Chicks bash Bush.

[Wits' End]

Empath said---So far, in reaction to an American that didn't share our opinion, we've suggested boycott, decorating them as a hero of the "enemy" (branding them traitors to their country), labeled anyone that would play their music as dillholes, calling them ambassadors for the "enemy". Big love of our rights there, huh? ---

Empath how many "Rush Limbaugh" (sp?) ties do you own? Any conservative "pundit's" books? Have you ever said anything unpleasant about someone that didn't share your opinion? Like President Bush?
No one (I don't think) has said they shouldn't be allowed to say what they want to say. Just that they have lowered (if possible /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) their opinion of them and will not support them. I think the pot is calling the kettle black here as you are "attacking" those that have used their free speech to "attack" the Chicks.
No offense intended here I'm just trying to point out an inconsistency.

 

[DieselDave]

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
Somehow it's worse to me when a U.S. citizen makes disparaging remarks about the U.S. when out of the country. Maybe it's because there is no one there to counter their statements. I wonder if these Ambassadors for Iraq's story would have made the news if they had been uttered in the US? Considering the source and location they seem irrelevant. It would have to come from a real Texan, someone like Nolan Ryan, Earl Cambell, George Strait or Leroy Jordon for me to take it seriously. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Disparaging remarks about the U.S.???
Her remarks was about the president, not the U.S. At no time has a president of the U.S. been granted royalty. The people of the U.S. are not subservient to the president. The president is a servant of the people, paid by the people, and elected to represent the people. The people, whether it's spoken by one or the masses, are not speaking disparaging remarks about the U.S. when they complain about the job their elected officials are doing.

Whether you realize it or not, this forum is an international forum. Our words here are as much representative as if we were standing in other lands stating the same things. Which is more damaging to our image, making an opinionated statement about an official, or showing the world that the concept and ideal of the freedom of speech is only lip service.

So far, in reaction to an American that didn't share our opinion, we've suggested boycott, decorating them as a hero of the "enemy" (branding them traitors to their country), labeled anyone that would play their music as dillholes, calling them ambassadors for the "enemy". Big love of our rights there, huh?

Hey world, we're Americans. We have laws that permit people to speak their minds, even complain about our public officials. But we don't like it. No! Not one little bit. You can speak your mind, but if we can find a way around the law we'll destroy you. Now I'll try typing this quietly, since it's rather embarrassing. A large part of us Americans are hypocrites. The freedoms of U.S. citizens are granted by law, but the law is ALL that grants them, it certainly doesn't seem to be in the hearts of the people.

Now those, Dan.... are disparaging words about the U.S.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all Empennage my name is David not Dan. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Her remarks are about America because the President is the leader of the United States. When we are abroad it makes us an ambassador to the U.S. regardless of how we feel. When you only have one American, they represent America, period.

Whether YOU realize it or not I and anyone else is allowed to have an opinion even if it disagrees with your opinion. Me thinking the Dixie Chicks or anyone else are out of line is my right. I am not and would never argue they don’t have a right to say anything but I do have the right to condemn, boycott or anything else I find appropriate. Just like the chicks, I don’t care who agrees with me.

I couldn’t agree more with your statement. “A large part of us Americans are hypocrites. but the law is ALL that grants them, it certainly doesn't seem to be in the hearts of the people.” I agree with you but on the other side of the coin.

Let me explain why I find it more offensive when Americans make disparaging remarks over seas in an analogy. This is why I, repeat I and I alone think this to be the case. I am not speaking for America and I am speaking for myself to an audience that is free and equal to disagree with me.

Complaining inside the office:
You work for a company and you think it’s making an inferior product or they are wrong on their position. You don’t like it but you keep on taking your paycheck every week, year and decade because you like the benefits you get. You complain to your coworkers and boss but nothing changes. You flat out tell your coworkers how wrong they are and get their opinion in response and you keep on taking that paycheck. (All of this is fine. You are well within your rights to complain, whine, gripe and put down your company and still keep taking a paycheck. It’s a way to promote change without damaging your companies position. Just like an American in America.)

Complaining outside the office:
You decide to go outside your company and complain, whine, gripe and put down your company to anyone that will listen, even your company’s competitors. Your company can’t refute your statements, wrong or right because they are not there to defend themselves. You are speaking for the company at large and your words are taken as fact. Your outside statements cost your company business even though your opinion may be wrong. You keep coming to work and collecting your paycheck and then scream about your freedom when chastised for disloyalty. Your company ends up laying you off because of reduced business and again you scream about your freedom and fair play when in reality you caused the problem. If you would have quit your job and then made the same remarks to the outsiders your statements could then be judged for what they are: A statement from a person that doesn’t have an interest in the welfare of the company.

The Dixie Chicks were speaking to an audience that took their remarks as the American position because there is no one there to refute them. In this case the Chicks are the companies representative. CPF is a completely different situation. When you are liberal I can reply as conservative and our overseas members can do the same. We all have a chance to defend our position to the same audience, that’s freedom and equality.

 

[Roy]

But why do we feel compelled to call people names and put nasty labels on them when they disagree with us! I happen to agree with the Chicks, I support our troops but have serious issues with the President. I don't think I'm a traitor! {...............................}

EDITED: Removed a rather self-serving and stupid statement

Ok, I'll sit down and shut up.

 

[DieselDave]

[ QUOTE ]
Roy said:
But why do we feel compelled to call people names and put nasty labels on them when they disagree with us! I happen to agree with the Chicks, I support our troops but have serious issues with the President. I don't think I'm a traitor! What makes me qualified to to disagree with the President?...The Constitution and 15+ years spent in service to this country in the US Army (1966-1981).

Ok, I'll sit down and shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I call someone a name, I hope not but am sorry if I did. I don't have a problem with anyone that disagrees with the President or anyone else. I do think Americans should only criticize the President at home if they are a public figure as argued above.

As far as your question: "But why do we feel compelled to call people names and put nasty labels on them when they disagree with us!" Good question, ask The Chicks, and Hollywood. I don't know why they do it. To answer why I put "nasty labels" on them it's because I think it's true. I suspect the Chicks and Hollywood feel the same way but you would have to ask them. As you see, I am pointing out the "us" can be either side.

 

[Empath]

[ QUOTE ]
Wits' End said:
Empath how many "Rush Limbaugh" (sp?) ties do you own?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know what a R.L. tie is. But I doubt if I own any.
[ QUOTE ]
Wits' End said:
Any conservative "pundit's" books?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not aware of any. I can't really say that I even use the terms "conservative" and "liberal", much less align myself to their perceived philosophies. I do at times make use of the terms Democrat and Republican, since the two are definite and real organizations. Neither gives me the warm and fuzzies.

[ QUOTE ]
Wits' End said:
Have you ever said anything unpleasant about someone that didn't share your opinion? Like President Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes to both questions. Of course with Bush being a minor president, that's not saying much. I've even been critical of our significant presidents.

[ QUOTE ]
Wits' End said:
No one (I don't think) has said they shouldn't be allowed to say what they want to say. Just that they have lowered (if possible /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) their opinion of them and will not support them. I think the pot is calling the kettle black here as you are "attacking" those that have used their free speech to "attack" the Chicks.
No offense intended here I'm just trying to point out an inconsistency.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm encouraged that you see the maze in which we find ourselves. It demonstrates an insight into the philosophical quandary of communication. It kind of helps you see why monks, gurus and students of human philosophy tend to favor times of silence. Have I ever mentioned that it's a wonder that we're able to communicate at all using nothing but words? But, we'll save that for another time. Don't worry, Wits End. There's no offense taken. If I can suffer through Deisel D's charges of me calling him Dan, I suppose I can endure anything.

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
First of all Empennage my name is David not Dan. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhh! Keep it down. If you would be so kind as to change your name to Dan, that'd solve everything, don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
........................
........................

The Dixie Chicks were speaking to an audience that took their remarks as the American position because there is no one there to refute them. In this case the Chicks are the companies representative. CPF is a completely different situation. When you are liberal I can reply as conservative and our overseas members can do the same. We all have a chance to defend our position to the same audience, that’s freedom and equality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equal opportunity in defending your opinion? Isn't this where the so-called conservative steps in and says:
"Equality? What are you, some bloody liberal or something?"

If I've an opinion to speak, I'd want the tallest podium, the largest PA system, and all the influence I could muster to make sure everyone possible got it. It's the American way, Dave. It's why those with the resources buy newspapers and radio/TV stations and such. It enables them to get their opinions before the largest crowd they can. It enables them an advantage.

Why the world places such stock in the words of celebrities is a curiosity in itself. But, it's a fact. They have a greater opportunity to get their words heard than the rest of us. But, your feelings that there should be someone there with an opposing viewpoint is nothing short of an idealistic dream. Using whatever advantages one has to promote their viewpoint is part of the "free speech" package. Your "how dare them spread their influence beyond home" concept is anti-American, anti-free-speech, and smacks of political oppression.

 

[Brotherscrim]

Though I think Empath could have handled certain things better in this thread, I gotta admit he has a good point with the above post.

 

[Silviron]

Dave's attitude also smacks of an understanding of the law.

Were Congress to approve a Declaration of War (I know, unlikely to ever happen) they would have a right to express those opinions on US soil, but if they expressed them on foreign soil they could be arrested for treason or sedition, depending upon exactly what they say.

Had Vietnam been a declared war, Jane Fonda could have been arrested, tried, found guilty and executed for her activities in North Vietnam.

Its a moot point since for 52 years Congress has been avoiding its responsibilities in that regard, and I doubt that they will ever change, but it is still the law, right or wrong.

 

[DieselDave]

Empath,
You said and I quote: "Your "how dare them spread their influence beyond home" concept is anti-American, anti-free-speech, and smacks of political oppression."

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Please cut and paste me a few of my statements that show this. Remember to show my anti-Americanism. Don't forget to show where I said they should be banned from making their statement and show me how I advocate political oppression. I just love when a liberal jumps up and down and screams, anti-American, anti-free-speech, and political oppression and bases it on someone disagreeing or not liking their or someone else’s point of view.

I do think what they did is Anti-American. But nowhere can you show where I said they should be stopped from saying anything. In fact and I quote myself, I said: "Me thinking the Dixie Chicks or anyone else are out of line is my right. I am not and would never argue they don’t have a right to say anything but I do have the right to condemn, boycott or anything else I find appropriate. Just like the chicks, I don’t care who agrees with me." Empath, Please don't twist this. I said I, I did not ask anyone to join me. Me not choosing to support the "Chicks" is no different than a vegetarian not eating at "Outback Steakhouse" because they disagree with their policy.

I am not asking they be stopped from speaking, flogged, beaten, have their citizenship revoked, or punished in any way, so how it is I am doing anything anti-American, anti-free-speech, or politically oppressive? I just think their wrong, which you somehow turned into the liberal battle cry.

I will probably be accused of pushing Grandma down the stairs in your next post. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


No flame, just disagreement. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Rothrandir]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

 

[tsg68]

Lots of free speech being expressed in this thread, that's great. It's too bad that those in the postition of wealth and fame offer an opinion that would deny people under brutal oppression the opportunity to adopt the same kind of rights. Seems alot of folks over here died to buy US those rights. That's the right of those celebs and that's fine, just don't expect them to lay down their lives for you, ever. They are too comfortable with their lives to worry about the destitute and abused of the world. They believe this is a war for oil. The opposition to war IS the war for oil. The largest Russian oil company was involved in a multi-billion dollar deal to develop Iraq's oil fields prior to the escalation of this political conflict that is until Saddam caught them making offers to Iraqi opposition forces on the side and canceled the deal. The French built the Israeli's first and still operational Nuclear processing facility giving them the ability to wage nuclear war in the Middle East, now a distinct possibility given that Israel has threatened to launch a nuclear counter attack to any chem or bio assault on them. As far as I am concerned those members of the UN security council that oppose forced disarmament of Iraq are the real hypocrites. Germany and France rely on middle eastern countries for billions and billions of dollars in commerce, and fears the disruption this might cause their markets. Russia is still owed billions of dollars from Iraq for arms packages etc. and wants to give Saddam an opportunity to pay up. Times a wastin' folks.

What good is freedom if you don't extend its opportunities to the rest of the world. Seems alot of people against the war can't justify the cost of freedom but can definitely take advantage of their own despite never paying an ounce of blood for it. Freedom is not the liberty to exploit. It's the liberty to promote freedom and it's advantages to all, citizens of this country or foreigners alike and It seems to me that there are alot of people in our armed forces that have before and are now willing to purchase that freedom for others, possibly at the cost of their own lives (yes they know they might die!). Those who have never tasted it may not yet understand it's flavor or texture and some may outright refuse to buy it and even resist it outright because they believe it threatens their culture or religion ( it actually promotes maintaining your cultural and religious practices, my ancestors came here to escape religious persecution) or their ability to control the people in their power. But I would still pay for it for them to experience. Alot of countries we've fought and died in and for, still have democracy even if they may need help enforcing it against insurgents who offer nothing to those they recruit but the opportunity to die for a poor Ideal (Marxism/Communism) or a religious cause that has been twisted to suit the purposes of our political enemies (Militant fundemental Islam) I am most disturbed by the last one as it does not offer these poor people anything at all but the Idea that God will reward them in death for taking the lives of people they have been taught to hate. I wish them freedom same as mine and I continue to fight to maintain mine and yours here.

There, that's my free speech for the evening as I have to go watch a movie with my wife.

Later,
TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Peace is only possible when freedom for all is secure and we all know that freedom is never really secure when folks continue to seek control over others.

 

[Empath]

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
Empath,
You said and I quote: "Your "how dare them spread their influence beyond home" concept is anti-American, anti-free-speech, and smacks of political oppression."

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Please cut and paste.......................

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're asking for work than I'm willing to deliver. My words are there and yours are there. Neither yours nor mine require justification. Though your words served as an instrument, mine are targeted at more than you or your integrity.

If self justification is important to you, have at it. The podium is yours.

 

[DieselDave]

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
Empath,
You said and I quote: "Your "how dare them spread their influence beyond home" concept is anti-American, anti-free-speech, and smacks of political oppression."

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Please cut and paste.......................

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're asking for work than I'm willing to deliver. My words are there and yours are there. Neither yours nor mine require justification. Though your words served as an instrument, mine are targeted at more than you or your integrity.

If self justification is important to you, have at it. The podium is yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif Good one Empath. Liberal platform 101: Make an unfounded accusation then dodge any request for justification. Works for me. Truce. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Silviron]

Hey, I just heard Maine apologize and say she was wrong to have said what she said and where she said it.

Now, I can't say whether she changed her mind because she realized she was wrong, or because she was going to start losing money over it.

Either way works for me.

We can't let people get away with stuff like this. They have to realize that there are consequences for their actions or their words.

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
They have to realize that there are consequences for their actions or their words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh c'mon now Silviron... what are you smokin' tonight? These people are above consequences... don't you know that? And their opinions matter! How DARE you imply otherwise?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

 

[Carpe Diem]

So...

Natalie has now decided that making money is more important than her earlier decision to ingratiate herself with a foreign audience at the expense of our president.

What a surprise.

And nice try, Natalie.

 

[Silviron]

Gee Sasha, at first glance I didn't realize you were being sarcastic, and I was shocked....

I wasn't talking about JUST the celebrities that have to learn of consequences for their actions or in actions. A lot of other folks should learn that lesson.

Believe in what ever you want to believe in, Say whatever you want to say, Do whatever you you want to do, but don't complain when the consequences arise.

 

[Greta]

Ah Silviron... you should know me well enough by now... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
...but don't complain when the consequences arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen, brother Silviron! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif

 

[Empath]

[ QUOTE ]
DieselDave said:
Truce. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you want to do that? A truce requires a battle, and there's been none. You were used though, and for that I apologize. I prefer to use more consideration, but forget myself at times. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif

 

[Tombeis]

It's easy to boycott Martin Sheen and that show he is on what do you call it? Oh yah, "The Left Wing."

It's much more difficult to boycott the Dixie Chicks. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Nobody said that actors/entertainers were brain trusts,whom we should all go to for advice about any subject.

 

[I_rv_too]

Thing about Iraq (and why the Dixie Chicks, et all, are way, way off base} ...

1. There are the "known" knowns.

We know they've used nerve agents against innocent people (against its own people even!).

2. There are the "known" unknowns.

It's unknown what stockpiles Iraq currently has or how it is willing to use gas or other weapons of mass destruction in the near future.

3. There are the "unknown" unknowns.

This is what scares me. Our leaders (military and government) also have some knowledge of the scope of the "unknown" unknowns.

Iraq is obviously a much, much bigger threat to the free world than any of us here at CPF could ever hope to understand.

I mean, for Christ's sake, we sit around playing with flashlights ... not gathering and studying classified information!

Those of you who don't understand the possible consequences of this danger have got your heads stuck in the sand.