You have the right to speak when you agree with me.
It's not a case of whether I agree with what you say or not.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
I object to the political climate of a country that lets this happen as if it's perfectly normal. We don't set fire to CDs in my country. You're allowed to say what you like. We don't have blacklisting for inoffensive criticism of the Prime Minister, war time or not.
Anyone who defends this is no friend of free speech.
It's not a case of whether I agree with what you say or not.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
I object to the political climate of a country that lets this happen as if it's perfectly normal. We don't set fire to CDs in my country. You're allowed to say what you like. We don't have blacklisting for inoffensive criticism of the Prime Minister, war time or not.
Anyone who defends this is no friend of free speech.
You know what's ironic, Hassan? It was the left-leaning Guardian that initially reported the comments- celebrating them in fact. Then other newspapers picked up on it from that article. Goes to show you how free speech in one country could be viewed differently in another.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
the radio stations blacklist them in part because their listeners don't want to hear their songs. market driven result.
if they had said "martin luther king is from Texas, and we're ashamed of that" would you be bothered by the same reactions then?
No! Don't tell me that saying you were ashamed of the Leader gets your books burned (records smashed) and broadcasts banned!?
Oh SHIT. It's true ...
"The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. "
Sorry. I didn't know the US was so advanced. Mein gott. You lot should be scared about now because this is not good.
Other parts will include polling + music numbers, which feed on each other--before their comments the DC had a single that was headed up the charts. Then it came down. How much of that was "blacklisting" and how much was the vagracies of popularity mixed with pissing off the public? Who knows.
i think it's funny that so many are ready to rally to the DC banner to defend them against this oppression--they seem to be doing fine to me. They've polarized their base, but those who support them probably really support them now...no one has forced them to recant except their publicists. Tempest in a teapot.
Oh look. The radio stations that blacklisted the Dixie Chicks for market-led reasons also ORGANISED the CD-burning.
You're defending the indefensible, Alcimedes.
boycotting products because you don't like the political stance of the parent company and/or their marketing and spokesmodels is common practice. if you think someone is an idiot, you don't buy their stuff.
the radio stations promoting the blacklisting is bad. they really should have no say in the matter. however, was their decision to stop playing their music a proactive stance, or one that was reactive based on their listening audience? i have a hard time believing a company would be willing to cut their own profits 'cause they're out to get the Dixie Chicks.
dunno, don't listen to country, ever.
still, would the above have bothered you (assuming even that the company is behind the rally as opposed to responding to their customer base) if those comments had been directed at someone like MLK instead of GWB?
When Lennon remarked, in 1966, that "Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink..." and "we (the Beatles) are more popular than Jesus Christ right now..." or whatever the exact wording was (my quotes are very close...), some people were offended and reacted this way (got rid of their Beatle records and memorabilia).
This isn't some freaky, early 21st century phenomenon, ushered in by a Republican administration. Relax.
It's up to people. The first amendment, if I understand it, speaks of "government" regarding free speech and all. I'd be right with you guys if Congress came out and issued some official proclamation (signed by the President or whatever) that somehow punished or otherwise "went after" the Chicks. THAT is wrong (no one here would disagree, I would imagine).
But if fans, people who kinda put the girls where they are, decide that "hey, I really am bothered by that..." or for whatever other reason, CHOOSE to stomp their CDs or throw them away (CDs that THEY, not YOU, paid for), so what?
It's free people, acting in whatever way they feel appropriate. It's not Bush looming over a pile of crushed CDs and, in a evil scientist kind of way, rubbing his hands together and speaking of the "great cleansing of the scourge of female country artists..." or whatever.
Some of you need to take a slight pill because it seems that in certain issues (ones you feel strongly about and support), "choice" and freedom and people choosing how to respond to individuals, groups or corporations that irk them is a great, celebrated thing (which it is).
Just because you don't agree with this particular case, are you going to suddenly apply that to the things you hold near and dear? No, I wouldn't expect you to.
The Chicks made a statement. At an inopportune time. Many people were bothered by it. Many others weren't (have they had to go on welfare or cancel any upcoming concert dates? Not that I'm aware of...).
It's like I said above: there are sometimes consequences when, as a public figure, you say something. Ask Trent Lott, ask Rick Santorum, ask John Lennon, ask any number of actors, musicians, politicians, TV personalities, etc. over the decades.
No one was stopped or muted from speaking their minds. But in some cases, it didn't go over quite well and people - if they CHOOSE (there's that word again...) - to disagree and react by crushing some silly CDs or selling their concert tickets on eBay or whatever, so what?
I know some of you don't mean this, but it honestly appears - just reading your posts AND taking into account some of your previous ones in other threads and all - that certain people should be allowed to say anything they want and face no sort of backlash or disagreement whatsoever. Then there's ANOTHER group who, everytime they open their mouth, are subject to protest, ridicule, disagreement, etc.
Well, which is it? Seems that some people kinda want it both ways and, to me, that's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
This whole thing, in my opinion, has been blown WAY out of proportion. For the record, I'm not a fan, I didn't own any of their CDs and I had no plans to see them on tour this summer. They're one of those acts, like Vince Gill or Trisha Yearwood, that I can take or leave. I like some of their songs, but that's about the extent of it. I wouldn't have burned, crushed or thrown away their CDs. But I'm not going to sit on high and berate those who, with their own hearts and minds, did what THEY wanted to.
Just because you don't agree on this one, remember all those cases and episodes of dissent and rebellion you routinely support and praise. Don't paint yourselves into some weird corner where you blatantly look like you're giving one group a pass and another group endless grief.
The thing is that it was ushered in by conservative republican forces via prodding on the behalf of Clear Channel DJs. So the whole issue is that it was an organized thing and not just some spontaneous jewel case burning phenomenon. Yeah, conservative country music fans were upset, but the rallies were organized by an ideologically right leaning media company- Clear Channel Communications.
spj makes a really good point, a handful of people have been sanitizing the radio for some time now.
it's not a cabal or anything as it's done out in the open.
songs from the 70's and early 80's that are now considered classics never got touched by pop radio because they didn't kiss cal rudman or some other stiff's ass.
Here is my take on it. The Dixie Chicks are young texiCans who do not have a clue about political stuff. I doubt any of then know who the vice president is or knew who the Kurds are. I doubt that they even understand that the reason that so many americans are mad at them is because they made anti american statements in a foreign country. When a celebrity is oversees they represent our country. It was a slap in the face to america and made an unsaid statement that our goverment does ont represent the people of the United States. Making it look like just another lying dictatorship. If they would have said what they said on US soil this would be a small issue. Many other actors have said far worse.
i dont really think any of them are that good looking, perhaps the one in the center
i dont agree with them, but i think if you say something you should stick with it if you believe it, if u rn't going to stick by something you believe then you shouldn't say it
i dont agree with them, but i think if you say something you should stick with it if you believe it, if u rn't going to stick by something you believe then you shouldn't say it
Except that when you are on foreign soil you represent the country if you are famous.
And yes you should stick to what you believe. but you should also check out the facts on both sides to come to an educated decision before making statements to international media. they knew that america was not popular in engalnd at the time.
And they knew that it would get a big cheer. And I bet that Dexie chick sales in england, france, russia, etc. has gone up
Except that when you are on foreign soil you represent the country if you are famous.
And yes you should stick to what you believe. but you should also check out the facts on both sides to come to an educated decision before making statements to international media. they knew that america was not popular in engalnd at the time.
And they knew that it would get a big cheer. And I bet that Dexie chick sales in england, france, russia, etc. has gone up
you are absolutly right, and that is why their sales suffer here, they are finding out what happens when you misrepresent americans, i do not care for their music much, and i did not buy their music in the first place so i am not boycotting it, but they were stupid enough to say something they thought (uneducated as it may be) and that has caused them problems
screw the DC's though, pearly jam is even more gay
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
that chapter must have been in one of the books i burned.
Well, I must admit that I walked into that one like a right proper twat.
Originally posted by groverat
You have the right to speak when you agree with me.
It's not a case of whether I agree with what you say or not.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
I object to the political climate of a country that lets this happen as if it's perfectly normal. We don't set fire to CDs in my country. You're allowed to say what you like. We don't have blacklisting for inoffensive criticism of the Prime Minister, war time or not.
Anyone who defends this is no friend of free speech.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
It's not a case of whether I agree with what you say or not.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
I object to the political climate of a country that lets this happen as if it's perfectly normal. We don't set fire to CDs in my country. You're allowed to say what you like. We don't have blacklisting for inoffensive criticism of the Prime Minister, war time or not.
Anyone who defends this is no friend of free speech.
You know what's ironic, Hassan? It was the left-leaning Guardian that initially reported the comments- celebrating them in fact. Then other newspapers picked up on it from that article. Goes to show you how free speech in one country could be viewed differently in another.
Violently, in fact.
My point is: what kind of a country is it that sees radio stations blacklist a group's music because one of the members criticises the country's leader? For ONE comment in the course of a performance?
the radio stations blacklist them in part because their listeners don't want to hear their songs. market driven result.
if they had said "martin luther king is from Texas, and we're ashamed of that" would you be bothered by the same reactions then?
Oh SHIT. It's true ...
"The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves. "
Sorry. I didn't know the US was so advanced. Mein gott. You lot should be scared about now because this is not good.
Originally posted by alcimedes
the radio stations blacklist them in part because their listeners don't want to hear their songs. market driven result.
if they had said "martin luther king is from Texas, and we're ashamed of that" would you be bothered by the same reactions then?
You're scaring me.
"In part" ... what's the rest of the justification (I don't expect an answer).
i think it's funny that so many are ready to rally to the DC banner to defend them against this oppression--they seem to be doing fine to me. They've polarized their base, but those who support them probably really support them now...no one has forced them to recant except their publicists. Tempest in a teapot.
You're defending the indefensible, Alcimedes.
Oh look. The radio stations that blacklisted the Dixie Chicks for market-led reasons also ORGANISED the CD-burning.
You're defending the indefensible, Alcimedes.
boycotting products because you don't like the political stance of the parent company and/or their marketing and spokesmodels is common practice. if you think someone is an idiot, you don't buy their stuff.
the radio stations promoting the blacklisting is bad. they really should have no say in the matter. however, was their decision to stop playing their music a proactive stance, or one that was reactive based on their listening audience? i have a hard time believing a company would be willing to cut their own profits 'cause they're out to get the Dixie Chicks.
dunno, don't listen to country, ever.
still, would the above have bothered you (assuming even that the company is behind the rally as opposed to responding to their customer base) if those comments had been directed at someone like MLK instead of GWB?
This isn't some freaky, early 21st century phenomenon, ushered in by a Republican administration. Relax.
It's up to people. The first amendment, if I understand it, speaks of "government" regarding free speech and all. I'd be right with you guys if Congress came out and issued some official proclamation (signed by the President or whatever) that somehow punished or otherwise "went after" the Chicks. THAT is wrong (no one here would disagree, I would imagine).
But if fans, people who kinda put the girls where they are, decide that "hey, I really am bothered by that..." or for whatever other reason, CHOOSE to stomp their CDs or throw them away (CDs that THEY, not YOU, paid for), so what?
It's free people, acting in whatever way they feel appropriate. It's not Bush looming over a pile of crushed CDs and, in a evil scientist kind of way, rubbing his hands together and speaking of the "great cleansing of the scourge of female country artists..." or whatever.
Some of you need to take a slight pill because it seems that in certain issues (ones you feel strongly about and support), "choice" and freedom and people choosing how to respond to individuals, groups or corporations that irk them is a great, celebrated thing (which it is).
Just because you don't agree with this particular case, are you going to suddenly apply that to the things you hold near and dear? No, I wouldn't expect you to.
The Chicks made a statement. At an inopportune time. Many people were bothered by it. Many others weren't (have they had to go on welfare or cancel any upcoming concert dates? Not that I'm aware of...).
It's like I said above: there are sometimes consequences when, as a public figure, you say something. Ask Trent Lott, ask Rick Santorum, ask John Lennon, ask any number of actors, musicians, politicians, TV personalities, etc. over the decades.
No one was stopped or muted from speaking their minds. But in some cases, it didn't go over quite well and people - if they CHOOSE (there's that word again...) - to disagree and react by crushing some silly CDs or selling their concert tickets on eBay or whatever, so what?
I know some of you don't mean this, but it honestly appears - just reading your posts AND taking into account some of your previous ones in other threads and all - that certain people should be allowed to say anything they want and face no sort of backlash or disagreement whatsoever. Then there's ANOTHER group who, everytime they open their mouth, are subject to protest, ridicule, disagreement, etc.
Well, which is it? Seems that some people kinda want it both ways and, to me, that's the ultimate in hypocrisy.
This whole thing, in my opinion, has been blown WAY out of proportion. For the record, I'm not a fan, I didn't own any of their CDs and I had no plans to see them on tour this summer. They're one of those acts, like Vince Gill or Trisha Yearwood, that I can take or leave. I like some of their songs, but that's about the extent of it. I wouldn't have burned, crushed or thrown away their CDs. But I'm not going to sit on high and berate those who, with their own hearts and minds, did what THEY wanted to.
Just because you don't agree on this one, remember all those cases and episodes of dissent and rebellion you routinely support and praise. Don't paint yourselves into some weird corner where you blatantly look like you're giving one group a pass and another group endless grief.
That's the issue.
How do you feel about that?
it's not a cabal or anything as it's done out in the open.
songs from the 70's and early 80's that are now considered classics never got touched by pop radio because they didn't kiss cal rudman or some other stiff's ass.
Here is my take on it. The Dixie Chicks are young texiCans who do not have a clue about political stuff. I doubt any of then know who the vice president is or knew who the Kurds are. I doubt that they even understand that the reason that so many americans are mad at them is because they made anti american statements in a foreign country. When a celebrity is oversees they represent our country. It was a slap in the face to america and made an unsaid statement that our goverment does ont represent the people of the United States. Making it look like just another lying dictatorship. If they would have said what they said on US soil this would be a small issue. Many other actors have said far worse.
On the otherhand
they are hot
so quit saying that they are not.
i dont really think any of them are that good looking, perhaps the one in the center
i dont agree with them, but i think if you say something you should stick with it if you believe it, if u rn't going to stick by something you believe then you shouldn't say it
not the hottest girl ever but there is something about a pretty girl wearing linux clothes that i like
AGAIN before u say anything about how she isn't the hottest, u are right she is not, not EVEN CLOSE...but linux is sexy and she isn't bad
haha least she doesn't look like a man
Originally posted by ast3r3x
you think this is hot?!
i dont agree with them, but i think if you say something you should stick with it if you believe it, if u rn't going to stick by something you believe then you shouldn't say it
Except that when you are on foreign soil you represent the country if you are famous.
And yes you should stick to what you believe. but you should also check out the facts on both sides to come to an educated decision before making statements to international media. they knew that america was not popular in engalnd at the time.
And they knew that it would get a big cheer. And I bet that Dexie chick sales in england, france, russia, etc. has gone up
Originally posted by JC
Except that when you are on foreign soil you represent the country if you are famous.
And yes you should stick to what you believe. but you should also check out the facts on both sides to come to an educated decision before making statements to international media. they knew that america was not popular in engalnd at the time.
And they knew that it would get a big cheer. And I bet that Dexie chick sales in england, france, russia, etc. has gone up
you are absolutly right, and that is why their sales suffer here, they are finding out what happens when you misrepresent americans, i do not care for their music much, and i did not buy their music in the first place so i am not boycotting it, but they were stupid enough to say something they thought (uneducated as it may be) and that has caused them problems
screw the DC's though, pearly jam is even more gay
Originally posted by ast3r3x
not the hottest girl ever but there is something about a pretty girl wearing linux clothes that i like
AGAIN before u say anything about how she isn't the hottest, u are right she is not, not EVEN CLOSE...but linux is sexy and she isn't bad
Why do they have to be "The hottest girls ever!"
they are not actors or models they are singers.
if you met girls that look like this in life you would say that they are hot because THEY ARE!!
Reminds me of a joke:
Adam was talking to God about Eve one day, " God why did you make Eve so pretty curvacious and blonde?"
"So that you would love her" replied God.
"but" asked Adam, "Why did you make her so Dumb?"
and God said "So that she would love you"
nuff said