The Dixie Chicks

by Stan Conroy 110 Replies latest watchtower scandals

Reborn2002

HEY!!!!!!!!! Lay off attacking my girl!!!!!!!
Everyone has a right to their opinion. I think the whole thing about the Dixie Chicks has been blown way out of proportion. If they have an anti-Bush, anti-war attitude, let them have it, and if they speak out, it's their right to do so. This is America, after all.
If you (meaning anyone) don't agree with them, don't agree..............but why attack them?
And most importantly...............because we are all friends here, Lay off attacking my girl!!!!!!!

Sorry if I was attacking. I can be a bit passionate at times. However when someone makes statements that are outright false and can be disproved with documentation (as I have done) and they CONTINUE to make those assertions (without proof I might add, only their belief) it is cause to be irritated.
I have provided articles, definitions, etc. What have you provided? Your belief? That is as bad as a Jehovah's Witness having blind faith in a subject versus obvious documentation pointing to the contrary staring them in the face.
When someone lies, no matter what the subject, I do not intend to let them get away with it.
Sorry Princess, you are probably a nice person. Didn't mean any harm. Your entitled to your belief, even if it is a wrong one.
Yeru - You and I go way back. We have a nice love/hate relationship. We can rip each other apart in political and religious debates, then turn around and console each other in a thread about family problems (which we both have experienced quite a bit of as of late).
No hard feelings eh?
(((Mulan))) and (((Princess)))
sandy

I love the Dixie Chicks music. I will not boycott them. I do believe what they said was stupid and totally uncalled for but that is not reason enough for me to boycott their music.
They have the right to spew out any ignorant thoughts they want to.
What pisses me off is not that they do not like Bush but the words they chose to express it.
"we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
Texas!!!!!!!!!!! Who besides Texans give a rat's ass about Texas!!!! I mean I am glad you are proud of where you are from but does the rest of the world really care? Why is Texas so great? Is it better than any other State in the USA?
With Natalie's comment she basically implied that Texas/Texans are so great, better than the rest of the USA. We are ashamed that Bush is from here because he doesn't live up to our great standards. He should be from CA, NV, NY anywhere but here. Because we are great and wonderful and there is no other place on earth as terrific as Texas.
I hope I have not offended anybody from Texas. I do not have a problem with Texas or Texans. I just think her comment was so incredibly stupid!!!
If she really had to make a comment then she could have replaced Texas for America. But even that comment would have pissed me off. She said this in London!!!! Why would people at a Dixie Chicks concert in London care about her moronic political views?
sandy

A little more on the battle between the Chicks and Toby Keith.
In an article in Country Weekly (5/13/2003 pg. 42) about the Chicks it mentions Natalie’s feud with fellow Country Singer Toby Keith. It notes Natalie calling T.K.’s song, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American) “ignorant”.
I don’t know how many of you know this song but it is very blunt about the USA going to war and making people pay for attacking America. Personally I like the song even though it could be considered ”politically incorrect”. It is a highly patriotic song and it really does express the true emotions many Americans were feeling right after 9/11.
I just cannot believe that Natalie opened her big mouth again and called this song “ignorant”!
The Chicks released a song back in 2000 called “Goodbye Earl”. This song is about an abused woman who murders her abusive husband and gets away with it. Now don’t get me wrong I have sympathy for abused women. I would never convict a woman for killing her abusive mate. But this song, in my opinion downplayed the problems of domestic violence.
The song has an upbeat tempo and it describes how a woman kills her husband and how she got away with it. It is not a serious song about a woman killing her husband out of self defense, in a moment of uncontrollable rage or desperation but instead a woman pretty much joking and making light of the fact that she killed and got away with it.
I really don’t think abused women who do kill their abusers feel so good afterward. Maybe I am wrong but, I think many struggle with guilt and often wonder if they could have handled the situation differently, without having to kill.
Goodbye Earl can be considered just as "ignorant" as the Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue song.
Princess

I deleted my post because honestly I just don't give a rat's ass what you think reborn. why waste so much time?
Who cares about the Dixie Chicks and censorship? God, it is such a stupid non-issue.
teenyuck

Texas!!!!!!!!!!! Who besides Texans give a rat's ass about Texas!!!! I mean I am glad you are proud of where you are from but does the rest of the world really care? Why is Texas so great? Is it better than any other State in the USA?

Well, Dr. Phil might!
Yerusalyim

Reborn,
I choose not to listen to or play the Dixie Chicks on my Stereo, is that Censorship or selection. Yes, in the most technical definition what is being done by the radio stations et al is censorship. But what they practice is a perfectly legitimate form. When most people banter about the word censorship they think of the government intervening.
I'm suprised that a liberal guy like you has a problem with what the radio station is doing. Are all radio stations that don't play the Rush Limbaugh show practicing censorship or free enterprise market response?
Stop nit picking, pretty soon you'll be asking what the definition of "is" is.
Reborn2002

You said:
Right, stupid comments from station managers really get the point across. Why does his opinion carry more weight than mine? He is just a guy who got what he said in print. Doesn't make it more valid reborn, just an opinion.
It was not an opinion! I quoted the ACTION that the station manager took of removing the Dixie Chicks from the station's playlist. As stated in a previous post when defining censorship, I was presenting an actiual case of censorship taking place, not merely an opinion.
Please, oh please tell me where I lied.
You said there was no censorship. I provided definitions of the terminology, and actual cases where censorship took place. You stood by your stance that there is no censorship even when proven wrong with documentation. Therefore you are propagating a lie.
So much for freedom of opinion. If we don't share yours you resort to name calling. Hmmm, reminds me of another poster on this board. You simply have not presented any proof. Just other people's opinions. You didn't put the source of your censorship definition and honestly, it could go either way. I still don't believe it's censorship and don't give a rat's ass if you do.
No proof? I have provided links and definitions, articles, etc.
www.dictionary.com for my first reference:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor
or how about the Merriam-Webster definition so as to give you multiple sources?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=censor
Main Entry: 1 cen·sor
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre to give as one's opinion, assess; perhaps akin to Sanskrit samsati he praises
Date: 1531
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
Satisfied? I am still right.
You simply have not presented any proof. Just other people's opinions.
Another lie. I have provided definitions and articles with hyperlinks and quotation included. NOT opinions, actual events which took place. You believing it is not censorship or me believing it is censorship is an opinion. Actual cases where radio stations remove them from a playlist solely because of vocalized political statements are FACT, not opinion. Get it together.
Is it your intention to be a condescending pr*ck? Would you say something like that to his face? Or any of the above to mine, for that matter? Sorry to cut in here Yeru, but I'm just shocked that someone so young would be such an ass over the Dixie Chicks. God, they are just three stupid women. Who cares?
Condescending prick? Think what you will. Would I say something like that to his face? Certainly, if I firmly believe it. To you? Without question. Contrary to public opinion these days, I believe in freedom of speech and the right to make comments criticizing government without being considered unpatriotic and censored by the media.
What does age have to do with anything? You may consider me rude, but let us not forget you didn't mind making comments toward me either. Are they just three stupid women? Yes. I don't even like their music. Who cares? I do, for the simple fact that people being censored and protested against for speaking their mind against a current President (utilizing their amendment right to free speech) concerns me, as it should any American.
This discussion is over. You may reply if you wish, but I do not waste my time trying to rationalize with people who confuse opinion with fact, and lies with truth.
I still extend an olive branch, but if you wish to remain bitter, so be it.
edited to note : the quotations within the post were taken from Princess's previous post, only after I posted did she edit her post and remove those statements.
dubla

reborn-
as i pointed out, the radio stations are choosing not to play the dixie chicks for a good reason....they dont want to lose their listeners. to me, its quite a bit different then "censorship" in its typical meaning.
is walmart "censoring" because they choose not to put maxim magazine on their shelves? should they be required to put playboy on their shelves?
aa
Reborn2002

I choose not to listen to or play the Dixie Chicks on my Stereo, is that Censorship or selection.
That is selection. As a consumer that is your choice. Radio stations banning their music from the playlist despite fans requesting their songs, all because political statements made outside of music while utilizing freedom of speech IS censorship.
Yes, in the most technical definition what is being done by the radio stations et al is censorship.
Now he admits it. First he says:
Censorship? What censorship?
now he says:
Yes, in the most technical definition what is being done by the radio stations et al is censorship.
Glad to see you admit it, now tell Princess that.
But what they practice is a perfectly legitimate form. When most people banter about the word censorship they think of the government intervening.

Legitimate? When it is done because people utilize freedom of speech and are subsequently censored (as you have admitted now) for doing so? I don't call that legitimate.
I'm suprised that a liberal guy like you has a problem with what the radio station is doing.
I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative. I am a moderate, varying depending on the subject.
Are all radio stations that don't play the Rush Limbaugh show practicing censorship or free enterprise market response?
When they PLAYED the music regularly as part of their playlist previously, but removed it solely because of comments the individual made utilizing the right of free speech, it is censorship. As an example, if a station carried the Rush Limbaugh show for 10 years, and then he made a statement criticizing George W. Bush and the current Administration's policies, and then the station removed him, not because the listener base did not want to hear him, but only because the executives did not agree with the political statements he made, it would be censorship. This is exactly what happened with the Dixie Chicks. As my article showed, fans DID want to hear them. They were not removed for any other reason other than the comments they made, which SHOULD be protected under the right of free speech.
Stop nit picking, pretty soon you'll be asking what the definition of "is" is.
Whose nit picking? I am providing quoted documentation and definitions. In fact I think my argument is extremely rational.
Yerusalyim

Reborn,
Does the Radio Stations have a legal right not to carry the music they decide not to carry, regardless of the reason? If not, file a law suit.
Basic fact for ya, most people do not consider individual radio stations choosing not to carry someone's music as censorship. Most rational people consider censorship something directed from the government.
The Radio station has made a choice. You don't like that choice. Boycott that radio station, it's the american way.

The Dixie Chicks

Share this