The DIXIE CHICKS

[Ringo84]

This will probably elicit some pretty heated exchanges, but I'm going to go ahead and express my opinion that the Dixie Chicks have been getting a bum deal ever since Natalie Maines' controversial comments.

To say that the Dixie Chicks don't have the freedom of speech simply because that speech is different from yours is garbage. Freedom means nothing when it's unidirectional - it applies only to one group of people.

I'm really sorry that FreeRepublic.com and Sean Hannity and other extremists don't like the Dixie Chicks' comments. But too bad; such is life in a democracy such as ours. The outrage over these women's comments, however, as well as the record burning and country station bannings, is childish. Part of the maturation process involves dealing with people who have different opinions than one's own. If FreeRepublic.com and Sean Hannity and the rest of them don't like the fact that the Dixie Chicks have the freedom of speech, I recommend that they move to France.

To say that the Dixie Chicks have committed treason is equally ludicrous. I would submit that those who say that the President is above reproach or question simply because we're at war are the true traitors - not a country/rock group that had that "audacity" to express an opinion.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're at war. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to be conveniently fogotten during wartime; it either applies all the time or not at all.

Is this President so important that he deserves such defense? What's more important to these people: freedom or an incompetent President? If the latter is their answer, I'd seriously recommend that the anti-Dixie Chick fools reexamine their priorities.

These women have nothing to be ashamed of. The only people that should be ashamed are the people who have gone to such lengths to ban the Dixie Chicks since Maines' comments.
Ringo

 

[markbelieves]

Who says that they don't have freedom of speech? They clearly do. But those that oppose her statements are also exercising their right to free speech. Why is it wrong for those that oppose her opinion to say so? You mention Hannity...I'm pretty sure he is also protested when he makes appearences by those that oppose his opinions. That too is free speech.
One can not expect to make statements that run counter to almost their entire fan base and expect that there will be no impact.

 

[Ringo84]

Who says that they don't have freedom of speech? They clearly do. But those that oppose her statements are also exercising their right to free speech. Why is it wrong for those that oppose her opinion to say so? You mention Hannity...I'm pretty sure he is also protested when he makes appearences by those that oppose his opinions. That too is free speech.
One can not expect to make statements that run counter to almost their entire fan base and expect that there will be no impact.

That's true, but many of the stuff aimed at the Chicks goes beyond free speech. Censorship on country stations? Listen, if country can't handle a group that goes against the grain, then the country establishment has the problem - not the Dixie Chicks. Calling the Chicks "traitors" also goes beyond the fray. Not only is that accusation not supported by fact, but it's a serious charge to level against people.
Ringo

 

[markbelieves]

That's true, but many of the stuff aimed at the Chicks goes beyond free speech. Censorship on country stations? Listen, if country can't handle a group that goes against the grain, then the country establishment has the problem - not the Dixie Chicks. Calling the Chicks "traitors" also goes beyond the fray. Not only is that accusation not supported by fact, but it's a serious charge to level against people.
Ringo

No one that matters has called them "traitors." It is a serious charge if it has been presented as a charge, but it has not.

Country stations obviously have the right to play what they want. If they feel that their ratings are going to be impacted by playing their music then they can choose not to play it. That also falls in the realm of free speech. And, if just because the owner says not to play them because he does not like them, that to is his choice. He makes that choice knowing that it may have an either positive or negative impact on his listenership.
The Dixie Chicks can not expect to voice an opinion on something so divisive in this country and not get backlash. Free speech for all involved.
Is it censorship when their concerts used to sell out and now in many areas they can't even halfway fill the venue?

 

[Ringo84]

No one that matters has called them "traitors." It is a serious charge if it has been presented as a charge, but it has not.

Country stations obviously have the right to play what they want. If they feel that their ratings are going to be impacted by playing their music then they can choose not to play it. That also falls in the realm of free speech. And, if just because the owner says not to play them because he does not like them, that to is his choice. He makes that choice knowing that it may have an either positive or negative impact on his listenership.
The Dixie Chicks can not expect to voice an opinion on something so divisive in this country and not get backlash. Free speech for all involved.
Is it censorship when their concerts used to sell out and now in many areas they can't even halfway fill the venue?

No one that matters has called them "traitors." It is a serious charge if it has been presented as a charge, but it has not.

Doesn't matter. They've still been called "traitors" for expressing an opinion!

Country stations obviously have the right to play what they want. If they feel that their ratings are going to be impacted by playing their music then they can choose not to play it. That also falls in the realm of free speech. And, if just because the owner says not to play them because he does not like them, that to is his choice. He makes that choice knowing that it may have an either positive or negative impact on his listenership.
The Dixie Chicks can not expect to voice an opinion on something so divisive in this country and not get backlash. Free speech for all involved.
Is it censorship when their concerts used to sell out and now in many areas they can't even halfway fill the venue?

Sounds like censorship to me. "They expressed an opinion that goes against the grain. We're not going to play their music anymore!"
Ringo

 

[churchrat]

Doesn't matter. They've still been called "traitors" for expressing an opinion!

I would submit that those who say that the President is above reproach or question simply because we're at war are the true traitors...

To sum up these two quotes, you object to one group being called traitors for expressing an opinion, but don't hesitate to use that same label for those who express an opinion that YOU oppose.

Sounds like censorship to me. "They expressed an opinion that goes against the grain. We're not going to play their music anymore!"

Companies tend to be more practical than that. It was probably more like, "Our listeners don't want to hear the Dixie Chicks! We don't want to lose money, so we're not going to play their music anymore!"

 

[Ringo84]

To sum up these two quotes, you object to one group being called traitors for expressing an opinion, but don't hesitate to use that same label for those who express an opinion that YOU oppose.Companies tend to be more practical than that. It was probably more like, "Our listeners don't want to hear the Dixie Chicks! We don't want to lose money, so we're not going to play their music anymore!"

To sum up these two quotes, you object to one group being called traitors for expressing an opinion, but don't hesitate to use that same label for those who express an opinion that YOU oppose.

Hmmm.... You're right. I think you got me there. To clarify, though, I wasn't calling anti-Dixie Chick folks traitors but rather calling the philosophy that the President is not to be questioned traitorous.

Companies tend to be more practical than that. It was probably more like, "Our listeners don't want to hear the Dixie Chicks! We don't want to lose money, so we're not going to play their music anymore!"

That makes sense. My beef is mostly against the way in which the Chicks' comments were received - it was just more of the "either with us or against us" BS. I don't really care if people have a problem with the Dixie Chicks. Just don't try to say that they don't have freedom of speech, etc. You know what I'm saying?

That's not directed at you. I'm just trying to clarify my position. I just think that the outrage over their comments, as well as the CD burnings, are over the top.
Ringo

 

[churchrat]

That's not directed at you. I'm just trying to clarify my position. I just think that the outrage over their comments, as well as the CD burnings, are over the top.

Indeed. My own reaction to this kind of thing is that an enternainer should expect consequences to their speech. Specifically, if they're going to use their celebrity as a platform, that people who don't want to hear their message are not going to want to continue to fund that soapbox by purchasing that entertainer's product.

Entertainment in general is pretty 'liberal' anyway, and the reprecussions are minor. Country music, though, is a beast unto itself, and the chicks should've expected backlash on some level, though maybe not as extreme as what they got. Organized, anti-chick stuff like CD burning, is just going way too far. There are more productive ways to express your political enthusiasm.

 

[Cooch]

"Freedom of Speech", includes the right to not broadcast something which you find offensive.

"Frredom od Speech" does not include the right to have your opinion broadcast by those who disagree with it.

"Fredom of Speech" does not include the right to force others to listen to you.

Dash Cham,,,,,,,,, Peter

 

[artybloke]

Personally, I think the Dixie Chicks ought to get a medal for standing up that warmongering illegally elected little twerp you call a President and all his profitering cronies.

Oh, and while you're at it, take your MacDonald's back, they're crap.

 

[Cooch]

Personally, I think the Dixie Chicks ought to get a medal for standing up that warmongering illegally elected little twerp you call a President and all his profitering cronies.

Oh, and while you're at it, take your MacDonald's back, they're crap.

Oh Please.

Medals are for acts of courage....

It takes some courage to dissent in places like Saddam's Iraq or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, but in America?

I think your perspective needs adjusting.

Please consider......... Peter

 

[artybloke]

It takes courage does it to invade a country in order to steal its oil? And here's me thinking it took a criminal mind.

 

[soblessed53]

To sum up these two quotes, you object to one group being called traitors for expressing an opinion, but don't hesitate to use that same label for those who express an opinion that YOU oppose.Companies tend to be more practical than that. It was probably more like, "Our listeners don't want to hear the Dixie Chicks! We don't want to lose money, so we're not going to play their music anymore!"

Who says that they don't have freedom of speech? They clearly do. But those that oppose her statements are also exercising their right to free speech. Why is it wrong for those that oppose her opinion to say so? You mention Hannity...I'm pretty sure he is also protested when he makes appearences by those that oppose his opinions. That too is free speech.
One can not expect to make statements that run counter to almost their entire fan base and expect that there will be no impact.

No one that matters has called them "traitors." It is a serious charge if it has been presented as a charge, but it has not.

Country stations obviously have the right to play what they want. If they feel that their ratings are going to be impacted by playing their music then they can choose not to play it. That also falls in the realm of free speech. And, if just because the owner says not to play them because he does not like them, that to is his choice. He makes that choice knowing that it may have an either positive or negative impact on his listenership.
The Dixie Chicks can not expect to voice an opinion on something so divisive in this country and not get backlash. Free speech for all involved.
Is it censorship when their concerts used to sell out and now in many areas they can't even halfway fill the venue?

Indeed. My own reaction to this kind of thing is that an enternainer should expect consequences to their speech. Specifically, if they're going to use their celebrity as a platform, that people who don't want to hear their message are not going to want to continue to fund that soapbox by purchasing that entertainer's product.

Entertainment in general is pretty 'liberal' anyway, and the reprecussions are minor. Country music, though, is a beast unto itself, and the chicks should've expected backlash on some level, though maybe not as extreme as what they got. Organized, anti-chick stuff like CD burning, is just going way too far. There are more productive ways to express your political enthusiasm.

 

[LionandLambMinistry]

Look, this discussion is so juvenile. The chicks said what they said. Well wait, Natalie is the one that shot her mouth off, the other two were just as shocked as we were. Natalie has her right to say what she wants. But I also have the right to be aghast at her comment, not buy any more CD's, stop listening to the station playing their music and so on. Those are MY rights. If the chicks don't like it well that's life.

The radio stations banning their music, well that's just business. Why should I be FORCED to like the chics and buy their CD's, and listen to the station playing their music?
​

 

[Ringo84]

The chicks said what they said. Well wait, Natalie is the one that shot her mouth off, the other two were just as shocked as we were. Natalie has her right to say what she wants. But I also have the right to be aghast at her comment, not buy any more CD's, stop listening to the station playing their music and so on. Those are MY rights. If the chicks don't like it well that's life. Why should I be FORCED to like the chics and buy their CD's, and listen to the station playing their music?

I agree. Nobody denied that.

Look, this discussion is so juvenile.

You know what else is juvenile? Burning CDs of artists who were merely expressing an opinion. Calling them traitors also. I'm not saying that you agree with that viewpoint. I'm just making a point.
Ringo

 

[carrymeaway06]

Calling them traitors also. I'm not saying that you agree with that viewpoint. I'm just making a point.
Ringo
[/size]

You're not a traitor until you are a US citizen traveling to a foreign country bashing the US from said foreign country. Not even just bush, but the US.

 

[thenewageriseth]

This will probably elicit some pretty heated exchanges, but I'm going to go ahead and express my opinion that the Dixie Chicks have been getting a bum deal ever since Natalie Maines' controversial comments.

To say that the Dixie Chicks don't have the freedom of speech simply because that speech is different from yours is garbage. Freedom means nothing when it's unidirectional - it applies only to one group of people.

I'm really sorry that FreeRepublic.com and Sean Hannity and other extremists don't like the Dixie Chicks' comments. But too bad; such is life in a democracy such as ours. The outrage over these women's comments, however, as well as the record burning and country station bannings, is childish. Part of the maturation process involves dealing with people who have different opinions than one's own. If FreeRepublic.com and Sean Hannity and the rest of them don't like the fact that the Dixie Chicks have the freedom of speech, I recommend that they move to France.

To say that the Dixie Chicks have committed treason is equally ludicrous. I would submit that those who say that the President is above reproach or question simply because we're at war are the true traitors - not a country/rock group that had that "audacity" to express an opinion.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're at war. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to be conveniently fogotten during wartime; it either applies all the time or not at all.

Is this President so important that he deserves such defense? What's more important to these people: freedom or an incompetent President? If the latter is their answer, I'd seriously recommend that the anti-Dixie Chick fools reexamine their priorities.

These women have nothing to be ashamed of. The only people that should be ashamed are the people who have gone to such lengths to ban the Dixie Chicks since Maines' comments.
Ringo

Right I agree with you AND the Dixie Chicks.
Bush is a dumb-a** airhead. Know dat. Take that to da bank and put it in y'all's pipes and smoke that [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]!

 

[Ringo84]

You're not a traitor until you are a US citizen traveling to a foreign country bashing the US from said foreign country. Not even just bush, but the US.

That's not treason. Treason is doing something like selling nuclear secrets to other countries. Bashing an incompetent leader isn't even close.
Ringo

 

[carrymeaway06]

That's not treason. Treason is doing something like selling nuclear secrets to other countries. Bashing an incompetent leader isn't even close.
Ringo

Read my post nex time. Turning your back on your home IS treason http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

ie: a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

 

[Cooch]

It takes courage does it to invade a country in order to steal its oil? And here's me thinking it took a criminal mind.

It takes a certain amount of honesty to admit that no oil has been stolen.

Perhaps, upon consideration, you might care to rephrase your remark in the light of Jude 1:9

But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation,

If Michael himself did would not abuse Satan, who are you to do so? Not to mention proclaiming speculation as fact? I pray that you receive more charity from God, than you have shown towards a fellow believer in this matter.

Respectfully yours............ Peter