posted on April 24, 2003 08:19:57 PM new
After watching, I am still trying to figure out if she meant what she said or not.
It was also the height of hypocracy when they all complained about the death threats. The president they maligned in a foreign land gets threats too, but they didn't seem to care about that.
I also find to it hard to believe that it was an "off the cuff" remark. She said "we" are ashamed that Bush was from Texas. The other two never denied that it was their position too. So they must have discussed it at some point before she shot her mouth off.
posted on April 24, 2003 09:49:54 PM new
Some free speaking can be a real ‘enemy to the state’.
People that actually posses a ‘voice’ may actually be heard, if they say something in opposition to the dominant paradigm.
Political action to curtail their speech may be viewed as totalitarian.
Social pressure can achieve the same ‘suppression’ but it can be argued to not be a ‘state’ act.
It’s like the McCarthy effect but with a soft on.
The Logic.
Saddam is evil’’evil’’’evil’’’evil’’.
Bush is looking to stop Sadaam.
Dixie Chicks are ashamed of Bush.
Therefore.
Dixie chicks are evil’’’evil’’’evil’’’evil.
Love Bush and all he stands for or you too are evil’’’evil’’’evil’’’evil.
I know Bush can use the ‘evil’ word more times in a sentence than me, but do you think I got the message across.
posted on April 25, 2003 03:48:17 AM new
I'll agree that the what, where and when of what they said was in pretty poor taste, but I think it's gotten a bit out of hand.
So, if I express my opinion and you don't like it, you can take my career away from me? So, agree or shut up? Why on Earth have all the soldiers in every war fought for this country died if I can't use one of the rights they died for? Or, if I have to use it in fear?
Yes, some thinking before speaking should have been done before the mouth was opened and the words came out. Then again, how many of us have said things in the heat of the moment only to wish we could suck the words back in?
posted on April 25, 2003 06:44:00 AM new
It's interesting that freedom of speech diminishes with popularity or status in our society. The consequences to the career of a popular group like the dixie chicks just for saying what they think can be devastating. So, finally they were pressured to apologize by intimidation.
At least we aren't threatening the lives of major authors today..."not yet".
posted on April 25, 2003 07:12:28 AM new
It is no different than anyone using their same "free speech" rights that the chicks displayed by not buying their albums, going to the concerts or buying merchandise from them. That is part of the price you pay for stardom, words or actions have more effect than if you or I say them because of course they are in the spotlight. This is the profession they choose so they can't bask in the glory of spotlight and then say it isn't fair when things don't go their way. The reason she made the statement is because they were in Europe and knew it would have a positive reaction from the crowd and now that the US tour is about to kick off they are trying to right the ship so they can have a positive reaction from the US crowds. They simply want it both ways and it's not working out to well for them at the present time. I could realy care less one way or the other but its easy to see the bought the shovel and dug the hole for themselves.
posted on April 25, 2003 07:36:40 AM new
To me all people to have their 'free speech' rights. But for some reason some expect that there should be no consequences for what the reaction/response is to what's said. It's all about common sense...not taking away anyone's freedom of speech.
If I went into my employer and told him what an a$$hole he was...there would be consequences to speaking my mind. It's not any different when groups like the Dixie Chicks make the statements they did. Their 'employer' is their public. And they showed them what they thought of the statements made.
Yes, THINKING before speaking IS a good thing to learn. Think they got the point.
-------------
and twinsoft -
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 25, 2003 07:42 AM ]
And thankfully, there are people who don't have to limit their speech because they are intimidated or controlled by fear of losing money or means to earn a living.
posted on April 25, 2003 10:39:02 AM new
Here we go again with the liberal mish mash and double standard.
First, there is NO private free speech rights guaranteed by the constituion or any other legal standard. The constitution only allows that the GOVERNMENT will not repress speech.
The lefties as usual want action without personal consequences. Say what I want and do what I want, look how I want, speak how I want, and there should be no consequences from my employer, my neighbor, my countrymen.
They forget that while they have these freedoms from government interference, there are consequences from the private sector. You can be fired for how you dress, your friends can abandon you for how you act, the public can despise you for what you say. And you have no one to blame but yourself.
Companies that refuse to hire actors who are anti-American peace protesters, and consumers that refuse to consume the works of "artisits" that malign military leaders and missions in public and foreign lands have consequences they should face.
They chose the office of public figure. They wanted the fame, glory, money, stardom, and when they enter the realm of politics using/abusing that same platform, they take the same risks that politicians must take and that is rejection and public disdain, and career ending public backlash.
Does this mean they have to shut up ? No. But it does mean that they have to take the heat and it doesn't have anything to do with free speech doctrines.
posted on April 25, 2003 12:01:28 PM new
What I thought was interesting was that the dark haired chick suggested that celebrities don't have "power" yet it wasn't too long ago that the the big-mouth chick said something to the effect that they were in a position to sue Sony, to help others.
So one hand the chicks and other celebrities recognize they do have the "power" yet when under fire, they don't.
How many times have we experienced the "weight" of a celebrity in advertising, politics etc? Yet when it comes to the chicks and their arrogancy, they don't have power.
posted on April 25, 2003 12:07:49 PM new
How is that Junquemama? Oh I see when others express their free speech by not buying records or listening to their music it is blacklisting? But it is ok to say anything you want without consequence? Hell you can't even do that on here...
People are showing their "free" speech by objecting to the Dixie Chicks and others... why would a movie producer want to use an actor no one would come to watch?
I am still curious how you compare this to the 1950's blacklist? They can still sing all they want... make all the records they want, make movies all they want...
Get naked on magazine covers... and make fools of themselves on national television, so once again how is that blacklisting?
posted on April 25, 2003 12:18:10 PM new
"And thankfully, there are people who don't have to limit their speech because they are intimidated or controlled by fear " Yep we now call them Iraqi citizens. i knew you agreed with this war all along helen
posted on April 25, 2003 12:35:26 PM new
By not accepting the consequences of their actions... makes them fearful and intimidated, then it wasn't worth hearing...
posted on April 25, 2003 12:38:21 PM new
12,you said:
Hell you can't even do that on here
Thats a lie,The name calling was very rampant from you, and your Bush friends.
On the Dixie Chicks,I can compare it to 50s black listing,from Bushs speach:
Your either with us, or against us
Any remark against war,showing of a peace sign,complaining about the economy,telling the truth.You will get met with,Commie,un-American,pro-Saddam,among other choice words,and this was done right here.
The people in Hollywood have always been political,and now this is against whos rules?
The CA. people have also been mostly Democrat,NAH...that has nothing to do with it.
Our economy isKRAP..and all you people can focus on is what the Dixie Chicks said.
Yeah,I can see all the respect garnered from
your real concerns.
posted on April 25, 2003 01:26:57 PM newAny remark against war,showing of a peace sign,complaining about the economy,telling the truth.You will get met with,Commie,un-American,pro-Saddam,among other choice words,and this was done right here.
Aside from the community guidelines, those who make those comments, myself included, are practicing THEIR OWN RIGHT of free speech.
Let me see if I'm understanding your position correctly. No one should be boycotting the Dixie Chicks records because they should be free do say what they want. [Which they are and they did]. But if anyone wants to make statements that they see someone's views as anti-American...they shouldn't be allowed to say so? Seems more than a little hypocritical to me.
But, of course, as Reamond stated....our constitutional right to free speech protects us from our government not each other.
And it's always been my view that when President Bush made the statement 'you're either with us or against us' it was being directed at other countries....not American citizens.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 25, 2003 02:33:42 PM newThe people in Hollywood have always been political,and now this is against whos rules?
It is against MY RULES. Actors are basically idiots that were blessed with desirable looks and the ability to be what they're not on que.
I can discredit their positions, not buy their products, encourage others to do the same. It is called FREEDOM.
There is no government rules or regulations that are silencing any actors.
It is the height of FREEDOM and FREE MARKETS for the public and everyone in the private sector to vote with their pocket books, to also express their opinions about how wrong and discusting these anti-American protesters are. It is also the height of FREEDOM to point out that it was communist organizations that organized and led these protests.
Free speech DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR IDEAS WILL BE:
ACCEPTED
LIKED
VALUED
WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES FROM THE PUBLIC
WITHOUT OTHER IDEAS CHALLENGING YOUR IDEAS
posted on April 25, 2003 03:06:30 PM new
And it still means...BLACK LISTED
What gives you the right to speak for me or anyone else.I didnt elect you to speak for me,in the Government or at Vendio,all you can do is throw anti American slogans around that dont agree with your agenda.Name calling is the lowest denominator of mental thought,and acts.
Until some of you people wake up to the real world,anything that spews from your mouth is from a brain washed daze.
None of you can carry on a conversation about the future,our future,here at home,not some damned put on war to scar the masses.
Tell me why 9/11 isnt being investigated fully,tell me why there are no jobs that Bush promised over a year ago.
Show me where we can turn around the economy.Go after the Corp. fatcats that screwed America.
Stop blowing 400 billion on a Homeland security that encourages buying duck tape and plastic.
Color alert?give me a break,the next biggie to hit us will be a dirty bomb,at a time someone is asking too many questions.
You want to play war with other peoples lives,go do it yourselves,give Our GI's a break.
Somewhere in your simpleton heads,Hollywood became the enemy,because they spoke out against a seated President,Yet when you complained against the last President(not you but others here)did anyone call, any of the special names,like unAmerican,flag hater?
No,you are a mean bunch,I dont care how you drape the flag around you.
posted on April 25, 2003 03:38:59 PM new
Yea....I hope YOU all got that straight.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 25, 2003 03:43:02 PM new
Junque, you asked whose rules, well we all have our own rules we live by... your freedom is to still buy those records and listen to their music or watch certain movies or support whomever you want...
Same goes for me and everyone else... however if being labled as an anti-american bothers you... then maybe you need to look in the mirror and ask why, if it is not true what should it matter?
If however your actions and words lend support to those who are US enemies then that in itself makes you an anti-american...
Many peace protestors fall into that category, especially the ones that were at the SF docks...
Oh and I did my war time... so I think I have as much right to support this because we all knew in '91 we would need to finish the job...
Economy was starting to go south in 2000, Bush took office in 2001.
Without Homeland Security how would you protect me and mine? How would you protect yourself and your family?
Believe it or not war can stimulate an economy... Iraq is going to be getting planes they ordered 12 years ago... more people will be needed to build those planes, US will need to replace lost or damaged equipment...
Iraq will probably be a big buyer of US goods for awhile...
Twelvepole
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Apr 25, 2003 03:58 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2003 03:47:42 PM new
These leftists won't be satisfied until we can only watch movies by leftist actors, only listen to music by leftist musicians, drive only approved cars, eat only approved foods, say only approved things.
Lefists can not allow anyone's feedoms but their own. If it doesn't fit their politically correct paradigm, it is not worthy of free exercise by others.
posted on April 25, 2003 05:20:17 PM new
I recently heard a radio interview with rocker Ted Nugent about celeberities voicing their opinions in public. Ted described himself as "Pro American, Pro Gun, Pro Hunter & Fisherman. & Pro Family".
When asked to comment about anti war. left winger celebs like Susan Sarandan, the Chicks, Martin Sheen, Mike Farrel & others, Ted asked a couple of questions:
1) How many of these celebs raised their kids without "nannys".
2) How many of these celebs go out & buy their own groceries?
3) How many of these celebs do their own laundry or clean their own homes? Wash their own cars?
4) How many of these celebs fix their kids school lunches & drive those same kids to school? Or help them with their homework?
5) How many of these celebs take their kids hunting or fishing?
6) How many of these celebs cooks their own meals or pay their own bills?
Ted stated "I don't have a nanny, a cook, a maid or have anyone take my kids to school. My wife & I do itall ourselves".
Then Ted stated (and I'm paraphrasing), if these celebs aren't in everyday contact with their OWN lives & families ("I.E." living in an Ivory Castle), what makes them think their opinions can be stated without receiving a negative response from the WORKING PUBLIC. The same public that purchases their own groceries, washes their own clothes, cleans their own homes & etc.
posted on April 25, 2003 05:38:38 PM new
I don't remember liberals being very concerned about free speech when John Rocker was blasted for his politically incorrect statements. Every left wing group was calling for his head on a platter.
If there is such a thing, it's probably safe to say that John Rocker is on the left's black list.
Cheryl
Two Southwest pilots were fired for doing just that. LOL
Twelvepole
