Tears On Tv: Dixie Chicks Explain Bush Bashing

[MarkPSkins]

Sorry, but voicing one's political opionions does not fall in line with a rasicm. Maybe it just me.

If an artist put out an album with "I'm ashamed of Bush" on the cover does not even slightly or remotely compare to your example. And in the the context of my example above might just sell a couple of extra out of political curiousity for opposing viewpoints ala Michael Moore. So it's not the same thing. Not even close. And that's all I have to day about that.

and by the way Slander by legal definition is:

Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

And we might as well add libel to that.

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. The act of presenting such material to the public.

If the statements and pictures made by people commenting on Maine's statement don't fall into these categories, I really don't know what does.

[MarkPSkins]

And it all goes back to my original thought.

Why would it piss anyone off that Natalie Maines, a freaking country music singer of no political consequense would make an anti-BUsh statement on foreign soil? Who is she to so "enrage" a country?:

[riggins44]

Talk about publicity, read this morning about the cover of Entertainment Magazine. They are posing nude, nothing exposed, with graffiti written on them. Local paper had a

pic of the cover.

[Kilmer17]

Asked and answered. Why as a country music singer does she feel the need to criticize our Commander in Chief?

Freedom of speech apllies to all forms of speech, so a racist comment is EXACTLY the same thing. The difference is, when presented outside of this specific context, your argument loses traction.

Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

Exactly, so where has someone made a false statement about her? Opinions are NOT slander. That's why people like Michael Moore can call Bush a war monger and not get sued.

[fansince62]

MarkP......and the delicious part is you can't do anything about it!!!

I look forward to your next lecture installment when Jesse Jackson, Marth Burke, Martin Sheen or many of the folks I suspect you are ideologically aligned with propose boycotts as a weapon for exacting preferred responses....what, after all, do you think happens when tobacco companies, drug companies, fast food companies, and on, are boycotted? if the boycott has any effect, people lose their jobs. this has been an accepted tool by the left for years. why the sudden pang of conscience?

strange....how very strange....I can't recall one instance on this board in which any of the resident libs/dems/"defenders of freedom" took issue with the boycotts proposed by these icons of virtue and goodness......

"hypocrisy thy name is liberal"

take a stance and be prepared to suffer the consequences if people don't like what you have to say. America has always been like that...always will be. unless, of course, the liberals ascend to power. in which case, we will all have to mind our politically correct ps & qs.

let's be very clear....boycotts are used to apply economic pressure that promotes deired behaviour. it's a tool everyone can use, not just liberals with fascist inclinations......

[Burgold]

The FBI was asked to establish a program last year where citizens would report other citizens for suspicious behaviors. On the face of it this is nothing new, but there is a little big brotherism in the way it was aimed. Do you recall about a year ago, someone mentioned that they saw a group of three or four arab looking people going to the local DMV to get driver's licences. In all earnestnest, he asked if they should be reported as potential terrorists.

The Government is involved in some of this blacklisting in a very subtle way at this point. You can see it in who gets screened at airports. You can see it in security clearences, contracts, and other acts. You can see it in the way they reference certain people, who gets an invite and who doesn't.

Aack, now I'm sounding like a conspiracist. I don't really believe the government is actively blacklisting at least not to any unusual level.

Saying boo on the President isn't anti American. If it was practically every Conservative here would be guilty of treason for their stated opinions on Clinton, Carter, etc.

[Kilmer17]

The Government is involved in some of this blacklisting in a very subtle way at this point. You can see it in who gets screened at airports. You can see it in security clearences, contracts, and other acts. You can see it in the way they reference certain people, who gets an invite and who doesn't

Examples please?

You're right, it's not un american, but no-one is claiming that. Im simply stating that her comments so offended me that I am protesting them. How does that equate to me calling them un american?

[Henry]

Mark, is it morally 'right' for people to publicly criticize the President? To slander him by comparing him to Hitler, by saying he is more of a threat to world peace than Hussein?

By your logic, the answer is no.

Maines may not have the political clout that Bush has (duh) but she is a public figure and as such she does have some modicom of influence in society, whether you want to admit it or not. If you don't think she should be held responsible for the way she weilds that influence, then why doesn't that carry over to all public figures, such as politicians?

Why do other people care what Maines thinks? Well why do you care what other people think?

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Henry

Mark, is it morally 'right' for people to publicly criticize the President? To slander him by comparing him to Hitler, by saying he is more of a threat to world peace than Hussein?

Who compared him to Hitler? The German Minister?

Who defines morality here - the neo christianity movement, the ol secular movement? The GOP? The party whoever is in power? The so called moral majority (who in reality was a minority)?

Please tell me, so I can better myself as a "moral" person.

Wouldn't want to offend the moral PC police would I?

[Kilmer17]

Yes, far better that Natalie Maines get's to decide.

Just so we all understand the argument here.

Maines is allowed to criticize Bush, but Im not allowed to criticize her.

Maines is allowed to define the morality of her statements, but Im not allowed to define the morallity of mine.

Is the left so blind that they dont see the hypocrisy?

[Henry]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Who compared him to Hitler? The German Minister?

TEG, that was an example. I don't have links, so if you wish to believe noone in this country has ever publicly compared Bush to Hitler, fine with me.

However, that little nitpick has nothing to do with my point. Or do people in this country never ever publicly say anything derogatory about the President? Sheesh.

Who defines morality here - the neo christianity movement, the ol secular movement? The GOP? The party whoever is in power? The so called moral majority (who in reality was a minority)?

Please tell me, so I can better myself as a "moral" person.

Wouldn't want to offend the moral PC police would I?

At this moment I believe MarkPSkins is attempting to define morality. Direct your questions his way.

[The Evil Genius]

You know I believe that a lot of people have a lot of derpgatory comments towards Dubya. Probably less than Clinton, but more than Bush I.

What's interesting, is this was the alledged comments that got Maines in trouble...

Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas

But what wasnt reported, according to a recent interview (in Entertainment Weekly), is what was said directly after than comment. One of the other Dixie Chicks said...

''But you know we support the troops 100 percent.

Convenient for the originator of the story, a London critic from the left-leaning newspaper The Guardian who approvingly quoted Maines' remark, to not pick that quote up. I mean, to do so wouldnt make them (the Dixie Chicks) look like anti-war people in their paper, now would it?

But then, when has the press ever printed a entirely factual story?

[Kilmer17]

The comment wasn't anti war. It was anti Bush. Stating that they supported the troops as an aferthought doesnt make the original comment acceptable.

[Burgold]

I remember that too, there were people comparing Bush in all sorts of ridiculous ways. Ways that were offensive and completely wrong.

Kilmer, I'm sorry if you thought my comment was aimed at you. I actually think you are being very pro-american. Not only are you voicing your opinion, but you are backing it with actions.

Perhaps, blacklisting was too strong a term. Call it economic favoritism (which is hardly unique and has gone on since Washington), call it racial profiling (which I think is pragmatic, but morally dubious), call it access or lack of access (which is also a common way for all administrations to exert control).

[MarkPSkins]

No I can't do anything about. Nor will I. I just don't get it. And I doubt I ever will.

Kilmer asked who is Natalie Maines to criticize our commander in chief? She is no one, just like you and me. No one of consequense. Just an American who felt she had something to say. Should she be persecuted for it? In my opinion, no she shouldn't. Just like I don't agree, nor addmittedly understand with most of what Fansince62 rambles on and on about. But if he sold a good product I would not boycott it because he feels the way he does politically. While others might boycott him into bankrupsty because of his affiliations, he's not gonna change. Even though some or most people maybe don't agree and might try to make an example out of him by ruining him financially the only by product of it all will be that people who might have enjoyed his product will not get to do so anymore.

Using the Dixie Chics as some tool by conservatives to even the score on boycotting for preferred responses seems a little far fetched and simplistic at the same time. That makes little to no sense and rings a little of vindictive and spiteful behavior. If you think that boycotting the Dixie Chics will in any way change her opinion of the President, you are probably mistaken. Will this boycott have any effect on future rich popular liberal's using the stage to voice thier displeasure or grievences on political issues, doubtful. In all probablity it may just backfire on the conservatives at some point. So let's boycott the Dixie Chicks out of spite so we can show all liberals that we are all about power and control. Not quite Shangri-La.

Her timing was off. Had she said what she said based on the economic meltdown of the country over the past few years and not on the eve of our going to war. No one would have cared. Her timing was off. She said it in the wake of all the "entertainer" backlash from Hollywood. That was her error. She was the straw that broke the proverbial Conservative camel's back. Now people who might of enjoyed an aritist for their work may never get to enjoy anying in the future because of an admitted stupid mistake based on bad timing. Something to feel really good about because of the political statement it made on belhaf of flag waving conservatives everywhere. And there's not a damn thing I can do about. Go America, you make me so proud.

She admitted she should not have said what she said how she said it. While her presentation was what was ill-timed and questionable in taste her opinion remains the same. I may not want to have a political discussion with Natalie Maine's and I may not like her personally, but I do like her music and would buy the next record if there ever is a next record. I guess I would be labeled un-american, un-patriotic if I did so.

I don't agree with what she said. I live in Texas and am not ashamed of our President. But if I persecutted everyone who didn't agree with this war or whose opinion's disagree with mine politically then what does that make me? I have no idea, but I don't think I would like me. And I don't think it is what America is supposed to be.

Just remember the next time you make a political stand, public or private, you may just be reuning your life because of it. Right or wrong.

[Henry]

Mark, that happens all the time. That's capitalism.

College students boycott Dominos because the owner is vocally pro-life.

Jessie Jackson holds marches outside the Academy Awards because there aren't enough Black nominees.

Martha Burk leans on sponsors of the PGA.

Falwell organizes a boycott of The Last Temptation of Christ.

Madonna leads the mob in villifying Sinead O'Connor for ripping up a picture of the Pope. (Ten years later Modonna criticises the mob for not letting artists voice their opinions without reprocussions. )

I hate to break it to ya, but people care about stuff. And they want do stuff about it. And in this country, thankfully, they are allowed to.

I dunno. I'm not going to lose too much sleep over this. Sorry.

[Kilmer17]

Yes, going forward let's not hold anyone accountable anymore. Heaven forbid we have individual tastes and interests. Lets all like the same things for the same reasons.

It's humorous hearing the left now complain about boycotts and perceived PCism now that the roles have been reversed.

As I have said, I hope it doesnt prevent other "entertainers" from speaking their mind in public. It makes it that much easier for me to decide where to spend my money.

At the same time, ask yourself where the right leaning "entertainers" are? Silent for the most part in fear of being blacklisted for their beliefs. Is that right? Regardless, it is SMART of them to remain silent rather than affect their livelihood.

Mark, you continue to trot out the "they're calling me/them anti american" when no-one is doing anything close to that. Stop creating the straw man to back up your arguments.

[The Evil Genius]

Kilmer,

Its that damn gay mafia thats holding down all those conservative actors...

[Kilmer17]

TEG, even you can admit the liberal leanings of hollywood.

[MarkPSkins]

This is it and then I'm done, because I am obviously out of my political league and probably have made myself look stupid enough already.

I'm not bashing anyone for making a stand nor do I think we should not protest or boycott "stuff". I'm glad people care about "stuff". And I hope they continue to care about "stuff". Heck, believe it or not, I care about "stuff". I don't even really care about this whole Dixie Chicks "Stuff".

What I do care about it not that people shouldn't have to suffer consequenses for their actions, but the consequenses should actually have something to do with the action. So this person has a different opinion of how things should be, then debate her, picket her home, call her names, TP her house.

Boycott her livelyhood and the livelyhoods of those who stood dumbfoundedly by while she was being stupid? No. Boycott radio stations that play her music? NO. Hit em where it hurts is the message I guess.

I just think this whole issue was one of the stupidest "stuffs" of all time. I think the reaction was unfounded, reactionary and knee-jerk.

and Kilmer, accountable for what?

Does the punishment really fit the crime?

[codeorama]

Henry or TEG... I'm not sure who this is directed too but I have read several pieces where Bush is compared to Hitler. Whether they are just comparisons, I don't know enough to say.

But I have read:

-Bush constantly refers to the US as the Homeland, the same way Hitler refered to Germany. Bush also named the anti terrorism branch of the govt the Homeland Security dept. or office.

-Bush uses Religion much more than ANY previous president. Hitler also used religion as a means of manipulation.

-Bush is leading the way in persecuting those who don't think like he does..."your'e either with us or against us"... The comparison with Hitler doesn't need further explanation.

Now, before anyone jumps me and says I'm crazy for believing this, UNDERSTAND, I am only listing what I have read.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

TEG, even you can admit the liberal leanings of hollywood.

And even you can admit how ridiculous you sound when you say that liberal leaning Hollywood keeps conservative actors mouths shut.

I don'tsee Arnold hurting. Nor do I see Tom Selleck hurting for dollars - despite he has lost most of his sex appeal.

Nor does the press hound either of these two when they make their positions known (which is quite often) - something that can't be said - for the hundreds of other liberal Hollywood types (Sarandon, Spielberg, etc.).

So if there is a double standard - it appears that it applies to the left leaning actors only. The conservative ones, are free to express their opinion without reprecussions from the media.

[Kilmer17]

And Tom Sellecks last movie was??????????

And the last time either of them spoke out against a left/Democratic position was???????

Look at the firestorm surrounding Heston and the NRA. Look at the disgusting tactics of the left to demonize him and tell me the bias doesnt exist.

Mark, I dont think youve done yourself a disservice at all.

Im not protesting her opinions. Im protesting her using a public forum in a foreign country to bash the President in a veiled attempt to promote herself.

If you want to end the debate no harm done, Im just curious if you think any response to her actions was warranted, and if so, to what extent. And if not, do you think that all speech and actions should be consequence free?

[fansince62]

burgold....I'll meet part way on one thing.......although my privacy has been invaded every which way but up (please, n vile jokes here!) because of what I do....I made a conscious decision on this and have no problems....I am concerned at times on how far privacy invasive legislation is going as it affects those who have not made a conscious decision like I have. there are those, and there are more than you might think, who feel that so long as they have nothing to hide it isn't an issue. there are others who locate themselves somewhere in the history of this country and the constitution who feel very differently. this is a very difficult security vs individual rights matter that most of my friends fall into polar opposites on.

[Henry]

I just think this whole issue was one of the stupidest "stuffs" of all time. I think the reaction was unfounded, reactionary and knee-jerk.

No worries Mark. If you read my first post in this thread you'll see that you and I pretty much agree on this.

However, I don't think it's 'morally right' for entertainers to get a free pass to say whatever comes into their head without having to worry about any negative response from their fans. That's the point I dissagree with.