

The only thing that is correct in this statement is that both groups have an equal right to free speech.  Everything else is wrong. 

Unlike the language used by the first group against the president, the language used by the second one AIDED our side of the fight.  Let us break this down,

Dixie Chicks statement:

Toed the enemy line - “BUSH BAD” theme.

Undermined the U.S. effort by putting down the commander in chief during a time of war.

(U.S. - 1, Enemy +1)

The second group’s comments:

Voiced the U.S. message

Supported the U.S. side of the fight.

(U.S. +1, Enemy - 1)

The Dixie Chicks, being American, had the responsibility to hold their tongue to prevent the enemy from having “+1”.

PoinsonRoses:  lying-ass songs trying to reconfirm the lie that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

WRONG.  Iraq may not have been directly involved with 9/11, but they did provide training on how to commandeer aircraft with box cutters.  The 9/11 terrorists may or may not have trained there.  However, our going into Iraq had more to do with its ties to terrorism and the potential for it to give WMD to said terrorists than it did to their “having something to do with 9/11”.

PoinsonRoses:   It is NOT unpatriotic to question your government and we do not have a King.

But it is irresponsible to question the government - using mostly biased information - against the Commander in Chief and his justifications.  Especially when the one doing it has failed to research the validity of such biased information, or when they are doing so out of pure ideological blindness.

PoinsonRoses:  Would rather a man release his frustrations getting a blowjob then to release them invading a soverign nation we had just beaten down several years prior.

Comparing apples and oranges for two reasons.  One, our issue with President Clinton was his perjury and obstruction to justice given his status as the senior most law enforcement officer on the land.  The media tried to make it about solely about the “blow job”, but that was not the major issue. 

Second, that nation was planning on tricking the useless UN inspectors into thinking that Iraq was clean.  They were planning on pickup where they stopped prior to the arrival of the U.N. inspectors.  Saddam had no plans to stop his radical terrorist conventions, his “Death to America” speech, nor his drive to get us back.

Big difference between a necessary security action and quibbling over a blow job.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:56:47 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		Level:  Well, either you are free to speak, or not. I prefer that freedom, even if it means loudmouths get more attention than others.

This is not about whether someone is free to speak or not, nor is it about whether some people are loudmouths and others are not.  It is about the responsibility that comes with our freedom of speech.  Especially when you are an opinion leader.

Level:  All well said. Freedom of speech is easy until you get to dissenting voices, that's when the proof is in the pudding, or not.

Proof in the pudding indeed, I don’t see the DC singer sitting in a jail cell.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:58:06 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		irishbynature: The reaction of people to her words are what concerned me.

What people did - while carrying out a right that they had - bothered you, but you seem to not be phased by the possible ramifications of what she said? **Shaking my head**

Natalie Maines:
And how in the world Can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they'd write me a letter
Saying that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over - Natalie Maines

First, it appears that ONE person sent her a death threat. 

Second, don’t judge the rest of the opposition by the action of this one person that threatened her life. 

Even if more than one sent her a death threat, they don’t represent the vast majority that decided not to spend money on what the singers were offering. 

The person (or persons) that did send her a death threat should to be caught, tried, and sent to prison. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 7:59:56 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		JohnWarren: How do the anti-DC people feel about Reagan?  He was active in McCarthy's hunt for "communists"?

Actually, there WERE communists in the areas that McCarthy and Reagan said there were communists.  The declassified Venona (sp) cables proved McCarthy right.  Ronald Reagan knew that there were communists in Hollywood because he WORKED there.  He saw their antiques first hand.  It was their activities that slowly moved him to the right.

His anti communist activities put him at the side of the U.S., whom the Soviets were trying to undermine. 

JohnWarren: Francis Scott Key was a racist who was willing to kill people who dared educate Blacks.

Apples and oranges comparison.  As deplorable as this activity was, it was not catering to our enemies plans at our expense.

JohnWarren: What's a litmus test for me is, if a person is incensed about a celebrity using his or her fame for some cause that they object to, do they equally object to celebrities using fame to support a cause they agree with?  If their ire is side sensitive, that comes across as a hypocrite to me.

And here is my litmus test - does what is being said play to the advantage of our enemies, or does it play to ours? 

Let’s say celebs badmouth our war.  That makes them useful idiots for the people that we are fighting.  Their words galvanize the enemy and encourage them to hang on - instead of giving up their will to fight.  The longer they hold on, the longer they are going to find the ability to fight our troops. 

Now, lets say we have other celebs send out pro U.S. messages that are more in line with what we agree with.

Again, the litmus test. 

Does it play into our enemy’s hands, thus making them useful idiots, or does it play to our advantage?

Since, our line of reasoning is pro U.S.A., pro troops, and pro U.S. must win, and since the celeb’s voice matches ours, we would not get incensed.

We are not complaining about anybody’s right to free speech.  Many people are raising the BS flag over those celebs irresponsible enough to be useful idiots for our enemies, and responding in kind by refusing to purchase their products, which is a right that THEY have.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:01:25 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		LaTigresse: But of course, why would someone object to someone that shares their narrow point of view then hides behind an american flag.

Narrow point of view? I beg to differ.  Reading allot of history, reading books like, “Holy War Inc”, “Murders on the Nile”, “Why we Fight”, and seeing clips of Islamic clerics declaring that one day, they will rule over America, Brittain, and the world, tends to bring up a conclusion that you would label as “narrow point of view”. 

So, if someone is actively voicing something that the enemy does not want to hear - what may fit under what you label as “narrow point of view” - then YES, many will support it. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:03:55 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		JohnWarren: You mean like Bush proclaiming that disagreement with him is tanamount to treason?  Yup, I agree with you.

We have two sides to the argument.

A.  Bush, military, and co:  Iraq war Go Go Go!

B.  Anti Western terrorist/fascists:  Bush Bad, America Bad, Iraq War Bad No No No! Out of Iraq NOW!

C.  War dissenter:  This war is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time! 

Now, which of the above letters make a team? A and B? A and C? or B and C?

After asking the last group, “Whose side are you on anyway?” perhaps one may be inclined to come to the same conclusion?

JohnWarren: Of course, if you mean using the First Amendement to speak out, it becomes a bit more iffy since that would mean the person trying to subvert the Constitution might well be seen as treasonous rather than the one speaking out.

NOTE:  The constitution is only applicable to the actions of the government.  It is not applicable to people exercising their rights as CUSTOMERS to use customer sovereignty as a tool to hold a useful idiot accountable for not being more responsible with their freedom of speech.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:07:38 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		JohnWarren: It is amazing how quickly being proud of OUR constitutional rights and taking advantage of them became potentially treasonous

If people that opposed the president’s policies were being thrown in jail simply because of their dissent, you would have a point here.  However, since people are not being thrown into prison for their dissent, you have no point here.

What is treasonous is acting as mouthpiece for the enemy, voicing their talking points, and attempting to get the president or anybody under him to carry out the very action that our enemies want us to carry out.

JohnWarren: when a president began defending his own questionable actions.

Questionable? NEGATIVE.  Under asymmetrical warfare, our going into Iraq was an absolute necessity.

JohnWarren:  It begins to get kinda scary. The smoke screens and cover-ups. All in the name of patriotism.

The only smoke screens and cover-ups that I see are what is being put up by a media that refuses to let people know what is really going on in Iraq.  If the criminally liberal biased media would simply put out the facts to the people - with no attempts at massive bias - people would have been well aware of the fact that we are kicking hind quarters and taking names in Iraq, we ARE succeeding at what we are doing, and that large portions of Iraq are full steam ahead in progress. 

More people would also be aware of many of the information that vindicates the president and proves the media wrong about Iraq. 

JohnWarren:  Fortunately we watch alot of history, national geographic, etc.........

Unfortunately, this is not the case.  If people were more aware of history, the dissent would be the extreme minority.  For example, more people would have been aware of this statement:

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

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

And would have the common sense to conclude that to complete our victory in Iraq and elsewhere, we can’t allow history to repeat itself. 

Unfortunately, history forgotten is history repeated.  Just as we had dissenters voicing the enemy’s message and giving them hope during the Vietnam conflict, we have dissenters doing the same today. 

And the saddest thing is that those disagreeing with the war are under the assumption that they are doing what is “good” for the country when, in reality, they are giving the enemy hope to continue on and fight - instead of dropping their arms.  The dissenters are actually doing more harm to our cause than good.

JohnWarren:  our country has survived worse and other incompetent presidents. Hopefully that will continue to hold true.

If you are talking about the President Clinton, then I would be in agreement.  He was among the most incompetent presidents that we had the misfortune of having.  We survived him. 

George Bush is not “incompetent” by any stretch.  Remember, Lincoln and Reagan were casted in doubt as well, but history judged them otherwise.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:09:04 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		81song: Here is hoping that we get through all this mess somehow

If the dissenters get behind the president and troops and push for a complete U.S. victory, if they are not phased by the antiques of the terrorists - who carry out their antiques in hopes that dissent will be built - then this “mess” would be over in a heart beat - guaranteed. 

If they knew that there is no way in hell that the U.S. was going to leave until their job was done, they would give up the will to fight and drop their arms.  Getting slaughtered as if they are sitting ducks is not worth it when there is no “possibility” that we are going to cut and run with our tail between our legs courtesy of the war dissenters.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:10:14 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		darkinshadows: So celebreties do not have any freedom of speech?

Lets put it this way.  You and a girlfriend are hiding from a rapist.  He is still in the area.  Your girlfriend hurls invectives at him and tells him to go away.  Chances are that if you were to get of it alive, you would chew her out for being stupid in the first place.  Her cries about “freedom of speech” would probably not sway you.

Nobody is arguing that their freedom of speech should be curtailed or removed.  The point that is being made is that they should exercise the responsibility for that right on the grounds that there are consequences - potential or actual - from our actions.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:11:20 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		JohnWarren: In a recent article, Bill Riley referred to what he called "The Civil Rights Gang."  Just why does it make me nervous when "civil rights" has become a pejorative.

If you are talking about Bill O’Reilly, then he is talking about “civil rights” groups that engage in ideological activities under the cover of “civil rights”.  ACLU is one culprit that comes to mind.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:12:38 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		pahunkboy: the obscene labeling of folks to be treasoness is DANGEROUS, it must stop.

I agree.  In order to be treasonous, they would have to knowingly work to the same aim as the enemy.  However, I can’t let them off for not knowing that their efforts rather help the enemy instead of hinder them. 

There is a term for people that unwittingly work to the same aim as our enemies…

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:14:25 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		zumala: Who said that the DC or any other celebrity are making themselves a spokesperson? Everyone has an opinion and the right to state it (or if they don't, we have problems!).

When you are an opinion leader - such as a celebrity - where what you say is under the microscope and receives allot of attention - the temptation is there to play “spokesperson”.  We have had way too many celebs act as political spokespeople. 

I guess when you have a crew that agrees to most of what you say, pampers you, and treats you like a deity, the temptation is to project that to the population at large.

Add to that their waking up one day and wanting to “make a difference” in an area that many of them have no expertise in, then you have the recipe for someone wanting to play spokesman. 

Yes, everybody has a right to an opinion.  They also have a responsibility that comes with expressing that opinion, especially when what they say can have an impact on others.

zumala:  It just so happens that this person was a singer instead of a doctor or a lawyer.

That is not the point of why the singer’s CD’s were burned.  If she voiced her opinion somewhere where many of her fans would not have gotten wind of what she said - I.E. private conversation - they would not have thought much about it.  Had she been overheard making that comment while talking to her friends in the mall, her fans would not have gone out of their way to take any boycotting actions.  What made the difference here is that she used a platform intended for her to sing as a pulpit to take a slam at the president during time of war. 

Personally, if I were attending her concert, and she said something like that, I would have gotten offended.  Had I paid for a ticket to go to her concert, I would have paid to listen to her sing, not to her diatribe. 

zumala:  So what?  There are a lot of songs out there about any number of topics (politics included).  This isn't new.

So what? Taking a slam at the Commander in Chief during a time of war using a communication medium that would deliver her message to our enemy is not a “so what” moment. 

zumala:  Personally, I have to applaud them for having the guts to say what they believe and to stick to it after being abused and threatened.

And the rest are holding her accountable for not thinking about the consequences of her speech.  Then they are going to turn around and applaud those people that burnt her CD’s and refused to attend her concerts.  They to have the guts to exercise THEIR freedom of speech and expression and should be applauded for it.

zumala:  I value integrity.  I also value honesty.

I also value someone’s ability to overcome their ideological bias enough to stop drooling at the mouth in order to see the big picture of what is going on.  THAT is a part of integrity.  Unfortunately, the singer did not display that.

zumala:  I have to protect my IQ from dropping

What I find ironic in this statement, and in similar statement made against the president - especially in defense of a celeb is this:

The president has a Masters Degree in Business Administration.  He has a graduate degree.  He has experience in political administration, definitely more foreign policy experience than many of the celebs criticizing him. 

Yet, nothing is said about the “smartness” of many of the celebs criticizing him.  Their highest degree? The majority of them sport high school diplomas.  Some of them have some college - like the college drop outs in their ranks. 

But Bush is the one who is having his intelligence and foreign policy decisions slammed. :roll:

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:16:32 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		http://stevie-nicks.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=735&Itemid=68.

I refuse to be pulled into the politics of war. But once these soldiers sign up, go to war and come back to a hospital, I will do whatever I have to do to make them better. That is my mission -- Stevie Nicks

Now THAT is how a celeb should conduct herself!

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:17:30 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

There is a term for people that unwittingly work to the same aim as our enemies…


Yeah...Joe McCarthy comes to mind... the Venona cables you tout suggest that if anything, he was so busy wasting resources and attention on the wrong people, that he aided and abetted the Soviet spies that were in place.....

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/18/2006 8:18:01 PM >

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:18:12 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		smilezz: I guess what baffles me is this is STILL going on!

If it is still going on, then that is how it should be.  If they are still suffering the consequences, then that is how it should be until they decide to exercise common sense and responsibility when it comes to voicing their opinion about the war, during a time of war, when the enemy is at a point to where they could use just about any sign of encouragement that they could find.

smilezz:  If people would put half the energy into something positive instead of focussing on the negative of what some people say.................

I agree, that is why people should pressure the Communist News Network, More S#$%Y Nonsense By Communists, New People’s Radio, the major news networks, the New York Crimes, etc to start reporting the good that is happening in Iraq with as much gusto and frequency as they do the bad. 

smilezz:  good lord, imagine what could be done.

Exactly, because if the media actually did its job and reported the news, and everything that was going on instead of selected topics that enforces their bias, less and less Americans would be dissenting.  THAT would be bad news to the terrorists that we are fighting, who would drop their arms and either get with the game or leave.  Iraq’s progress would go much faster and we would be well on our way to changing the face of the Middle East. 

Tell you what, if the media starts doing that, then I will concentrate on whatever “good” the Dixie Chicks singer does. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:21:25 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		Arpig: feastie...their freedom of speech is the same as yours, it is the media who decided to tell the world what they said, therefore you should hold the entertainment media responsible, not them.

Not quite.  It is the media factor that makes it incumbent on the singer to weigh the consequences to others of what she is about to say.  Would what she say help the enemy’s cause? Would it give them something to be cheerful about? Here is someone that slammed the president.  At the time of that statement, the enemy could go back and say, “Hay! Even so and so agrees with us!” Without the media, it is no issue. 

This is not one thing where we could just blame the media and not her.  She has a responsibility that she failed to exercise. 

Arpig: And their freedom of speech is indeed far more valuable than yours....because you would curtail theirs.

No it is not.  Feastie’s freedom of speech is just as valuable as that of Natalie Maines.  Nor is she attempting to curtail that singer’s freedom of speech.  She is pointing out the fact that the singer abused her freedom of speech, failed to exercise responsibility for the possible affect it would have on others, put on an air of being a “spokeswoman”, and failed to see that she was nothing but a popcorn fart.

Arpig: They have the right to say what they believe in any venue or context, just the same as you,

And nobody is arguing otherwise.  They are just pointing out the fact that the singer failed to see how her statements could be used in favor of the enemy. 

Arpig:  whining because the entertainment-centered American media, which slavishly reports when Brittany's no-talent/no-name husband farts, chooses to promulgate their words and not yours is just that...whining.

This statement misses the point behind what feastie is arguing.  If the Dixie Chicks singer voiced her opinion that we should all eat “strawberry cheesecake”, that would not have caused feastie to make her comment.  The fact that she came on and made that statement slamming our Commander in Chief during a time of war - using a platform given to her for the purpose of - or because of - her trade - without her understanding the bigger picture did cause feastie to make her comment. 

Arpig:  If you want your every word pasted on the front page, get famous, you don't even need real talent anymore, marketing and a good perm will suffice.

This is not about feastie wanting to get heard.  It is about what was said by someone that is no expert on foreign policy using a medium that would deliver her words - as an opinion leader - to the people that hate us.

Again, if the singer said that we should all eat strawberry cheesecake, and this opinion was carried around the world, people would not have burned her CD’s and boycotted her concerts. 

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:22:29 PM   
JohnSteed1967


Posts: 304
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Having not really read any other post except for the title. Leave the chicks alone, I am sick of bush sending innocents to their death for oil and for power

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 7/18/2006 8:23:15 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		brightspot: Simple; The celebrity doesn't have anymore right than Joe Blow

The point about her posts is that someone is abusing her status as an opinion leader, without regards to possible consequences.  What she is trying to say is that we have a popcorn fart acting like she knows what is going on and what is best for the country than the rest of us or the president. 

brightspot: but just because of their celebrity they have a much greater ability to reach people by the masses.

Which is why the celebrity has to weigh the total number of people that are listening to them, KNOW who could get his or her words, and foresee what kind of consequences a specific statement would have on our efforts against the enemy. 

brightspot:  That's why "some people" get so freaked out and defensive when celebrities speak out, about, for or against anything because what they say can reach a massive amount of people in a very short time.

Some people? The people that you hear about boycotting movies played by activist actors represent the tip of the iceberg.  “Some” in this case, is a severe understatement. 

When we have a bunch of celebs lambasting the war efforts, you have a situation where the enemy gains fodder for their propaganda.  Here is an example, shortly after the release of the Fahrenheit 9/11 CD, one of the items that consistently turned up during raids of terror holdouts was - you guessed it, Fahrenheit 9/11 CD’s. 

Our enemies eat up on anything that slams the Bush Administration and take encouragement from it. 

That “freaking out” is justified.

brightspot:  That has nothing to do with Joe Blow not having the right he is just a bit more limited in the spreading of what he might wish to express.

And that was not the point of her post.  Her theme pointed out the fact that someone who did not know any better than the rest of us - whether as a US visitor over seas or someone speaking stateside - voiced an opinion that would have given moral encouragement to the enemy.

brightspot:  The death threats were pretty damn outrageous and they should have been prosecuted who ever made them.

And keep in mind that the ones that made the death treats are a small minority and don’t represent the majority of the people that were boycotting her CD’s and concerts.  And yes, those that made the death threats should be taken into custody, put to trial, and sent to the slammer.

brightspot:  Celebrities have a right to state their opinions just as well as anyone else.

And this is not the point of the argument.  Nobody is saying that celebrities should not have the right to free speech, or to have their own opinion. 

brightspot:  They should not have to watch their words because of their "Celebrity Edge" just because the truth and/or their opinion may hurt the country or it's current adminstration's reputation.

The “truth” may hurt this country? ROTFLMFAO!  The reality is that the truth will piss off the people that oppose Bush and his policies.

First, their celebrity edge and platform is PRECISELY why they must watch their words.  If you don’t believe me, just talk to the terrorists who purchased the Fahrenheit 9/11 CD in DROVES. 

This is not about “hurting the current administration’s reputation” either.  Their opinion can be used against us in the eyes of the enemy.  For that reason, they need to watch what they say.  As long as there is dissent from “important” people, the enemy would have a source to draw hope from.  After all, if they get enough Americans to convince the Administration to stop what they are doing in Iraq, the better for the terrorists.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





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




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

0.109