i suggest Groverat that you made an another poll :
- in time of war is disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic ? or
- in time of war is disagreeing with the president isn't unpatriotic ?
The true question is there. Your initial poll is not enough specific, in democratia criticizing the president is one of the favorite sports of any citizens, especially if they belong to the other party. The few people said that criticizing the president is unpatriotic are pro Bush or anti Bush crowd complaining that they are reduced to silence because it's unpatriotic.
"A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable".
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body. But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed. Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said). Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community....I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored...but by some private and corporate parties.
No-one said that the Dixie Chicks were censored. They were accused of being unpatriotic for criticising the President, though, which is what this thread is all about.
there is a difference between "disagreeing" with someone and flat out being rude and petting them down, especially in another country, there is a way to do it. ALSO, again with the dixie chicks, the problem is they are ENTERTAINERS and are paid to do so. If you go to a concert, you do not go to hear someones political spiel(wether you agree with them or not) and many times people that even agree get mad when entertainers do it.. if they simply said we disagree, I can tell you the response would not have been as bad. also about the response, all anyone was doing was resonding to what the dixie chicks said, the 'chicks' were free to say it, so people should be free to respond...
Personally I think both things were blown up bigger than they should be, but thats what happens when you deal with people.
"A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable".
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body. But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed. Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said). Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community....I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored...but by some private and corporate parties.
actually during the grammies, and the oscars, people were asked to make NO politcal statements, and they shouldnt.. it is all entertainment that is their job, if they want to do it on someone elses dime(like their own) and not the producers/networks,ect. thats fine. and it could be clear channel pulled the tracks, to appeas the LISTENERS. did ya ever think of that.. ever notice how if someone wants people off the air, all they have to do is threaten to boycott the station and most of the time(not always like with howard stern) the station will pull it? agree or not, they are just listening to what the listeners demand.
This isn't about which statement is correct, it's about which on you have actually heard spoken by human beings more often.
For the love of Satan how ****ing hard is that you understand? Honestly, it's in English and everything.
"Which have you heard more?
'criticizing the president is unpatriotic' or 'criticizing the president is not unpatriotic'"
That's it, that's all.
---
SJO:
Quote:
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body.
You're right, they weren't censored.
Quote:
But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed.
Were they?
And even so, how is that censorship?
Quote:
Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said).
How is that censhorship?
Quote:
Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community
How is that censorship?
I guess if you want to expand the definition of "censorship" to private entities merely not wanting to hear them I guess we can all surmise that if I put out a shitty album and no one listens to it or plays it I've been censored.
--
Hassan:
Quote:
No-one said that the Dixie Chicks were censored.
No?
I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored
I think the reason for the confusion is that the hard-core, party-running Lefties want to change our whole system to punish the productive. That is, unquestioningly, anti-American. They also happen to be against the President, and see conservatives as having an agenda that must be silenced.
Are ORDINARY folks that way? Not unless they watch too much TV.
The Dixie Chicks were called unpatriotic by thousands and thousands of people. As a result, thousands of radio stations pulled them and many made remarks of the same kind. This is fact. This is not about them being 'censored' or not, and it never was. Fact is, one little remark made huge front page news for days again and again because people called it 'unpatriotic.' Plain and simple. That alone demonstrates that option 1 recieved the most attention.
Combine this with the examples mentioned above, the attacks on Kerry's remarks and Perle calling Hersh a terrorist, and everything solidifies.
If the question is becomes, "are there more americans that...," then we can't say one way or the other. The number is hard to tell. But basically anyone who spoke out against the war was attacked in a very high-profile way, with much less attention on their actual remarks than on the fact that many people called them unpatriotic. As on political scientist put it:
Quote:
Mark Rozell, a political scientist at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., says the poll reflects the tendency of Americans to side with their president and military as combat draws near. "It's the classic rallying-around-the-flag. They may be uneasy about going to war, but they feel that criticizing now would be unpatriotic."
If nothing else, the accusation directed at critics of the Bush admin was MUCH more powerful and influential.
I saw a part of Hillary Clinton's rabble-rousing speech today and I was left with the question: Who are there more of, people who say "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic" or people who say "disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic."?
So, which is more prevalent?
I think when faced with such a choice, so bluntly spelled out, most Americans would say that disagreeing with the President is not unpatriotic.
But there are plenty of vigorously flag-waving people who like to see order, loyalty, and a united front, who are prone to comments such as "If you don't like it, you can just leave the country!".
Those kinds of people will have in their minds so many limitations on when it's right or appropriate to voice a view contrary to the President that anything more noteworthy than an unknown citizen quietly voicing his disent in private to a close friend will invoke their wrath.
there is a difference between "disagreeing" with someone and flat out being rude and petting them down, especially in another country, there is a way to do it. ALSO, again with the dixie chicks, the problem is they are ENTERTAINERS and are paid to do so. If you go to a concert, you do not go to hear someones political spiel(wether you agree with them or not) and many times people that even agree get mad when entertainers do it.. if they simply said we disagree, I can tell you the response would not have been as bad. also about the response, all anyone was doing was resonding to what the dixie chicks said, the 'chicks' were free to say it, so people should be free to respond...
Personally I think both things were blown up bigger than they should be, but thats what happens when you deal with people.
Politics is a part of life. So are broken love affairs, getting beat up by the cops, or whatever else people write songs about. There's thousands of political songs out there, from Bruce Springsteen to Michelle Shocked to the Beatles to System of a Down or whoever else you care to mention. Do you feel that songwriters should stay clear of politics in their music? If they write political songs, then what's so out-of- bounds re. songwriters talking about the inspiration behind the music and lyrics, as opposed to just in performance? Do you get mad when Ted Nugent promotes his right-wing views out of performance? Do you get mad when, say, Ricky Martin extols President Bush? Should they shut up also?
If you write a song aobut things that people don't like, they won't buy it. What is hard to understand about that? If you make statements that people dont' like they can disagree with you by not purchasing your product. Its not censorship. Its freedom of what you choose to support with your money. If people dont't like the message that Ted Nugent or Ricky Martin put out, they are free not to buy their music.
I haven't come across anybody who thinks that disagreeing with the President is unpatriotic. The way in which you disagree may be. The professor from Columbia University that said US troops should be slaughtered, I think is unpatriotic.
Comments
- in time of war is disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic ? or
- in time of war is disagreeing with the president isn't unpatriotic ?
The true question is there. Your initial poll is not enough specific, in democratia criticizing the president is one of the favorite sports of any citizens, especially if they belong to the other party. The few people said that criticizing the president is unpatriotic are pro Bush or anti Bush crowd complaining that they are reduced to silence because it's unpatriotic.
Originally posted by groverat
I asked a very simple question, very easy to answer.
Not really. Language can be used in many different ways. What was 'said' and how it was 'said' means different things to different people.
The Dixie Chicks were NEVER censored.
It all depends on how you define a "censor".
"A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable".
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body. But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed. Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said). Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community....I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored...but by some private and corporate parties.
commentary:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
...er, what happened to the Dixie Chicks, again?
here is my take on what happened.
there is a difference between "disagreeing" with someone and flat out being rude and petting them down, especially in another country, there is a way to do it. ALSO, again with the dixie chicks, the problem is they are ENTERTAINERS and are paid to do so. If you go to a concert, you do not go to hear someones political spiel(wether you agree with them or not) and many times people that even agree get mad when entertainers do it.. if they simply said we disagree, I can tell you the response would not have been as bad. also about the response, all anyone was doing was resonding to what the dixie chicks said, the 'chicks' were free to say it, so people should be free to respond...
Personally I think both things were blown up bigger than they should be, but thats what happens when you deal with people.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It all depends on how you define a "censor".
"A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable".
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body. But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed. Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said). Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community....I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored...but by some private and corporate parties.
commentary:
actually during the grammies, and the oscars, people were asked to make NO politcal statements, and they shouldnt.. it is all entertainment that is their job, if they want to do it on someone elses dime(like their own) and not the producers/networks,ect. thats fine. and it could be clear channel pulled the tracks, to appeas the LISTENERS. did ya ever think of that.. ever notice how if someone wants people off the air, all they have to do is threaten to boycott the station and most of the time(not always like with howard stern) the station will pull it? agree or not, they are just listening to what the listeners demand.
This isn't about which statement is correct, it's about which on you have actually heard spoken by human beings more often.
For the love of Satan how ****ing hard is that you understand? Honestly, it's in English and everything.
"Which have you heard more?
'criticizing the president is unpatriotic' or 'criticizing the president is not unpatriotic'"
That's it, that's all.
---
SJO:
The Dixie Chicks were not subject to official censorship on the part of any government body.
You're right, they weren't censored.
But....they were told in no uncertain terms "no antiwar commentary during the Grammys"...or lose the feed.
Were they?
And even so, how is that censorship?
Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said).
How is that censhorship?
Then consider the record burnings and the far-right attitude of the country music community
How is that censorship?
I guess if you want to expand the definition of "censorship" to private entities merely not wanting to hear them I guess we can all surmise that if I put out a shitty album and no one listens to it or plays it I've been censored.
--
Hassan:
No-one said that the Dixie Chicks were censored.
No?
I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored
Originally posted by groverat
Of for the love of ****ing Christ...
quote:
Their songs were pulled from the playlist on many radio stations, specially Clear Channel (despite what CC officially said).
How is that censhorship?
[/i]
OK, it's not censorship as the records that were pulled did not contain anti-GWB sentiment.
What WOULD you describe it as then?
Are ORDINARY folks that way? Not unless they watch too much TV.
Groverat, stop trying to change your argument.
The Dixie Chicks were called unpatriotic by thousands and thousands of people. As a result, thousands of radio stations pulled them and many made remarks of the same kind. This is fact. This is not about them being 'censored' or not, and it never was. Fact is, one little remark made huge front page news for days again and again because people called it 'unpatriotic.' Plain and simple. That alone demonstrates that option 1 recieved the most attention.
Combine this with the examples mentioned above, the attacks on Kerry's remarks and Perle calling Hersh a terrorist, and everything solidifies.
If the question is becomes, "are there more americans that...," then we can't say one way or the other. The number is hard to tell. But basically anyone who spoke out against the war was attacked in a very high-profile way, with much less attention on their actual remarks than on the fact that many people called them unpatriotic. As on political scientist put it:
Mark Rozell, a political scientist at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., says the poll reflects the tendency of Americans to side with their president and military as combat draws near. "It's the classic rallying-around-the-flag. They may be uneasy about going to war, but they feel that criticizing now would be unpatriotic."
If nothing else, the accusation directed at critics of the Bush admin was MUCH more powerful and influential.
Originally posted by groverat
Hassan:
No?
I would say that the Dixie Chicks definitely have been censored
My complete and utter total bad.
Originally posted by groverat
Two choices.
I saw a part of Hillary Clinton's rabble-rousing speech today and I was left with the question: Who are there more of, people who say "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic" or people who say "disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic."?
So, which is more prevalent?
I think when faced with such a choice, so bluntly spelled out, most Americans would say that disagreeing with the President is not unpatriotic.
But there are plenty of vigorously flag-waving people who like to see order, loyalty, and a united front, who are prone to comments such as "If you don't like it, you can just leave the country!".
Those kinds of people will have in their minds so many limitations on when it's right or appropriate to voice a view contrary to the President that anything more noteworthy than an unknown citizen quietly voicing his disent in private to a close friend will invoke their wrath.
Originally posted by groverat
Of for the love of ****ing Christ...
This isn't about which statement is correct, it's about which on you have actually heard spoken by human beings more often.
For the love of Satan how ****ing hard is that you understand? Honestly, it's in English and everything.
"Which have you heard more?
'criticizing the president is unpatriotic' or 'criticizing the president is not unpatriotic'"
That's it, that's all.
I'm not sure it is 'all'. I'm taking issue with this:
Originally posted by groverat
I'm just at a loss to find people who have actually said "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic". I've honestly never heard it.
The poll's another matter.
Originally posted by The General
here is my take on what happened.
there is a difference between "disagreeing" with someone and flat out being rude and petting them down, especially in another country, there is a way to do it. ALSO, again with the dixie chicks, the problem is they are ENTERTAINERS and are paid to do so. If you go to a concert, you do not go to hear someones political spiel(wether you agree with them or not) and many times people that even agree get mad when entertainers do it.. if they simply said we disagree, I can tell you the response would not have been as bad. also about the response, all anyone was doing was resonding to what the dixie chicks said, the 'chicks' were free to say it, so people should be free to respond...
Personally I think both things were blown up bigger than they should be, but thats what happens when you deal with people.
Politics is a part of life. So are broken love affairs, getting beat up by the cops, or whatever else people write songs about. There's thousands of political songs out there, from Bruce Springsteen to Michelle Shocked to the Beatles to System of a Down or whoever else you care to mention. Do you feel that songwriters should stay clear of politics in their music? If they write political songs, then what's so out-of- bounds re. songwriters talking about the inspiration behind the music and lyrics, as opposed to just in performance? Do you get mad when Ted Nugent promotes his right-wing views out of performance? Do you get mad when, say, Ricky Martin extols President Bush? Should they shut up also?
I haven't come across anybody who thinks that disagreeing with the President is unpatriotic. The way in which you disagree may be. The professor from Columbia University that said US troops should be slaughtered, I think is unpatriotic.