New Dixe Chicks Doc., & Why doesn't Yahoo news just put up a real-time counter?

[PaceAdvantage]

I mean, seriously....every freakin' time I open the Yahoo home page, there is a story about how many soldiers have died in Iraq this month....as a matter of fact, it's the FOURTH deadliest month since the war began in 2003. FOURTH....not third, not second, not FIRST, but FOURTH deadliest....and this deserves TOP LINE HEADLINE coverage almost EVERY DAY this week?

Yeah, whatever....

And oh yeah....you know what else was a headline this morning? The fact that NBC didn't want to run an ad about the new DIXIE CHICKS documentary. You heard right. They made a freakin' documentary about the freakin' DIXIE CHICKS and all the "blacklisting" they went through after one of them opened their mouths and talked instead of doing what the title of the film suggests --> "SHUT UP AND SING"

Blacklisted by whom you might ask? The Dixie Chicks are revered as national heroes in Hollywood, so I can't understand where this blacklisting is coming from....oh yeah, that's right...the south, where a bunch of southern radio stations refused to air their music....plus they had to cancel a bunch of tour dates in the south....and you know damn well nobody much gives a damn about them up north.....

Bravo to the south I say....and tough shit on the Dixie Chicks.

It's unreal that these guys want to deny NBC the right to show what they want on their network. They are calling this CENSORSHIP? Censorship my ass. NBC has the right to show whatever it wants, or doesn't want, on its network as long as it falls into the "decency" rules put forth by the FCC.

Show some class Mr. Harvey Weinstein. All these disparaging public remarks about the President are costing this nation a piece of its soul each and every time. I'm all for dissent and questioning the government, but this POLITICAL BULLSHIT is so far out there, it's laughable. THE DIXIE CHICKS? YOU MADE A FREAKIN' DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE DIXIE CHICKS? I suppose this is a "lost wages" payback to the 'Chicks for having the "courage" to stand in your corner of the political spectrum, Mr. Harvey W...

The funny thing is, when Mr. Chavez from Venezuela came here and called Bush "The Devil," everyone stood TOGETHER and told Chavez to SHUT THE F UP. Apparently though, it's OK if WE (and we meaning American Democrats) do it EVERY SINGLE DAY in the press and now on the SILVER SCREEN, right before an important election.

I wonder if Mr. Harvey Weinstein would rally around the "censorship" flag if, let's say, some neo-nazi group wanted to run an ad on NBC about a documentary whose title was "The Holocaust Was A Big Fat Lie"

My money is on the fact that in that instance, ol' Harvey W. would simply

"Shut Up and Produce"

[ljb]

PA,
I am confused. Your response to the number of war dead is... Yeah, whatever?
Seems somewhat calloused for you.
And as for the Dixie Chicks, do you want the show to air or not ?

[Overlay]

PA,
I am confused. Your response to the number of war dead is... Yeah, whatever?
Seems somewhat calloused for you.

Of course, the death of any soldier is a tragedy for the family and friends of the individual, and should not be taken lightly. But I wonder what would have happened in a situation like World War II with the kind of casualties we sustained there (to which those in Iraq pale by comparison) if there had been the kind of daily itemized casualty count updates we are seeing in Iraq. A large part of it is the capability that exists today for instant around-the-globe dissemination of that type of information. But it seems like the outlets that continually provide real-time updates on this information are also sending an implied message each time that asks, "How much longer is this going to go on?" In prior wars, the answer was, "Until victory is won." I believe the members of our armed forces are aware of that risk and accept it voluntarily. (After all, there hasn't been a draft in thirty years.) But I sometimes wonder whether we as a people any longer have the resolve to view any cause as worth sustaining significant casualties for.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA,
I am confused. Your response to the number of war dead is... Yeah, whatever?

Yeah, that's what I was going for LJB. Excellent deduction. :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

dcoumentary so what? don't see it. Folks who get in a uproar about something NEVER see it to have an objective opinion anyway.

[GameTheory]

dcoumentary so what? don't see it. Folks who get in a uproar about something NEVER see it to have an objective opinion anyway.
Seeing something doesn't give one an objective opinion if one already is predisposed to see something a certain way. It usually just strengthens the exisiting opinion. If only it were so simple...

[46zilzal]

ah yes incestuous amplification. that of course only happens with the completely closed minded.

[GaryG]

If the Dixie Chicks performed in this area they would need police protection.....at least! They are strictly Hollyweird at this point.

[GameTheory]

ah yes incentuous amplification. that of course only happens with the completely closed minded.Which includes just about everybody, including you & me, at least about certain topics. You never realize your own close-mindedness, but it is there. The more research I do into cognitive science and how we understand and frame concepts, etc, it is apparent that we are biologically designed to be "close-minded", for lack of a better term. There really is no hope that humanity will suddenly become reasonable someday. If you believe in evolution, I know you do, you have to realize we are the FIRST animal with reason at all, and just a thin layer of it on top of our mammalian and lizard brains. So look at all the war and stupidity in our human past, and that's just what you are going to find in the future until we evolve a few more steps...

[46zilzal]

war is stupid. no argument there

[46zilzal]

If the Dixie Chicks performed in this area they would need police protection.....at least! They are strictly Hollyweird at this point.
ah yes the answer to ANYONE, even a group of women who only SING and are harmless, is violence

[Dan Montilion]

SING might be a bit of a stretch.

[GameTheory]

war is stupid. no argument thereAhh...your closed mind at work. I didn't say war is stupid. And you won't consider the idea that sometimes it might be a good idea -- a closed mind position you are no doubt proud of. So it isn't closed minds you are against -- it is just ideas that disagree with yours -- the same as everyone else...

[Tom]

:lol::lol::lol:

[46zilzal]

SING might be a bit of a stretch.
we all sing. Few of us get paid for it however.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Yahoo! was started by SF bay area geeks- what do you expect?
Dixie Chicks tried to take their name pop- pop audiences did not eat up an anti-war country group named DIXIE Chicks going pop.

[Secretariat]

And oh yeah....you know what else was a headline this morning? The fact that NBC didn't want to run an ad about the new DIXIE CHICKS documentary. You heard right. They made a freakin' documentary about the freakin' DIXIE CHICKS and all the "blacklisting" they went through after one of them opened their mouths and talked instead of doing what the title of the film suggests --> "SHUT UP AND SING"

It's unreal that these guys want to deny NBC the right to show what they want on their network. They are calling this CENSORSHIP? Censorship my ass. NBC has the right to show whatever it wants, or doesn't want, on its network as long as it falls into the "decency" rules put forth by the FCC.



I guess I thought capitalism was about allowing a free market for your business. I thought the first amendment of the Bill of Rights was about free speech.

We have a three market major network advertsing in reaching people most effectively. Why else are the bulk of negative poltical ads such as atomic bombs placed beside other candadates faces placed on netowrk TV? Now, this is not deemed offensive, but a trailer for a documentary which you can choose to see or not see is somehow deemed offensive to the President. Back in 2002 Fahrenheit 911 was advertised on the national networks, and there was plenty of criticism of GW in that one. So the argument that it is offensive to the president doesn't really fly here. Especially after Disney's ABC aired a show "The Right Wing Path to 911" filled with inaccuracies in prime time (not even an advertisement). This show was insulting to the Clinton administration with a total disparaging lie about a meeting that never occurred, and yet Disney aired this in prime time.

So when a producer wants to air and "advertisement" for a documentary which you can choose to go to or not go to, yes, then I consider this censorship.

The perception that the Dixie Chicks is Hollywood is just not accurate. Tim McGraw, a big country singer, has also spoken out against the Iraq War and the decisions of the President. The problem is not the message of the Dixie Chicks, the problem is they say it kind of Limbaugh, loud and brash.

The bottom line is in hindsight, the woman was actually right about Bush. NBC can do what it wants, but no matter if you like it or don't like it, it's pure censorship.

[Dan Montilion]

we all sing. Few of us get paid for it however.

And some should be paid not to sing.

[Secretariat]

And some should be paid not to sing.

Touche.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

And some should be paid not to sing.
ah yes what was said about Pete Seeger, Dylan, many socially conscious entertainers.

"We can't have those guys out there stirring things up. Next thing you know people will be thinking for themselves!"

[ljb]

ah yes what was said about Pete Seeger, Dylan, many socially conscious entertainers.

"We can't have those guys out there stirring things up. Next thing you know people will be thinking for themselves!"
:jump: :jump: :jump:

[46zilzal]

‘Shut Up & Sing’ is right in tune

Documentary is a piercing look at free speech and celebrity image

Associated Press

The Dixie Chicks would probably think of themselves as mothers first, then musicians.

They became accidental political figures — then they had to figure out how to reinvent themselves.

“Shut Up & Sing,” a documentary from directors Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck, follows the country trio after lead singer Natalie Maines’ offhanded on-stage comment that the group was ashamed that President Bush was a fellow Texan.

It’s not that the remark itself was shocking or even terribly provocative. But the backlash from the country music industry, from the South, from the core of the Chicks’ fan base was just stunning in its vitriol and hypocrisy. The same people who are so proud to live in a country where freedom of speech is an inalienable right wanted to silence these women — and worse.

[bigmack]

Long after most thinking invididuals (sp) forgot about the whole fiasco they come out with "I'm not ready to make nice"

Newsflash DChicks: I'm not ready to give a rats ass about your music or your views. In a word, or 2, who cares!

Worthwhile harmonies rarely mask sub-par songwriting

[46zilzal]

I wouldn't buy their music but they have as much right to selling a point of view in that music as any rapper (and their ideological points are really off the charts).

[lsbets]

I wouldn't buy their music but they have as much right to selling a point of view in that music as any rapper (and their ideological points are really off the charts).

And listeners have a right to choose not to buy their music and to tell radio stations they don't want to hear their music. Freedom of speech does not mean an obligation on the part of the public to listen to them.

[46zilzal]

And listeners have a right to choose not to buy their music and to tell radio stations they don't want to hear their music. Freedom of speech does not mean an obligation on the part of the public to listen to them.
of COURSE IT DOES. If I suggested otherwise, I want to clear that up. I have never bought their music either.


There are people whom I know are very talented. I might even pay to see them do what it is that they do. OFF STAGE many of these same people, IF I met them on a plane, I would NOT even say hello to them. Talent in performing has little to do with the personality of political views of the individual.

[Tom]

Just like "Babs the liar" ( she did ot leave the country like she promised).
She has a right to smear Bush at her concerts, but the audience has an equal right to shout her off the stage. I would think her so-called sining would be enough for that by itself!

[PaceAdvantage]

I guess I thought capitalism was about allowing a free market for your business. I thought the first amendment of the Bill of Rights was about free speech.

The Bill of Rights protects you against the GOVERNMENT taking away your right of free speech, not NBC, and not even this message board.

NBC is a corporation and it is free to put whatever it likes on its airwaves. It is under NO obligation to air a COMMERCIAL for a MOVIE. NONE.

Now I know, Suff will be here in 2 seconds telling us all how NBC is owned by General Electric, which has BushCo in its back pocket....we all know that Suff...thought I'd save you some typing.....so Suff will tell you it is censorship by proxy....blah blah blah....

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Secretariat
I guess I thought capitalism was about allowing a free market for your business.



And the way you do it to offer a product the majority of your customers will support. The customer is not always right, but he is alway the customer.
Looks like extensive market research shows more people would be put off by TDCs than not.

[Secretariat]

The Bill of Rights protects you against the GOVERNMENT taking away your right of free speech, not NBC, and not even this message board.

NBC is a corporation and it is free to put whatever it likes on its airwaves. It is under NO obligation to air a COMMERCIAL for a MOVIE. NONE.

Now I know, Suff will be here in 2 seconds telling us all how NBC is owned by General Electric, which has BushCo in its back pocket....we all know that Suff...thought I'd save you some typing.....so Suff will tell you it is censorship by proxy....blah blah blah....

Yuo are correct that Congress has no right to take away your freedom of speech. Neither does GE.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

"Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference. "

In other words "freedom of speech" is a right that even Congress cannot violate. But your contention is that GE and NBC can. Most likely a lawsuit. An interesting one.

The reason NBC gave according to the right wing Drudge Report is:

"In an Ironic Twist of Events, NBC and The CW Television Network Refuse to Air Ads for Documentary Focusing on Freedom of Speech

NBC Claims that the Network “Cannot Accept These Spots as They are Disparaging to President Bush”

...

A trailer for a documentary of the dixie chicks is disparaging, yet MSNBC (owned by the same GE affiliate) just ran a trailer for the controverisal "Death of a President'. They also ran trailers for Fahreheit 911 which was critical of the President.

Your contention seems to be in free speech matters, a corporation can do anything it wants in limiting free speech if it deems so. This will be an interesting case, because the FCC did not declare the trailer indencet, it was a corporate decision not to run it on the basis that it was disparaging to the Prez, yet have run much mroe disparaging things about President Bush. It is interesting because GE is a huge part of the military industrial complex and has large government defense contracts.

According to World Book Encyclopedia, "Freedom of speech is the right to speak out publicly or privately. The term covers all forms of expression, including books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, motion pictures, and electronic documents on computer networks. Many scholars consider freedom of speech a natural right." (as did our founding father Madison)

The dictionary describes censorship as:

"Censorship' is the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression."

The group power of GE to not run an ad inconsistent with their previous policies on ads for political motivations is indeed censorship.

Frankly, I am glad they have done this becasue it calls much more attention to the matter than if the trailer had simply run.

[GameTheory]

So if you have a business that accepts advertising, you are not allowed to determine which ads you want to accept, and which you do not? You are obligated by law to accept them all? Is that really what you are saying? NBC runs ads for their TV shows. Are they obligated to accept advertising for ABC shows?

[Secretariat]

So if you have a business that accepts advertising, you are not allowed to determine which ads you want to accept, and which you do not? You are obligated by law to accept them all? Is that really what you are saying? NBC runs ads for their TV shows. Are they obligated to accept advertising for ABC shows?

It will be an interesting court case if filed by Weinstein. The question is: is advertising a documentary which includes political speech (for which the network has aired this type of material previously, and the reason given for the censorship is becasue it is disparaging political speech to a party), really accepting advertising based on programming concerns, OR rejecting it based on a restiction of a person's political free speech who is using the airways, and paying the advertising price.

In advertising if NBC advertised ABC shows, one could say that it would infringe on their business and profit model. But that is not what they said here, they said it was the "type of speech" that is the issue. Not that it is one of programming or profits from competitors. It is a restriction of speech.

Whether a corporation (especially one within the media in which many disparaging political advertisments are permitted) may prohibit a trailer for a documentary which contains content that it deems inappropriate. The major media networks are a unique corporate entity in that there are only three major networks in which to reach this amount of people. Can a media corporate entity ownership which has a conflict of interest with contracts with the current adminstration, censor political speech it dislikes, but has not been declared as indecent by the FCC? We shall see.

It goes to whether the corproate media can infringe on free speech it dislikes. Because that is the reason given here. Should make an interesting case. Only someone as wealthy as Weinstein could have the kind of dough to fight it. It will be very revealing.

[Snag]

Which includes just about everybody, including you & me, at least about certain topics. You never realize your own close-mindedness, but it is there. The more research I do into cognitive science and how we understand and frame concepts, etc, it is apparent that we are biologically designed to be "close-minded", for lack of a better term. There really is no hope that humanity will suddenly become reasonable someday. If you believe in evolution, I know you do, you have to realize we are the FIRST animal with reason at all, and just a thin layer of it on top of our mammalian and lizard brains. So look at all the war and stupidity in our human past, and that's just what you are going to find in the future until we evolve a few more steps...

The only problem you will run into GT is that once you reach a decision or frame a concept, you have reached an end. You may change your mind but even then, that is reaching a conclusion. A conclusion can then be called "closed minded".

[Tom]

"Censorship' is the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression."

The group power of GE to not run an ad inconsistent with their previous policies on ads for political motivations is indeed censorship.

Frankly, I am glad they have done this becasue it calls much more attention to the matter than if the trailer had simply run.


Duh?
TV networks have had censorship forever. They call it Standards.
Remember the Brothers Smothers Comedy Hour? They got censored every week.
NBC has every right to maintian thier own standrdard.

And attention to the trailer??? Are you nuts or what?
Do think anyone cares? Do you think this means a hill of beans to anyone?

[Tom]

The only problem you will run into GT is that once you reach a decision or frame a concept, you have reached an end. You may change your mind but even then, that is reaching a conclusion. A conclusion can then be called "closed minded".

Are you willing to reconsider this? :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

ah yes the answer to ANYONE, even a group of women who only SING and are harmless, is violence
I don't think they'd need protection. I've never seen any conservative violence toward liberals but plenty of liberal violence toward conservatives.

and 46, you don't blve in war under any circumstances?

[lsbets]

Not giving someone a platform is not censoring their right to free speech. No one has the right to a platform from which to excercise their right to free speech. If a network decides that giving someone a platform could hurt their bottom line, that is their right, and is a business decision.

[Secretariat]

Not giving someone a platform is not censoring their right to free speech. No one has the right to a platform from which to excercise their right to free speech. If a network decides that giving someone a platform could hurt their bottom line, that is their right, and is a business decision.

I agree, but according to conservative Drudge, that is not the reason NBC gave here. THey gave the reason that it ws disparaging to the President. There was no reason given that it would "hurt their bottom line". I think they opened themselves up because they have aired trailers of movies and doumentaries that are "disparaging to the president". GE's contracts with the defense department open up conflict of interest issues.

Imagine if three corporations with extreme left-wing tendencies owned the airways, and restricted an advertisement for a documentary crtitical of President Clinton because it "was disparaging to the President". We saw just the opposite arguments here when "The fictional path to 911 aired on the fantasy Disney channel ABC. The issue is interesting in that it addresses a unique corporate entity, the media, in restricting advertising that involves political speech simply becasue they don't like it. As I said, I don't know how it will turn out and only someone as wealthy as Weinstein could fight it if he wants

Frankly, I didn't even know there was a Dixie Chicks documentary. Now I do. Hence, the power of censorship effectively advertising a product. Maybe Weinstein does know what he's doing. The more controversy, the more curiosity.

[Snag]

Are you willing to reconsider this? :rolleyes:

No.........LOL....

I have a closed mind when it comes to changing my mind......

[GameTheory]

It doesn't matter what reason they give -- they still have the right.

[Lefty]

Not giving someone a platform is not censoring their right to free speech. No one has the right to a platform from which to excercise their right to free speech. If a network decides that giving someone a platform could hurt their bottom line, that is their right, and is a business decision.
Right you are. As Rush says, we all have the right to free speech but none of us have the right to be heard.

[46zilzal]

Right you are. As Rush says, we all have the right to free speech but none of us have the right to be heard.
typical bastardization of the truth

[GameTheory]

typical bastardization of the truthWhat is the truth then? You are supposed to force people to listen to you? May I force you to listen to me?

[Lefty]

typical bastardization of the truth
Will you, can you elaborate? Or you just one negative sounbyte, albeit in the written form. Yuh know, I'm tired of your opinion when you never try to back it up with anything close to logic or fact. So what'swrong with the staement I posed. Why is it a bastadization. Come on, let's get it on.

[46zilzal]

Will you, can you elaborate? Or you just one negative sounbyte, albeit in the written form. Yuh know, I'm tired of your opinion when you never try to back it up with anything close to logic or fact. So what'swrong with the staement I posed. Why is it a bastadization. Come on, let's get it on.
having a lifelong desire to find and expose fools, I do not intend to have an interaction with one this late in my life. I just stand to the side and pity them.

[rrpic6]

Right you are. As Rush says, we all have the right to free speech but none of us have the right to be heard.

I usually can take about 15 minutes of Rushbag before I hit the OFF button...and he is no longer heard by me.

[PlanB]

"So what'swrong with the staement I posed. Why is it a bastadization. Come on, let's get it on."

Lets get it On sugahh. LOL, Lefty, you just got to make a vid for YouTube.
So Marvin Gaye's your soul brotha?

[GameTheory]

46 --

How exactly are you "exposing" anyone when you only write 4 word sentence fragments without elaborating on what you're talking about and ignore all challenges? George Bush is a better communicator than you are -- do you realize that? You make the targets of your nonsense look good by your lack of substantive criticism.

[Lefty]

having a lifelong desire to find and expose fools, I do not intend to have an interaction with one this late in my life. I just stand to the side and pity them.
Translation: No guts.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal
having a lifelong desire to find and expose fools.....

Well, your posts sure have doen a good job at exposing ONE, fer shore! :lol:

[GaryG]

Translation: No guts.We have a slightly more colorful term down heah but the meaning is the same...

[JustRalph]

He is a troll. You guys should just stop responding to his crap. I did.

[PaceAdvantage]

How can anyone call advertising on NBC FREEDOM OF SPEECH when it costs you about $300,000?????

This argument is absurd.

[chickenhead]

There really is no hope that humanity will suddenly become reasonable someday.

Boy that really cheered me right up. Thanks GT.

[Suff]

I mean, seriously....every freakin' time I open the Yahoo home page, there is a story about how many soldiers have died in Iraq this month....as a matter of fact, it's the FOURTH deadliest month since the war began in 2003. FOURTH....not third, not second, not FIRST, but FOURTH deadliest....and this deserves TOP LINE HEADLINE coverage almost EVERY DAY this week?

"Shut Up and Produce"

I'm starting to get on board for a Worldwide effort to beat back fundamental Islam. I'm not inclined to think Iraq is the needed front on it. Matter of fact, I think it was a big mistake. But as I continue take in information I am becoming more convinced. I'm not even sure the Military is the most effective or my preferred tool. But the 21st century cannot support Fundamental Islam at its current level and growth predictions.

[Tom]

Fundamental islam, fire ants, killer bees.
Only one course of action makes sense.

[bigmack]

The Dixie Chicks and their lead singer Natalie Maines continue their ranting. At a recent concert in Canada Maines told the crowd, “I gotta tell you, it is nice to be in a country where you’re not worried about them spitting in your face.” Their anti-American screams continue to escalate as they claim “rightwingers” are silencing them.

Silencing them? For being silenced they sure do a pile of yappin'

[Secretariat]

The Dixie Chicks and their lead singer Natalie Maines continue their ranting. At a recent concert in Canada Maines told the crowd, “I gotta tell you, it is nice to be in a country where you’re not worried about them spitting in your face.” Their anti-American screams continue to escalate as they claim “rightwingers” are silencing them.

Silencing them? For being silenced they sure do a pile of yappin'

Yep, they sure do, and being rewarded for their efforts.

They just won three Grammy Awards including:

Song of the Year: "Not Ready to Make Nice,"

Country Album of the Year: "Taking the Long Way," Dixie Chicks

Country Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocal: "Not Ready to Make Nice," Dixie Chicks.

Obviously, they're scoring a lot higher in polls than GW.

[PaceAdvantage]

That's really awesome!

I guess this means the troops are going to be coming home now because of this, right?

Oh wait...I forgot....more talky....no ballsy....

[Secretariat]

Yike, lighten up PA.

They won three grammies. No one is saying the troops are coming home as a result of their song. They were just rewarded tonight for their song, album and performance. And obviously are on a high from being honored. Whew.

Considering the way they were treated by a lot of people, I'm sure they feel a little vindication in being honored for their album. I do doubt GW and Cheney bought it though.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yike, lighten up PA.

They won three grammies. No one is saying the troops are coming home as a result of their song. They were just rewarded tonight for their song, album and performance. And obviously are on a high from being honored. Whew.

Lighten up? YOU'RE the one who mentioned "GW," not me....

[46zilzal]

The Dixie Chicks' "Not Ready to Make Nice," a blistering retort to their critics following the incident, had already won the Grammy for song of the year. They drew several standing ovations from an audience well aware that their victories had a political point attached.

[bigmack]

They just won three Grammy Awards including:

Obviously, they're scoring a lot higher in polls than GW.
Sec, the voting for the G's takes place amongst their peers. Playing victor in a poll against GW within their peers would be a landslide. Not to defend W but it would be like an award given out by the RNC. The Dixie Cups might have to ride shotgun on that journey

[Secretariat]

oops. sorry.

Four awards. They just won Album of the Year along with Song of the Year and Country Album of the Year as well as Country Performance of the Year.

And PA, I was talking about you lightening up about the song should somehome be bringing the troops home now. Who mentioned that?

Yes, I brought up GW but in regards to his purchasing of the album.

So, please do lighten up. I'm just glad to see a couple of people who were villified for using their free speech getting honored.

[Steve 'StatMan']

That fine - I'm not ready to make nice with them either.

Many celebs in the music industry, who shared their views, sure worked mighty hard getting the young people registered to vote in that 2004 presidential election - so you can see how well that turned out back then. But they got to cheer their mostly-like minded peers. They all cheered John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention too. How nice.

[Lefty]

Hillary won one too, a few yrs ago. So the left takes care of it's own. That's a big deal?

[chickenhead]

So, please do lighten up. I'm just glad to see a couple of people who were villified for using their free speech getting honored.

I never really cared less what the Dixie Chicks said, but I think this is such a little boy way of looking at what happened.

They weren't villified for "using their free speech", they said something a lot of people didn't like. OK, fine. That doesn't make them victims of anything. And it isn't free speech that did it to them, or their exercise thereof. It was who they are. There are a whole lot of people who don't like who they are. Who cares?

A documentary, and now an album, about how much some people don't like them? Supposed to cheer for that?

Congrats to Mary J. Blige, she's deserved more of these.

[NoDayJob]

:D Who cares about the Chicksie Dicks Documentary anyway? "Not I", said the like red hen---

[JustRalph]

give me a break.

Spit on in America? Amazing, they can complain about it and get kudo's from the left,,,,,,,,,,, but soldiers get spit on and the left celebrates it............

[Secretariat]

I'm wrong. It was five Grammys. Well done. btw...I'm not a big coutnry fan or even a fan of the Dixie Chicks music, but it is a pretty good album. Lefty, you might want to shell out the dough to give it a listen first.

[Secretariat]

I never really cared less what the Dixie Chicks said, but I think this is such a little boy way of looking at what happened.

They weren't villified for "using their free speech", they said something a lot of people didn't like. OK, fine. That doesn't make them victims of anything. And it isn't free speech that did it to them, or their exercise thereof. It was who they are. There are a whole lot of people who don't like who they are. Who cares?

A documentary, and now an album, about how much some people don't like them? Supposed to cheer for that?

Congrats to Mary J. Blige, she's deserved more of these.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/arts/music/21pare.html?ex=1305864000&en=d22d01ca294bc426&ei=5088

"Right-wing blogs and talk shows vilified the Dixie Chicks as unpatriotic and worse, and the Incident reached the nightly news. On March 12 a Web site statement from Ms. Maines said: "I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view." On March 14, 2003, she apologized to President Bush for being "disrespectful" to his office, but added, "I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost."

....

Wow...pretty damning stuff.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm

Death threats to them....

They were also threats to (not play their music by radio stations because of wehat they said and some stupid RW's did do that). THere were eptitins to remove their albums from stores becasue of what they said.

Now, the great majority of people in this country have come to the conclusion they were right. Sometimes, time does not reveal justice.

They were "villified" alright - both professionally, and for danger of their life.

And btw....many of these people were Dixie Chick Fans BEFORE they said anything, so it was WHAT they said, not that they didn't like who they were. It was their speech that caused the villification, where you even had stupid people destroying Dixie Chick albums in group ceremonies much like Hitler had people burn books in Germany because he didn't like what they said.

[46zilzal]

On March 12 a Web site statement from Ms. Maines said: "I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."
simply sounds like she came to the conclusion before thousands and thousands of others did along with MORE each day.

[JustRalph]

you guys are ignoring where she did it. Many many people have expressed the belief that the fact that she went after our president on foreign soil while addressing a crowd that was openly hostile toward america, was the real issue.

They play it up like it is a free speech issue. It is not. It is a matter of context and timing. I don't care if Maines says anything she wants. But playing to a decidely unamerican crowd by going after the president while on foreign soil is a problem in my book.

To quote laura ingraham,, " shut up and sing"

[lsbets]

It wasn't what she said but how Maines handled herself that alienated so much of her fan base and led a lot of people to decide they no longer wanted to give her their money. So while she and her new wingnut fan base might cry that she doesn't have freedom of speech, she does, she said what she did and then she continued to talk and act like a petulant spoiled child leading people to say f-off to the chicks (the fact that their albums have also gone from really good on the first one to overproduced crap on the current one also has a lot to do with it). What Maines and the wingnuts don't like is fans excercising their freedom to not listen to her. That last part is always left out of the discussion.

Looking in my I-tunes list, I see plenty of artists who voiced strong opinions about the war and politics that I disagree with - Willie Nelson, Bruce Springstein, Steve Earle. I also see a lot of Charlie Robison who is married to one of the chicks, and a lot of stuff produced by Lloyd Maines and some stuff he has played on. Its got nothing to do with what she said, its how she handled herself afterwards and that her music isn't very good anymore.

[Lefty]

sec, the beautiful thing about free speech is it works both ways(except when conservatives speak on college Campus')We also can use our free speech to condemn the "Chicks and we have the right to ignore their album.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

Someone using their free speech rights is pretty damning stuff, how so?

[PaceAdvantage]

I love how their dug up Joan Baez and put her out there to introduce the Dixie Chicks last night. That was top notch production....

Here's the real deal though....

If they had balls, what they would have done is gone onstage (Baez and The Dixie Chicks) with T-shirts that said "F**K YOU BUSH." But they have no balls, so they beat around the bush (yeah, I know), trot out some 60s icon? (Baez) and speak in code.....and oh yeah, they also had Al Gore....LOL

I swear I was waiting for William Arkin to fly onstage dragging a U.S. soldier with him so that Arkin, Baez and the Dixie Chicks could all gather around and spit on the poor bastard....

But, then again...all talky, no ballsy....

[BillW]

and oh yeah, they also had Al Gore....LOL

.

To present Dee Snider a lifetime achievement award :confused: :lol:

[46zilzal]

I love how their dug up Joan Baez and put her out there to introduce the Dixie Chicks last night. That was top notch production....


But, then again...all talky, no ballsy....
amazing how much you read into nothing

[PaceAdvantage]

amazing how much you read into nothing

Well, at least you got the nothing part right, but that's not what THEY were going for....

[PaceAdvantage]

To present Dee Snider a lifetime achievement award :confused: :lol:

Exactly. I guess nobody on here grew up on heavy metal like I did in the 80s...

How soon we forget! LOL

Now he and Tipper are the music industry's best friends....LOL

[Secretariat]

It wasn't what she said but how Maines handled herself that alienated so much of her fan base and led a lot of people to decide they no longer wanted to give her their money. So while she and her new wingnut fan base might cry that she doesn't have freedom of speech, she does, she said what she did and then she continued to talk and act like a petulant spoiled child leading people to say f-off to the chicks (the fact that their albums have also gone from really good on the first one to overproduced crap on the current one also has a lot to do with it). What Maines and the wingnuts don't like is fans excercising their freedom to not listen to her. That last part is always left out of the discussion.

Looking in my I-tunes list, I see plenty of artists who voiced strong opinions about the war and politics that I disagree with - Willie Nelson, Bruce Springstein, Steve Earle. I also see a lot of Charlie Robison who is married to one of the chicks, and a lot of stuff produced by Lloyd Maines and some stuff he has played on. Its got nothing to do with what she said, its how she handled herself afterwards and that her music isn't very good anymore.

She apologized two days later as listed below , but the RW nutcases threaten to kill her, childishly had Dixie Chick group-ins destroying their albums, radio stations decided to not play their records. A country that stands for free speech can do better. These actions occurred almost immediately by fans. If they listened to what Maines said after such as below they wouldn't have acted like Bush clones. It in fact had everything to do with what she said. As to their music not being very good anymore, well apparently five GRammies begs to differ. :lol: :lol: :lol:

"On March 12 a Web site statement from Ms. Maines said: "I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view." On March 14, 2003, she apologized to President Bush for being "disrespectful" to his office, but added, "I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost."

[lsbets]

She apologized two days later as listed below , but the RW nutcases threaten to kill her, childishly had Dixie Chick group-ins destroying their albums, radio stations decided to not play their records. A country that stands for free speech can do better. These actions occurred almost immediately by fans. If they listened to what Maines said after such as below they wouldn't have acted like Bush clones. It in fact had everything to do with what she said. As to their music not being very good anymore, well apparently five GRammies begs to differ. :lol: :lol: :lol:



So to follow your logic, she can say whatever she wants, but it is wrong for fans to say they don't like it. So, free speech to you means agree with the left or keep your mouth shut.

As far as the grammies go, I would say who on earth cares and the awards track record is nothing to brag about - in my mind the most glaring example is the Jethro Tull best metal album award, but JR listed a few, and don't forget Millie Vanili winning grammies. You might be the only person to take the grammies seriously.

On another note, I've been looking forward to your reply to Melman in the global warming thread but have yet to see a comment from you in response.

[Snag]

It in fact had everything to do with what she said. As to their music not being very good anymore, well apparently five GRammies begs to differ. :lol: :lol: :lol:



Sec, you really think singers voting for other singers justifies and supports the Chicks? These awards were much more political than any vote for their performances.

[chickenhead]

Sec you are confused about cause and effect, as usual.

Some actor the other day called someone a fag..got some press. Is he wrong for using his free speech? No..the problem isn't that he used his free speech..the problem is that he's got some homophobe issues. Which he revealed through his speech...and is now in hot water.

I'm sure you are hoping he wins an Academy Award next year too, right? You hate seeing people get in trouble for using "free speech".

Of course that's not how you see it..because none of this has anything to do with "free speech"....you are happy because you agreed with them. This aint no civil rights victory. The DC aint Rosa Parks.

[wonatthewire1]

The story is on Drudge's page too > maybe he'll need a counter too

:confused:

[JustRalph]

that guy from Grey's Anatomy is getting screwed. He repeated what someone "wrote he said" and he denied it by saying " I didn't call " so and so " a faggot" he was repeating what was written about him. and he gets railroaded for that? What a bunch of shit!

The only problem is that Hollywood is dominated by the left and the homosexual agenda. His career is over. He will be working on the lifetime network from now on.......I bet he gets killed off next season..............

[Secretariat]

So to follow your logic, she can say whatever she wants, but it is wrong for fans to say they don't like it.

There is a difference between threatening someone's life; co-ordinating a blacklisting of their music over the country airwaves, and simply saying "I don't like it." As I said people have free speech anywhere in the world. It is the protection of that free speech that makes it noteworthy.

As far as the grammies go, I would say who on earth cares and the awards track record is nothing to brag about - in my mind the most glaring example is the Jethro Tull best metal album award, but JR listed a few, and don't forget Millie Vanili winning grammies. You might be the only person to take the grammies seriously.

I don't think I'm the only one. For example, it was reported today that the Dixie Chicks record increased in sales on Amazon today 1,461% one day AFTER the Grammies. Obviously, there are people influenced by it and willing to spend money based on them.

On another note, I've been looking forward to your reply to Melman in the global warming thread but have yet to see a comment from you in response.

Will look at it. Since not related to this thread won't comment on here.

[Secretariat]

Sec, you really think singers voting for other singers justifies and supports the Chicks? These awards were much more political than any vote for their performances.

Really? Who votes for the Grammy's? Pelosi? Michael Moore? Dan Rather? Do you know who votes? Obviously not.

[Secretariat]

Of course that's not how you see it..because none of this has anything to do with "free speech"....you are happy because you agreed with them. This aint no civil rights victory. The DC aint Rosa Parks.

Of course it has everything to do with free speech. Of course I agree with them. Of course it's not Rosa Parks.

It's people who used their free speech rights, and were "villified" for it....you're just unhappy becasue you disagreed with them.

[PlanB]

Hey, I'm no MUSICAL Dixie Chicks fan, but they looked HOT & sounded great. So what's the category here: Evil Political or Musical?

[Snag]

Really? Who votes for the Grammy's? Pelosi? Michael Moore? Dan Rather? Do you know who votes? Obviously not.

Read on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_awards

Yes I do know who votes. Maybe I should have typed slower for you. I did not mention any of your heros. My point was to the fact that the Grammy voters wanted to make a political statement.

[chickenhead]

It's people who used their free speech rights, and were "villified" for it

You are like talking to a robot Sec, an idiot robot that just repeats the same stupid line over and over and over again...but I will grant you that I'm the stupid one for arguing with a robot in the first place.

[lsbets]

You are like talking to a robot Sec, an idiot robot that just repeats the same stupid line over and over and over again...but I will grant you that I'm the stupid one for arguing with a robot in the first place.

I think you nailed it perfectly Chickenhead - an idiotic robot, and we are the stupid ones for arguing with him. That's about covers it about better than anything I've seen on here.

[Secretariat]

Read on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_awards

Yes I do know who votes. Maybe I should have typed slower for you. I did not mention any of your heros. My point was to the fact that the Grammy voters wanted to make a political statement.

Good, so you realize it is their peers that vote, and NOT Democratic politicians.

So, now can we have your proof that these "peers" (country musicians included - remember they won best coutnry album as well) VOTED to make a poltical statement? Or could it be they just liked it?

[PlanB]

Don't be harsh with yourselves. Robo fights rule. You've met brick walls now soften them. Look at me & BoxCar.

[Secretariat]

You are like talking to a robot Sec, an idiot robot that just repeats the same stupid line over and over and over again...but I will grant you that I'm the stupid one for arguing with a robot in the first place.

It's all in POV chickenhead. From my POV you are the robot. You say the Dixie Chicks were not "villified". I post a Times article saying they were in fact "Villified". You ignore that and go to the "robot" name calling which I am then left to respond.

If you don't like my responses, I suggest you use the ignore feature here as some of those who couldn't take the Dixie Chicks honesty chose to do.

[PlanB]

OH SEC ....... get real, the Dixie Chicks were very bankable after Bush villified them. They are, 1st & mostly musicians --- and it only shows how dumb 43 is. He always seems to strengthen his enemies.

[Lefty]

Ludacris also got a grammy for a song in which he wants to kill his boss and using the N word 50 times. So much for the Grammies.

[Tom]

Good, so you realize it is their peers that vote, and NOT Democratic politicians.



Wow. The peers of commie creeps are what? Commie creeps! :lol:
You are sinking deep, Robbie Robot....looking to musicians for validation.
Two possibilities - the DCs won the grammies for their music, in which case, you are drooling like a lovesick baby-bot over nothing. OR they won as a political statement, in which case they are frauds.
No matter which, they music still sucs. And the fat one is still ugly.
Free speech, R2D2. But enjoy your big nite....you have so few of them.

[Secretariat]

Wow. The peers of commie creeps are what? Commie creeps! :lol:
You are sinking deep, Robbie Robot....looking to musicians for validation.
Two possibilities - the DCs won the grammies for their music, in which case, you are drooling like a lovesick baby-bot over nothing. OR they won as a political statement, in which case they are frauds.
No matter which, they music still sucs. And the fat one is still ugly.
Free speech, R2D2. But enjoy your big nite....you have so few of them.

looking to musicians for Validation? Uh, Tom, it was a "music" award.

[bigmack]

Good, so you realize it is their peers that vote, and NOT Democratic politicians.
Sec, as your reveling in the award fades in time keep in mind again that the voting is voted upon by peers rather than being based upon popularity like the AMAs or sales and chart achievements like the BMAs.

I wrote jingles for commericals in Chicago for a number of years & in all the studios I worked in and talked politics, there were maybe a handful of non-liberals in the hundreds of people that I dealt with including musicians, engineers, studio heads, etc...

All in all your point of these awards bestowed on them being a representation of the the view of the American people is simply un-true. It is a biased gathering of voters. If you want to bolster your take on free speech and criticism of W, can't you find a more viable & apt example?

[JustRalph]

looking to musicians for Validation? Uh, Tom, it was a "music" award.

the only validation is record sales. here is an interesting article about the Ditzy Chicks and radio


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17121651/

When it comes to musicians, there are all kinds of people in music. I was sitting in playing with a large group one night. On one of the songs there were 12 guitars, 3 steel guitars 2-3 keyboards, couple of bass guitars, 2 fiddles and an assortment of singers. After 2 hours of playing with this group and sitting around having a drink afterwards I got up to leave. A guy I know was leaving at the same time. We were packing our cars when I said something like " man, that was some group tonight. It was pretty awesome" He replied, "Yep, great group of musicians, too bad I wouldn't let any of them watch my kids for an hour" :lol: :lol:

[chickenhead]

You say the Dixie Chicks were not "villified". I post a Times article saying they were in fact "Villified". You ignore that and go to the "robot" name calling which I am then left to respond.

Are you saying I vilified you then, with my robot comment? Am I talking to the NY Times, or am I talking to you? Are you able to think for yourself, or are you just a robot that spits out what the NY Times says? That is exactly my point.

If you don't like my responses, I suggest you use the ignore feature here as some of those who couldn't take the Dixie Chicks honesty chose to do.

I will, this is the last time you and I will talk, at least for a long while. But I wanted to make on thing clear. You and I are politically not too different. Certainly on social issues we are not, I'm fiscally more conservative than you though. You think everything has to do with politics. It doesn't. You bother me because I find you completely intellectually dishonest. Even if you advocate something I agree with, you do it in a totally dishonest way. I actually think that the reasons, the arguments for or against something, are just as important as the conclusions. In short I think honesty matters. Not just passing honesty, but rigorous honesty.

Regarding the Dixie Chicks, I was never a big fan. They didn't lose me as a fan, nor gain me as a fan, based on their comments. Their comments, and their subsequent travails, mean nothing to me. Why not?

You stated that I was unhappy because I disagreed with them. Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't even remember what they said, but it certainly didn't offend me at the time.

My problem is this: When I deal with customers..which I do..when I am trying to sell them something...If I decide to interject politics into the discussion, I take full responsibility for the repercussions. If I offend a customer and he decides not to buy something from me based on that, that is ON ME. This is the big boy world, where we are responsible for our actions. And if I do things to alienate customers, I have no right to complain. Do you hear that? I have no right to complain. And neither do they.

That is the beginning and end of my thoughts on the Dixie Chicks. The main difference between my point of view and yours in that I never felt sorry for them, I don't see them as victims. Not for losing record sales. They made a choice, they decided they wanted to be political, they decided they wanted to let their views, which were known to be very unpopular with their customers, known. They decided they wanted to do more than play music. And they paid some consequences for that. BFD, happens to people every day.

So no, I'm terribly impressed with the DC writing an album, and making a movie, doing nothing more than complaining about how they've alienated their customer base. Why in the world would I care?

My position regarding the Dixie Chicks has absolutely nothing to do with politics, nothing, as I come closer to agreeing with them regarding Bush than disagreeing. But I am not controlled by partisan politics. I think for myself. I am not a robot. That is where you and I are different.

[Secretariat]

Are you saying I vilified you then, with my robot comment? Am I talking to the NY Times, or am I talking to you? Are you able to think for yourself, or are you just a robot that spits out what the NY Times says? That is exactly my point.

You're talking to me, but I like to back up my opinion with what others have said. I had already said they were "villified". You contradicted me and stated that they were not. I posted up an article by others that "backed up" what I was saying. You called me a robot for seeking other sources of support. So be it. The robot name calling is childish and I have no time for it. Had you simply said I disagree with the Times writer and yourself, fine, but instead you resorted to the name calling level of discourse.


I will, this is the last time you and I will talk, at least for a long while.

I've no problem with that.



But I wanted to make on thing clear. You and I are politically not too different. Certainly on social issues we are not, I'm fiscally more conservative than you though.

Maybe not so much as you think. I'm for an annual balanced budget amendment and across the board cuts on all programs. I'm in favor of a deficit reduction act after the annual balanced budget. I jsut don't like wasting billions and billions of money and thousands of lives on a war that was based on a lie.


You think everything has to do with politics. It doesn't.

Of course it doesn't, and this post illustrates you really don't know me.



You bother me because I find you completely intellectually dishonest. Even if you advocate something I agree with, you do it in a totally dishonest way. I actually think that the reasons, the arguments for or against something, are just as important as the conclusions. In short I think honesty matters. Not just passing honesty, but rigorous honesty.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it. I seek out information, I read a lot of dissenting opinions. I've post opinions where I've disagreed with Clinton and many other Democrats inclduing Hillary Clinton. I've voted for President from both parties. I've fought and seen war. Yet some here cannot find one positive thing to say about Bill Clinton for example, cannot find one polciy of his that they agreed with of his, while I've posted multiple times agreement with Bush on some of his policies and disagreemnt with Clinton. Yet, I'm the one accsued of being intellectually dishonest. Whatever. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (That was for Boxcar)


Regarding the Dixie Chicks, I was never a big fan. They didn't lose me as a fan, nor gain me as a fan, based on their comments. Their comments, and their subsequent travails, mean nothing to me. Why not?

You stated that I was unhappy because I disagreed with them. Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't even remember what they said, but it certainly didn't offend me at the time.

My problem is this: When I deal with customers..which I do..when I am trying to sell them something...If I decide to interject politics into the discussion, I take full responsibility for the repercussions. If I offend a customer and he decides not to buy something from me based on that, that is ON ME. This is the big boy world, where we are responsible for our actions. And if I do things to alienate customers, I have no right to complain. Do you hear that? I have no right to complain. And neither do they. That is the beginning and end of my thoughts on the Dixie Chicks.

No one's complaining. They just won an award for speaking from their heart and risked their business in the process. My problem is with people who threatened to kill them or legislators who wanted to censure them for speaking out, or radio stations who collectively wanted to punish them for their speech. I may not agree with you or a lot of people here, but I'd fight like hell for you to have the right to say it. That didn't happen here. That bothers me.


The main difference between my point of view and yours in that I never felt sorry for them, I don't see them as victims. Not for losing record sales. They made a choice, they decided they wanted to be political, they decided they wanted to let their views, which were known to be very unpopular with their customers, known. They decided they wanted to do more than play music. And they paid some consequences for that. BFD, happens to people every day.

I dont' care if you felt sorry for them or even liked them or not. I never bought their music before.

They spoke passionately from their heart, and paid a price. They've been honored for their music by their peers. I sense that bothers a lot of people here. Give them their due, they risked their careers to speak from their heart, and were punished by many fans and even corporations who wouldn't allow their music to be played, and in some cases wouldn't even give them the right to pay to air an advertisement for a documentary on their viewpoint on network TV which many defended here. I don't beleive that we're served well by silencing voices, but by hearing them.


So no, I'm terribly impressed with the DC writing an album, and making a movie, doing nothing more than complaining about how they've alienated their customer base. Why in the world would I care?

I'm not asking you to care. Your mind is made up.



My position regarding the Dixie Chicks has absolutely nothing to do with politics, nothing, as I come closer to agreeing with them regarding Bush than disagreeing. But I am not controlled by partisan politics. I think for myself. I am not a robot. That is where you and I are different.

Back to the robot thing. Sigh.

Ok, think for yourself.

Let me ask where do you get your ideas? do you read books, articles, news, talk to people, or do you come up with these ideas from birth? I think if you look you've been influenced by other's thought. Even Shakespeare gave credence to Holinshed for many of his stories. Many Repubs today in the House today on the Iraq resolution, are quoting John Stuart Mill, Douglas McArthur, etc. - Are they "robots" because they choose to use a quote or cite information from a report or an article?

Whatever. Put me on Ignore. It'll make you feel more secure with your point of view. I've no problem with it.

[chickenhead]

BTW..you might be saying "but I thought he said it wasn't what they said that was the problem". I don't think it was, primarily. I think the lead singer came across like a very combative, unattractive person..and that had as much or more to do with it than any political stance. There are a lot of ways to talk about politics. Some ways tend to alienate everyone, some ways are just good discussion. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that distinction Sec.

So I still stand by my point that their political views had actually very little to do with it..but the way she chose to express herself, which is a function of who she is, is what turned people off.

[Hosshead]

Hollywood missed a golden opportunity.
They shoulda had the Dixie Chicks do the soundtrack for Brokeback Mtn.

[redshift1]

Dixie Chicks vs Robertson and free speech. A treasure-trove of a thread for southern hospitality and how free speech is treated when the subject is not DD.

Only difference Robertson claims the bible as his get out of jail free card.