Dixie Chicks commit Unpardonable Sin! :evil2:

Over the weekend, the Dixie Chicks had the *gall* to criticize President Bush. Don't they know a lynch mob will crucify them on the alter of public opinion, led by the nefarious moral majority of Fox News and other pro-war outlets? Damn those Hollywood Liberals, damn them!

This actually provides me with an oppertunity to raise a very serious point: Does dissent equal treason? Is it unpatriotic for Martin Sheen to say he's against the war (I mean, for Christ's sakes he plays a Pres on TV, he shouldn't have an opinion on the issues?)? Something that has angered me almost as much as the rampant "war fever" that is being directed against Saddam (he's a bad bad man, but he's not Bin Laden)is the assumption by a lot of people that if you come out against the war or President Bush in particular, you are somehow "un-American".

Give me a fucking break! This country was founded on debate of national issues like this, ones that have ramifications far beyond what we percieve at this point. War is NEVER something to be entered into lightly, and debate over the correct course of action is essential.

Of course, it seems that those on the right have been quick to denounce anyone who says the war is wrong as a "left-wing nut" and "an unpatriotic American". Pardon me for saying so, but the last time I checked we had a little thing called FREE SPEECH! You can say whatever you want for the most part, you cannot be silenced for the most part, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you, 'cause they'll get their chance to rebuff you when their turn comes. Free Speech is extremely important if we're to have a democratic society).

Now, were someone to advocate some sort of anti-war speech that went beyond the realm of speech and passive resistance into more violent means (such as plots to overthrow the gov't) then I would be all for putting them away til hostilities cease, because "loose lips sink ships". But when some pampered celebrity says "I hate Bush" or something like that, DON'T CALL THEM TRAITORS! The last time I checked, Jessica Lange was not feeding information to al Qaeda, Martin Sheen was not going around blowing up bridges for the Iraqis, and Sean Penn wasn't planting bombs in the White House garden. They and others who've come out against the war were just maing their voices heard. you might not agree with them, but that's no justification to call them "un-American"

Well, I hate the Chicks' music (the lead singer sounds like everyone's tone-deaf aunt who used to get drunk at reunions) but I don't think they or other entertainers need to be vilified because they happen to disagree with Dubya. To all the conservative bashers of anything anti-War: Go read the Constitution sometime, you remember that, right? It was being used as the doormat for John Ashcroft's Justice Department the last time I checked.

(sorry for the long rambling post, I'm just sick of the hawks in this country trying to divide us)

bravo, taboo! when george bush said, 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists' did he mean that if you don't support war then you must be funneling money to some cave in the hindu kush?

even worse, this past week he said, 'crucial days lie ahead for the free nations of the world. governments are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are words alone--or convictions they're prepared to act upon.' way to make friends, dubya. imply that governments which don't like things done your way, through might, must not really believe in things like liberty and international security. not surprising, though, from someone who has never had to do anything for himself in his entire life and has always gotten his way without having to work for it or compromise with others. his rhetoric is getting out of control--someone needs to reign him in before the international community decides that he needs to be removed by force, not saddam hussein. dad?

Originally posted by Spotnick Actually, free speach is not an act of treason...Refusing to go to war would be altough..I'm curious, is the Democrats actually FOR that war? We never hear about any opposition from inside the US...

refusing to go to war wouldn't be an act of treason, or illegal at all, unless you were in the armed forces, because we don't have the draft.

as for opposition in the US, the country is about evenly divided at the moment. i think most people have no idea what the hell is going on. and the democrats...some are for, some against.

Texas is with the Bushes.

I'm not for the war, but I couldn't care less about Texas or the 2 dixie chicks and that bloated whale {singer.}

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Over the weekend, the Dixie Chicks had the *gall* to criticize President Bush. Don't they know a lynch mob will crucify them on the alter of public opinion, led by the nefarious moral majority of Fox News and other pro-war outlets? Damn those Hollywood Liberals, damn them!This actually provides me with an oppertunity to raise a very serious point: Does dissent equal treason? Is it unpatriotic for Martin Sheen to say he's against the war (I mean, for Christ's sakes he plays a Pres on TV, he shouldn't have an opinion on the issues?)? Something that has angered me almost as much as the rampant "war fever" that is being directed against Saddam (he's a bad bad man, but he's not Bin Laden)is the assumption by a lot of people that if you come out against the war or President Bush in particular, you are somehow "un-American".Give me a fucking break! This country was founded on debate of national issues like this, ones that have ramifications far beyond what we percieve at this point. War is NEVER something to be entered into lightly, and debate over the correct course of action is essential.Of course, it seems that those on the right have been quick to denounce anyone who says the war is wrong as a "left-wing nut" and "an unpatriotic American". Pardon me for saying so, but the last time I checked we had a little thing called FREE SPEECH! You can say whatever you want for the most part, you cannot be silenced for the most part, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you, 'cause they'll get their chance to rebuff you when their turn comes. Free Speech is extremely important if we're to have a democratic society).Now, were someone to advocate some sort of anti-war speech that went beyond the realm of speech and passive resistance into more violent means (such as plots to overthrow the gov't) then I would be all for putting them away til hostilities cease, because "loose lips sink ships". But when some pampered celebrity says "I hate Bush" or something like that, DON'T CALL THEM TRAITORS! The last time I checked, Jessica Lange was not feeding information to al Qaeda, Martin Sheen was not going around blowing up bridges for the Iraqis, and Sean Penn wasn't planting bombs in the White House garden. They and others who've come out against the war were just maing their voices heard. you might not agree with them, but that's no justification to call them "un-American"Well, I hate the Chicks' music (the lead singer sounds like everyone's tone-deaf aunt who used to get drunk at reunions) but I don't think they or other entertainers need to be vilified because they happen to disagree with Dubya. To all the conservative bashers of anything anti-War: Go read the Constitution sometime, you remember that, right? It was being used as the doormat for John Ashcroft's Justice Department the last time I checked.(sorry for the long rambling post, I'm just sick of the hawks in this country trying to divide us)

Natalie Maines greatest mistake was forgetting who her core audience is/ was.

I think it's VERY ironic that the anti-war Leftists feel so put upon for having free speech shoved right back in their own faces.

IMHO, the problem that many people have with a majority of the protests is the source of financial and organizational backing. When you have obvious anti-American Marxist/Stalinist groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and any number of anit-Semitic groups being the main voices heard at these rallies, you are going to get accusations of being subversive and unpatriotic.

In addition, the venomous HATE that is displayed at these protests toward our country and president has been astounding. Also, it's disturbing to have never seen an anti-Saddam sign or an Iraqi flag burned. Why do think that is?

Originally posted by AgentWood not surprising, though, from someone who has never had to do anything for himself in his entire life and has always gotten his way without having to work for it or compromise with others. his rhetoric is getting out of control--someone needs to reign him in before the international community decides that he needs to be removed by force, not saddam hussein. dad?

I'll give you a pass on your ignorance of the governance of the State of Texas under GWB. His legacy is one of consensus building and comprimise.

As far as the "international community" deciding that GWB needs to be removed by force, I'll chalk that up to attempted humor on your part. Russia and China have the means and "might" even have the golf balls to try. I KNOW you were not talking about France or Germany......goodness gracious, that can't even defend themselves. Next years INCREASE in our defense budget is more than their annual budgets combined. And, if we're speaking economically, THEY need US a hell of a lot more than WE need THEM.

The real humor is going to be after the war when France's TOTAL/ELF/Fina and Russia's LUK oil companies are left standing in the cold, wondering where their next 30 billion dollars a year is going to come from.

The people of Iraq are currently governed by a dictatotor who has flouted international law, used militry force against the people of Iraq and ignored democracy to maintain his position. What exactly is Bush proposing to change?

"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense."

Why should we wait until we are attacked again, like 911.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> Over the weekend, the Dixie Chicks had the *gall* to criticize President Bush. Don't they know a lynch mob will crucify them on the alter of public opinion, led by the nefarious moral majority of Fox News and other pro-war outlets? Damn those Hollywood Liberals, damn them!> > > This actually provides me with an oppertunity to raise a very serious point: Does dissent equal treason? Is it unpatriotic for Martin Sheen to say he's against the war (I mean, for Christ's sakes he plays a Pres on TV, he shouldn't have an opinion on the issues?)? Something that has angered me almost as much as the rampant "war fever" that is being directed against Saddam (he's a bad bad man, but he's not Bin Laden)is the assumption by a lot of people that if you come out against the war or President Bush in particular, you are somehow "un-American".> > Give me a fucking break! This country was founded on debate of national issues like this, ones that have ramifications far beyond what we percieve at this point. War is NEVER something to be entered into lightly, and debate over the correct course of action is essential.> > Of course, it seems that those on the right have been quick to denounce anyone who says the war is wrong as a "left-wing nut" and "an unpatriotic American". Pardon me for saying so, but the last time I checked we had a little thing called FREE SPEECH! You can say whatever you want for the most part, you cannot be silenced for the most part, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you, 'cause they'll get their chance to rebuff you when their turn comes. Free Speech is extremely important if we're to have a democratic society).> > Now, were someone to advocate some sort of anti-war speech that went beyond the realm of speech and passive resistance into more violent means (such as plots to overthrow the gov't) then I would be all for putting them away til hostilities cease, because "loose lips sink ships". But when some pampered celebrity says "I hate Bush" or something like that, DON'T CALL THEM TRAITORS! The last time I checked, Jessica Lange was not feeding information to al Qaeda, Martin Sheen was not going around blowing up bridges for the Iraqis, and Sean Penn wasn't planting bombs in the White House garden. They and others who've come out against the war were just maing their voices heard. you might not agree with them, but that's no justification to call them "un-American"> > Well, I hate the Chicks' music (the lead singer sounds like everyone's tone-deaf aunt who used to get drunk at reunions) but I don't think they or other entertainers need to be vilified because they happen to disagree with Dubya. To all the conservative bashers of anything anti-War: Go read the Constitution sometime, you remember that, right? It was being used as the doormat for John Ashcroft's Justice Department the last time I checked.> > (sorry for the long rambling post, I'm just sick of the hawks in this country trying to divide us)

Natalie Maines greatest mistake was forgetting who her core audience is/ was.

I think it's VERY ironic that the anti-war Leftists feel so put upon for having free speech shoved right back in their own faces.

IMHO, the problem that many people have with a majority of the protests is the source of financial and organizational backing. When you have obvious anti-American Marxist/Stalinist groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and any number of anit-Semitic groups being the main voices heard at these rallies, you are going to get accusations of being subversive and unpatriotic.

In addition, the venomous HATE that is displayed at these protests toward our country and president has been astounding. Also, it's disturbing to have never seen an anti-Saddam sign or an Iraqi flag burned. Why do think that is?

Agreed, some of the protestors are alarmingly naive about Saddam, or else they are died-in-the-wool partisans with an ax to grind. But their associations with the more disagreeable elements of society does not negate their message.

Saddam is a murderer, he needs to be taken out, but my problem is that we're using 9/11 as a justification for going in, or at least as an excuse to do so. What about Bin Laden? Have we forgotten about him? I would say al Qaeda is a worse threat, yet all our military muscle is being trained on Saddam.

There was a very interesting episode of "Frontline" on PBS a month ago outlining a secret plan for getting rid of Saddam years before 9/11, and some of the signatories of that document have since become part of Bush's cabinet (Donald Rumsfeld springs to mind immediately, he signed it). This was proposed as a way of asserting America's "supremacy" in the new century.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by AgentWood> not surprising, though, from someone who has never had to do anything for himself in his entire life and has always gotten his way without having to work for it or compromise with others. his rhetoric is getting out of control--someone needs to reign him in before the international community decides that he needs to be removed by force, not saddam hussein. dad?

I'll give you a pass on your ignorance of the governance of the State of Texas under GWB. His legacy is one of consensus building and comprimise.

great, he left a legacy of compromise in texas, but considering that his international/cross-cultural experience consisted of one trip to mexico before he became president doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence in his understanding of international cultures. he didn't even know that there were black people in brazil--when he was in brazil! condi rice had to tell him! compromising with someone from plano and compromising with someone from azerbaijan, well, you can't expect your name alone to get yourself very far with the latter. yes, he has advisors, but the president needs to be educated in these matters, as well. remember, if JFK had listened to his advisors in 1962, there would probably have been a nuclear war. fortunately he was more attuned to the russian mind and gave khruschev a ring before invading cuba.

who are dixie chicks?

I almost considered going out and buying a Dixie Chicks cd after this, especially with the news about the chain of radio stations refusing to play it (so much for free speech under capitalism - see also Rupert Murdoch). Obviously I wouldn't have actually _listened_ to the thing. But then I heard their grovelling apology and changed my mind.

Originally posted by 404 error I almost considered going out and buying a Dixie Chicks cd after this, especially with the news about the chain of radio stations refusing to play it (so much for free speech under capitalism - see also Rupert Murdoch). Obviously I wouldn't have actually _listened_ to the thing.But then I heard their grovelling apology and changed my mind.

Yep, I wouldn't have gone that far (do they need the money?). Kind of reminds me (well, doesn't ACTUALLY remind me, as I wasn't alive at the time) of John Lennon's whole "bigger than Jesus" claim (hilariously sent up in Ron Nasty's "bigger than Rod (Stewart)" comment in the "Rutles"). What's funny is they probably sold more cds just so that people could burn them or run over them!

Originally posted by Major Tarantino who are dixie chicks?

Exactly!

Originally posted by Jarod Smith > Originally posted by Major Tarantino who are dixie chicks?

Exactly!

Not missing out on much, luckily.