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? (7/18/2006 9:01:05 PM)
Level: If terrorists weren't there before the war That is a big if. Al-Qaeda was operating in their northern border. Iraq was running a terrorist training camp near Baghdad - Salman Pak. There, one of the things they trained terrorists to do is hijack airliners using things like box cutters and other items. Not to mention the fact that Saddam sponsored several radical terrorist conventions.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:02:57 PM)
Lashra: If people get upset about what they say, too bad they can just stop listening to them. No one says You HAVE to listen to them Which is precisely what allot of her fans did right after she made those comments. The fact that this became an issue on this thread is that there is another side of the debate expressing anger that people would do just what you are recommending here. Burning their CD’s was one of the things many of her fans did. They also boycotted her concert and refused to listen to her music.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:04:03 PM)
peterK50: A German S.S. General was asked at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials How Did The Holocost Happened? His reply was, "One Step At A Time". I student works at getting their degree one step at a time. Does that mean that they are up to some evil plans? I would not be surprised that you have something that you are working on accomplishing, and you are doing it one step at a time. There are allot of things that we do in the world that is done one step at a time. Which leads me to the description of your attempted comparison between the NAZIs and the Bush administration… Inductive Fallacy. peterK50: We've seen W. take us to disaster one step at a time, WRONG. He has lead us to a path of greater prosperity and security - one step at a time. peterK50: The most common charge against Nazi military officers at Nuremburg was "Waging A War Of Aggression", or in other words, invading a country for no reason. Sound familiar? No. Because unlike the countries that Germany invaded, Iraq under Saddam was very much a part of the asymmetrical threat that we face. We had to deal with him, because he planed on dealing with us. His “Death to America” speeches did not quite make him someone that would not want harm on us. Mix that with his catering to radical terrorists via his radical terrorist conventions as well as the money he sent to family members of homicide bombers.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:05:22 PM)
LotusSong: The more I study of Nazi Germany. the more I see G.W.. When he took office I observed him and something just seemed so familiar in the way things were unfolding. Now that is completely strange, because the more I read about Nazi Germany, the more differences I see between Hitler/Nazis and Bush/Republicans. The question here is this; are you looking at what you are studying objectively, or are you doing it with your bias? Because anybody that claims that there are similarities between the NAZI’s and the Bush Admin is simply being blatantly biased. That is almost like looking at an apple and insisting that it is orange because both are round, just so that they could compare an apple to an orange. LotusSong: Next time you see “Hitler Uncovered: The Color of War”.. on the history channel- WATCH it. It will scare the shit out of you. It pretty much parallels what has happened in this "presidency" of ours. The ATTITUDE is exactly the same. Both an Apple and an Orange are generally round. They MUST be exactly the same! First things first, Bush did not go around the country and spoke skillfully to the people in a way that gets their emotions stirred up. Unlike Hitler, Bush is no salesman. We did not need Bush for our sense of patriotism. We did not need someone going cross country shifting the blame from where it belongs to some random scapegoat. The list goes on, but the more documentaries I watch about Hitler and the NAZI’s, the less comparable they become to the Bush Administration and the Republicans.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:07:25 PM)
Alumbrado: Consequences? Consequences like their CD sales going up, while CD sales overall are dropping? And consequences like their summer tour generating similar numbers to Springsteen's? Not quite what happened after one of the singers made that irresponsible remark in front of a crowd. They may have recovered since then, but the fact of the matter is that they took a hit before they recovered. Alumbrado: Yeah, give me some of those 'consequences'. What you mention is not the consequence, the consequence happened before that. Alumbrado: Prior to this comment, I doubt seriously if anyone had ever bought a Dixie Chicks CD based on the impression that they were Bush supporters. No, I would not care if someone was a Bush supporter or not prior to purchasing their CD. They have a right to that dissent. But I also expect them to exercise responsibility and restraint. If they are going to make a comment against the people that I support in a way that offers possible hope to the enemy, I will stop forking cash over for their products and services, and I simply will not listen to their songs or look at their artwork. I would have felt the same way had a Democrat president took us into Iraq. There are other artists that would give me the similar products and services. This is one of the things that I like about customer sovereignty. Alumbrado: Thanks to the gullibility of the masses, they now have free publicity that they couldn't have generated with a dozen press agents, and they are ready to move on into a rock phase...something that even the mighty Garth couldn't pull off without flopping. I wonder, would that description of “gullibility of the masses” extend to the segment of the population that does not support the president for reasons that do not stand up to intellectual scrutiny? Or does that description only cover those that react negatively to the Bush bashers? Just as we have people boycotting her music, we are going to have someone else try to counter that by purchasing more than one CD. But hey, if they want to spend two to three times over what they should be spending, or spend what they otherwise would not have spent, more power to Bush’s economy. Alumbrado: "Pleeeeeze don't throw us Chicks into that briar patch Mister Toby Keith...Pleeeze..." (Hysterical giggles heading off in the direction of the nearest bank). You see, just like this. But that is not going to change the fact that they took a hit immediately after one of them made her irresponsible comment.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:08:26 PM)
peterK50: It's a shame there are "sides". If the media did its job the way it is supposed to do its job, the issue about Bush and the Iraq war would not be a hot point of contention between two sides. The dissenters would be a small voice and a small minority.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:10:13 PM)
LotusSong: 'Tis a pity no one will believe just how bad he is until he is out of office. I practically heard the same thing about Ronald Reagan. But contrary to what his distractors predicted, many now see him as not only one of our greatest presidents, but also as one of the most important world leaders of our times. Many of us see Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents, but many of the people living during his time would beg to differ. Mark my words, once the effects of Bush’s foreign policy take effect, he is going to be seen as one of the greatest presidents that the U.S. had and he is going to be known as one of the most important world leaders. Unlike Clinton, he is going to have a lasting good legacy. LotusSong: "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country, It works the same in every country." - Herman Goering (Hitler's Reichmarschall at the Nuremberg Trials) Pre Revolutionary War. Most of the population either did not want a war, or were opposed to the Patriot’s bid for independence. Take a gander of what the patriots said about those that opposed - or did not care one way or another: http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html LotusSong: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (Quoted in 1918, by REPUBLICAN President Theodore Roosevelt) And that is not what my side of the argument is arguing. We are not saying that you should support the president no, ifs, ands, or buts. There are things that his base does not approve of. Here is what we are saying in that regard: (1) If you don’t like the President’s plan, COME up with a BETTER plan that WORKS. Something practical. (2) If you do voice your dissent, do it in a way that our enemies could not use what you say to their advantage - or to the disadvantage of our troops. Criticizing the president’s plan, but not offering a practical solution in return, is plain asinine. If you have a practical solution, one that matches the reality of what we are dealing with, and this plan is better than what the president is currently doing, he would LOVE to hear from you. Unfortunately, his distractors don’t have a plan. When you criticize the President but don’t offer up a practical solution that beats the one that he is carrying out? You play into the hands of the enemy. When dealing with an enemy that wants to see the end of our own way of life, we could either support the person that is leading the effort to neutralize them, or you could join the terrorists and badmouth him. Our point is that you should not put yourself in a position where you inadvertently work to the enemy’s advantage. LotusSong: And lastly: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and irritates the pig". HMMM, I’ve seen posters from both sides of the argument come back here repeatedly. If you were showing it for the benefit of both sides, I would be with you. 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 -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:11:25 PM)
EnglishDomNW: There isn't a country in the world that doesn't sponsor terrorism. Can you say "The Contras", once heavily sponsored by the US? Or how about NORAID? Cuba? India? Indonesia? Chile? Inductive fallacy. (1) How many of those “terrorist groups” flew airplanes into buildings to kill thousands of people? BIG DIFFERENCE. (2) Why no mentions of the REAL terrorists, the ones that were being engaged by the groups you willingly label as terrorists? For example, the Sandanistas terrorized their own population with the help of the KGB and Cuba. Many of the contras were former members of the Sandanista organization. Oh, and check this out. The Sandanistas could not hold out in a Democratic election. Now, let us look at the areas where we did get involved with. Contras - Today, we have fledgeling democracies. Cuba? In progress. Cuban migrants seem to have plenty to say about how dangerous Castro really is. Chile? Well on their way to becoming one of the best economies in South America. End result? More stable - or in the process of becoming more stable. We are at war with terrorism that has international reach and pose a serious security threat. EnglishDomNW:America (and Britain) sponsors terrorism throughout the world, it just renames those terrorists as "freedom fighters" to cover its arse. Actually, many of those that we labeled as freedom fighters were actually freedom fighters. The Contras are a perfect example. The Sandanista government was the real terrorist organization, and it was being supported by the Soviet Union and by Castro. Result of the Contra’s efforts? Their country not only being a fledgeling democracy, but their being on their way to having a healthy economy. The terrorists in Iraq? They are not freedom fighters, unless you count them as fighting against freedom. Which is precisely what they are doing, they are fighting freedom and trying to prevent it from taking hold. EnglishDomNW: And remind me, how many WMD's did we find in Iraq? You tell me: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html No matter how many ways a biased person will try to twist this, both Sarin and Mustard bas are weapons of mass destruction. They are chemical agents. Both were discovered after the invasion. EnglishDomNW: Because I seem to remember it being "none" and Bush and Blair issuing official apologies for receiving 'poor information'. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that all of my posts were on this one thread. I subsequently tell one of my friends that I have an X + 100 amount of posts on this forum. Between the time I tell him that I have all of these posts and the time that he comes here to verify my claim, the moderators delete this thread. In the process of this thread being deleted, my post counter goes down to zero. My friend sees that I have zero posts, not X + 100 as I originally claimed. Would my X + 100 post claim make me a “liar”? Remember, he can come back and told me that he found no evidence that I made X + 100 posts on this message board. Iraq WMD have either been moved out of the country, or have been buried in a section of Iraq that the inspectors have not checked. Unless we dig up every square inch of Iraqi soil, unless we dig up every square inch of the soil of the surrounding countries as well as Sudan, assuming that he had no WMD in the first place would be completely asinine. If Sadman moved the WMD before 2003, and they were moved from locations that our intel had them at, our intel automatically became wrong the moment he moved his WMD. So, if you can prove that I made no post in the scenario that I gave you - in purple - then you will have an argument on your claim that there were no WMD in Iraq.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:13:03 PM)
Lilmissbossy: Going to jail = everyone in Guantanamo Bay? Question: The detainees in Guantanamo Bay are there because... (A) They were captured on the battle field as they were trying to fight against our troops, were involved with terrorism one way or another and were captured overseas, etc… (B) They were American citizens who disagreed with the Bush Administration while exercising their freedom of speech and expression on U.S. soil… Here is a review for the above pop quiz: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715916 Lilmissbossy: Dying = you shouldn't need to ask. Let me simplify this. How many American citizens are dying in concentration camps on US soil - or elsewhere - as a result of their badmouthing the Administration on U.S. soil?

Alumbrado -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:14:02 PM)
quote: But that is not going to change the fact that they took a hit immediately after one of them made her irresponsible comment. There were those in this thread who claimed that the Chicks' current CD and tour were flopping as a consequence of their remarks. However, you are free to read that into the time frame between their last big hit, and their current release, but the numbers don't support you...no one stays on top forever in that business, and before and after 'the comment', their numbers tracked well within the normal parameters. Landslide was way overdue to drop. Maybe it was all those millions of patriots who never listened to them, didn't like them, and rushed out to buy their old CD so they could burn it. Good thing there are real war heros like Ted Nugent supporting our troops. [sm=boohoo.gif]

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:14:59 PM)
meatcleaver: I think you have blame Blair as well for collusion. Collusion to do the right thing. Blair should be PRAISED for doing what was right at the risk of his public standing. meatcleaver: I think in a similar situation France and Germany would have threatened to remove their diplomatic fig leaf. Actually, if they were not on Sadman’s financial tit, and had they stood to gain a cash cow by going into Iraq, both France and Germany would have been on our side. But since they stood to lose a cash cow, their financial interests trumped our security one when it came to their standing on Iraq. meatcleaver: I think Chirac is right when he says Britain has to decide if its the 51st state of America or part of the EU. The EU is a sinking ship - according to many of its own economic think tanks - unless it adopts U.S. economic practises, like ASAP. I think it would be a good idea for the U.K. to join NAFTA and break away from the E.U. meatcleaver: However, I think you know, NTUY was talking about American citizens. At least that is what I assume. Nothing to assume here, it is plain obvious what he was talking about. He WAS talking about American citizens on American soil.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:16:15 PM)
Lilmissbossy: I can't speak for American citizens but there were certainly British citizens held in the camp, four of which spent three years there without charge or explanation. After failed suicide attempts and a further six months, they were then released without any charge whatsoever. In order to make Bush equitable to Hitler, one of the things that you have to prove is that people that spoke out against Bush on U.S. soil are being placed in concentration camps. This recent response appears to be a red herring attempt to get away from answering a question with an answer - that you know is the obvious answer - that would prove your argument wrong. However, since you want to bring the Brit detainees into question, How many of those Brit Gitmo detainees were arrested on U.S. soil for badmouthing the Administration, or criticizing his policies? One of your articles does give an indication of where they are from - captured on the battlefield.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:17:50 PM)
meatcleaver: You have to blame Blair for that. Blair could have threatened to have pulled British troops out of Iraq if British citizens weren't released. The French and Germans would have done a lot more than Blair to protect their citizens from the lack of justice. On this score I don't blame Bush, the fault is squarely with Blair for being up Bush's arse. No, the blame should land squarely on those detained Brits for being stupid enough to do something they were not supposed to be doing in the first place. You go on a battle field and fire your weapon against the coalition, and you get captured as a result, you suffer the consequences. Like being treated like a terrorist for working alongside the terrorists. I mean, common, you are caught fighting alongside terrorists, you’d have to notice that they were terrorists and decide not to work with them! But no, these guys were caught fighting alongside the terrorists. Their stupidity is not worth Blair’s threatening to pull his troops out of Iraq. Had the situation been reversed, and we had a couple of knucklehead Americans sitting in a UK detention center for doing something stupid, like fighting against the U.K. forces while fighting alongside terrorists, I would not advocate pulling all stops on a program beneficial to the U.K. to extricate these clowns from suffering the consequences of their stupidity.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:19:13 PM)
meatcleaver: Since four of them are now walking around free in Britain and have been exonerated of any wrong doing and declared has having done absolutely nothing to justity their incarceration by the Blair government of all institutions, one has to question why they were locked up for so long in the first place. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3545709.stm quote: 26 January - Martin Mubanga, now 32, Feroz Abbasi, 24, Richard Belmar, 25, and Moazzam Begg, 36, are freed without charge after police questioning at London's Paddington Green Police station. They are reunited with their families. A US official says Britain has undertaken to monitor the four. They were questions, and freed by the U.S. system. They were turned over to the U.K., then this happens to them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3545709.stm quote: 25 January - The Pentagon confirms it has transferred four British detainees into UK custody. They arrive back at RAF Northolt and are immediately arrested under the Terrorism Act. They were questioned then released. But they are still being monitored. Happens at times when you are found either fighting alongside terrorists or get caught as a result of being involved with terrorist related activity. Keep in mind that there were people who were questioned, then released from Guantanamo Bay who ended up back on the battle field. Better safe to keep them locked up where they can’t do any harm than be sorry.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:21:03 PM)
LotusSong: Actually, I'm really sad today. With Israel and Lebanon having at it.. and the Shiites and Sunnis battling each other.. I think America should be insulted.. I mean, there we are to bless them with democracy and here we are.. just having to watch them ignore us while they kill each other off! And democracy is marching forward in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Lebanon has just recently - in relative terms - been running itself. Their army is not strong enough to clear out Hezbolla. As the Israeli ambassador said in response the drivel given by the Syrian ambassador, something similar to this… “You know that if we succeed in doing what we are doing in Lebanon, the Lebanese government will be the beneficiaries!” When the dust settles, the Lebanese would be able to take control of their own territory. The Israelis are breaking the back of that one major obstacle to Lebanon truly recovering. Things were not so honky dory in Europe either as they were going through their reconstruction.

herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:23:06 PM)
Lilmissbossy: What's "too funny" is that you didn't take the time to read what was posted and instead threw out some weird, kneejerk "They're Al Qaeda!" statement. Does not matter. They were captured in the battle field fighting alongside terrorists. Lilmissbossy: I'll point it out again for you popeye, please digest. The men were kept in a prison camp for 3 years. They were released without any charge whatsoever. They were released, just to be arrested in the U.K, where they were subsequently released. They are currently being monitored. I mean, being released does not speak much when they are being monitored still. Lilmissbossy: Or, if you really want to exercise your lack of thinking, ask yourself why you called these men "Al Qaeda". And then get your lawyer to provide evidence that supports your accusation Doesn’t matter. Your links indicate that they were captured in Afghanistan - meaning - they were trying to fight our forces but subsequently got captured. At the time of the capture, there was no way of telling if they were just there for the fight, or if they were part of a larger group with long term plans. Keep in mind that some people were released under the similar conditions that these guys were released - just to wind up back in the battle field.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:30:30 PM)
Well, I doubt little will be resolved regarding this issue, but one thing has been resolved. You can type the fuck out that keyboard. Jesus!

juliaoceania -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Well, I doubt little will be resolved regarding this issue, but one thing has been resolved. You can type the fuck out that keyboard. Jesus! I have never seen anything quite like it, I do not know whether to admire their stick-to-it-ness or to block their ramblings...smiles

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 9:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Well, I doubt little will be resolved regarding this issue, but one thing has been resolved. You can type the fuck out that keyboard. Jesus! I have never seen anything quite like it, I do not know whether to admire their stick-to-it-ness or to block their ramblings...smiles He made some points I was just to lazy to write myself(didn't feel like getting into a 10 page argument). I don't agree with everything stated, but I wouldn't call it ramblings. It made as much sense as the rest of the thread.

juliaoceania -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 10:00:17 PM)
It is rambling to me... whether I agreed with it or not...I wouldn't value anything I had to say for that many posts, much less what someone else says. Although I have to admire the fortitude that goes into all that typing.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875