I don't understand

[William]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Musi...cks/index.html

"Maines and the trio's other members -- sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire -- also tell Sawyer the fallout was too harsh for the offense and they've always supported U.S. troops, even though they questioned the war. "

All troups volunteer to serve. They swear to follow "the orders of the President and officers apointed over" (from the actual oath).

So, if you're embarassed of President, then you're embarassed the person these people have willingly agreed to serve directly under?

How can you "support the troops" if you don't support the president? They go hand in hand in my book

And how do you go so far as to calling being banished from a radio station un american. These radio stations are seperate from the government, and run by public opinion.

So if public opinion doesn't care for what you say, and chooses to ignore you henceforth because of what you said, how can you say that's un American?

It's un American for me NOT to listen to your music? It's un American for me to CHOOSE to not to listen to you?

Free speech doesn't entitle you to a gaurunteed group of listeners.

I don't get it.

And BTW, they aren't all that to look at either.

[Robert J. Yates]

"I want to exercise my right to free speech but I do not want to bear any responsibility or personal cost for doing so. "

If you believe in something so strongly to speak out publically about it, you should not be worried about "fallout" - that is the time honored american way. Our history is littered with folks whom at great personal cost, stood up for their beliefs. The fact that the Dixie Sh!ts are sniveling leads me to believe they have no principals. Whatever, they are done and good riddance. I never liked them anyways. Maybe they can find an audience in the Rubicon owners support group

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by William
[url]

How can you "support the troops" if you don't support the president? They go hand in hand in my book

I disagree with you here. This is what makes America great. I can disagree with the President's politics and still completely support the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Oath or not, the elected government has a duty to YOU, the soldier, as well (in my book) - to respect the oath you've taken and use you in their best judgement and only when really necessary.

Beyond all this oath stuff the President and his people have to realize and respect the fact that you are young human beings and that you have families and loved ones. Using the United States military for political reasons should be an absolute last resort in my book - and then only if we are in eminent danger of being attacked.

IMO the President and his cabinent failed diplomatically and resorted to military solutions without full thinking through the plan.

I read yesterday that senior white house people are "surprised" and were caught "off guard" by the organizational power the Shiites have - and the fact that their hate of Saddam is equaled by their hate of us. So now we are all worried about some fundamentalist islamic government falling into place that we'll have to blow up in another 10 years.

It's pretty sickening to hear your own government say they didn't realize the political dynamics of the region when the entire reason for going was political - to remove Saddam.

I'm one of the most patriotic people I know, and I love this country and deeply respect and admire the men and women who defend it and my freedom with their life. However, I will not blindly support a man that I consider incompetant who IMO, with the facts that I've seen, is clearly making decisions that are not in the best interest of the United States.

Rant off.

PS: I'm not a Dixie Chick fan either - but I really wasn't before this - their music is okay in my book.

Jeff

[Paradiddle]

Interesting quote from The Boss's website:

"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves," wrote Springsteen -- who has been touring overseas. "For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about -- namely freedom."

Also I might add - that they only appear to be sniveling about their own safety because they've received death threats. That to me is justified sniveling - after all - if you don't like what they say just don't buy their records and don't go to their concerts.

Jeff

[William]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
I disagree with you here. This is what makes America great. I can disagree with the President's politics and still completely support the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I'm not sure how this can be done with out some conflict.


As you said

Oath or not, the elected government has a duty to YOU, the soldier, as well (in my book) - to respect the oath you've taken and use you in their best judgement and only when really necessary.

So, if a person in the military takes an oath to someone you feel doesn't use their best judgement, are they not supporting someone with bad judgement (in your eyes)? And do you not disagree with them for thier parallel choice as well?

This isn't an attack on you Jeff. I just, perhaps in my muddled senses, can not understand how you can say you support one group who completely supports the president, yet not the president him self.

It's like saying I like Jeeps, just not the tires. They go hand in hand.

This has something more to do with the statements of Protestors "I support the troops, not the president". I had a discussion with one of the protestors when I was riding my bike home (they were blocking the street, and had asked me to carry one of their signs. I kind of accidently threw it out in traffic, where it was hit by a bus.) about how they could do one, but not the other.

It's like saying I like fire, but not the heat.

If it was a conscript military, I'd understand.

I can understand how we say we support the people of Iraq, but not the leadership. The people didn't seem to have much choice.

I have a choice. If I feel that I do not support the President, I can elect not to stay in. If I'm not confident in him, I can not reenlist, or what not. These people all agreed to.

[cbassett]

I don't care enough about the Chixie Dicks to comment on their loss of livelihood.
On death threats, ALL public personalities have the potential of falling subject to death threats. Even death threats originating from their biggest fan[atic]s. Yep, they're celebrities. Yep, they got death threats. Again, not really worthy of comment.

[Robert J. Yates]

William,
If the point of your post is to insinuate that in order to support the troops, you MUST also support hte president - then I am on Jeff's side of this as well. The troops have no choice, they took an oath and the President is commander in chief.

I as a private citizen however, don't remember taking such an oath. Yes, I say the pledge and frankly, you will never convice me that disagreement with the President voilates the pledge and results in no support for our troops. I didn't even vote for the guy, much less any other republican or democrat. I tyhink both parties are corrupt and will not waste a vote on either of them.

Jeff,
Springsteen is wrong IMO. Nobody is guaranteed anything other than those rights spelled out in the consitution and amendments. I don't see where in any of them, folks are guaranteed protection to their livelyhood for speaking out.

For example, if I as a private citizen, attend one of my agencies Board of Directors meetings and get up in open session to speak out about how incompetent my bosses are, I can most certainly expect to not have a job inside of 6 months.

Now, I have several choices, to speak out or else, not care about it as long as I get my paycheck for doing my job. If I chose not to speak, one could infer that I simply don't feel that strongly about it to become unemployed. Now, that could certainly change and frankly, if someday I were to do that, I would take getting fired as a sign that I touched a nerve.

The Dixie Chicks should have thought about this before they opened their mouths. They chose to say something political in a situation where folks paid them to hear, not poltical statements but rather their music. Basically, they got up and spoke to their employers about something they didn't want to hear. If they wanted to make a statement in the context for which they were employed, they should have put it to song.

Now, death threats are not right and I agree with the fact that they should not have to deal with them, but frankly, cry me a river over the fact that their album sales are down 70%, that they lost endorsements and now have a very uncertain future. Too friking bad, I would guess they didn't know how well they had it until it was to late. Maybe that wil teach them something valuable to pass on to their children.

[TJRON]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates

The Dixie Chicks should have thought about this before they opened their mouths. They chose to say something political in a situation where folks paid them to hear, not poltical statements but rather their music.

Obviously she didn't think.
The next day she should have apologized and said, "I'm young and dumb and didn't think at the moment. I didn't mean it, it was just all the excitement and all. "
Then they should have played for the troops at bases all over the country for the next few weeks.
They didn't do this so now it's costing them. They probably will be young and dumb has beens in no time.

[TObject]

Originally posted by William
All troups volunteer to serve. They swear to follow "the orders of the President and officers apointed over" (from the actual oath).

So, if you're embarassed of President, then you're embarassed the person these people have willingly agreed to serve directly under?

How can you "support the troops" if you don't support the president? They go hand in hand in my book

Well, let's hope that we will never have a Democratic party member president who decides to spend tax dollars on some kind of squirrel rehabilitation program; because that will make William very confused.

[Tim]

Originally posted by TJRON
Obviously she didn't think.
The next day she should have apologized and said, "I'm young and dumb and didn't think at the moment. I didn't mean it, it was just all the excitement and all. "
Then they should have played for the troops at bases all over the country for the next few weeks.
They didn't do this so now it's costing them. They probably will be young and dumb has beens in no time.

i saw her apology and it looked forced, she had trouble saying it.

that wasn't an apology, it was a poor attept to get ones nose out of the corner. i dont listen to them either but if someone tried to make me an unsincere apology like they did it would **** me off even more.

edit: didnt think that was a cuss word

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by TObject
Well, let's hope that we will never have a Democratic party member president who decides to spend tax dollars on some kind of squirrel rehabilitation program; because that will make William very confused.

LOL, Sergey. That was one of the funniest things I have read all day

[Robert J. Yates]

The Dixie Biyatches pose nude for E!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iechicks_dc_11

If ya have trouble with your showbiz career, show a little skin LOL

[William]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
The troops have no choice, they took an oath and the President is commander in chief.

I'm not insinuating. I'm serious. They choose to serve, knowing who the CIC is. They choose to remain, knowing who the CIC is.

[William]

Originally posted by TObject
Well, let's hope that we will never have a Democratic party member president who decides to spend tax dollars on some kind of squirrel rehabilitation program; because that will make William very confused.

No, actually not at all. I'd just have to decide what was more important:

My unconcealable joy at turning rabit rats with fluffy tails into clouds of red mist, or splatters of small organs

Or my career.

Things like this are simple to me. One or the other. Pick and move on.

Believe me, I don't hold on to things if I don't feel that I get just value out of it.

The jeep, if it becomes more of a PITA than I want to deal with, would be sold, burnt down, or left. Sentiment plays no bearing on that. It's either value added, or value removed in my book.

Same with women, friends, houses, wine, hobbies, .. anything.

The day the Navy isn't a challenge, interesting, or rewarding enough, I'd leave too.

This isn't to say that I don't have days were any of the above doesn't wiegh down on me. But, when the time comes, and I'm through. I'm through.

Which reminds me: I was through with the internet, then came to make a point about roll cages (which I thought was important for the health of friends), and ended up staying.

Time for me to bow out.

See ya!

[TObject]

William, don't go away. I didn't want to offend you. I just wanted to provide some comical relief.

I don't like Dixie Chicks. I don't think we ever have to fear the president authorizing anything squirrel related. This was just a hypothetical scenario.

[William]

It's nothing at all to do with you Sergey. Someone told me a little while back that I didn't belong here because I had stopped posting. I do have a place here, but best the way it was before things got convuluted.

[TJRON]

Originally posted by TObject


I don't like Dixie Chicks but I'd do 'em. One at a time or all together.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Feel gree to delete!

[TObject]

Hey. Those were not my words! I don't like them even like that.

Ron likes Dixie Chicks! Na.. na .. na na-na!

[Jeff Weston]

All this talk about government control and being un-American is a bunch of phooey! Radio stations are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell advertising (make money). The bottom line is that the more listeners (higher Arbritron) within the desired commercial target audience, the more money the station can charge for advertising. That is what drives radio stations. It certainly is not for the development of art and artistic talent (e.g. New Kids, NSync, Britney ... ).

If radio stations choose to play or not play certain music it is to cater to their audiences desires and to increase listenership. I think stations pulled the Dixie Chicks because they new more people would be put off by them being played than those upset that they are pulled. As soon as radio stations think they can make a buck, the DC's will be back on the air.

BTW, who is it that is trying to convince us that the Dixie Chicks are all that (especially the one in the middle). These chicks have nothing on Shania Twain or Faith Hill, though I do respect that they play instruments.

[TObject]

Nah, Shania Twain is not all that.

I don't know who Faith Hill is. I just looked up her pictures on the Internet, and I have to conclude that Jeff Weston likes hanky women.

You know who is really good looking, as far as singers go? Damn it, fogot her name, that young singer from South America. The Rokita. She is also in the Pepsi commercials.

Edit:
Found the name: Shakira. The name definitely could be better.

[Daless2]

I think this is a very interesting conversation, and as you all know when it comes to the Dixie Chicks I just have no self discipline.


Here's a thought for you:

Often when the Dixie Chicks and this topic come up, people, including myself seem to have this need to say "Certainly the Dixie Chicks have a right to voice their opinions."

My question is: Why do we have such a need to make this statement? I mean is there any law restricting their free speech?

I don't think so, and in reality, that my friends is all the First Amendment to Free Speech is all about.

When you or I, or anyone else including the Dixie Chicks is critical in their opinion they are not exercising their right to free speech at all. They are simply stating their opinion in an environment ABSENT of LAWS that would restrict that speech.

Here is the First Amendment:

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Recent cases of retaliation BY THE PEOPLE are not First Amendment issues.

The First Amendment applies only to Government, and not just Congress, but all Government.

If the Los Angeles City Council passed a law that said the Dixie Chicks are not welcome to perform in Los Angeles, that would violate the first amendment.

That would be a government LAW restricting Free Speech and a violation of the First Amendment.

However, in the private sector people and corporations are legally free to threaten the livelihood of anyone exercising their free speech. (AND there shall be no law preventing this either.)



The Farmers who wrote the First Amendment clearly had in mind limiting the ability of the government to restrict speech.

I don't think they were saying: "If you don't like the free speech of someone you still have to buy, play and listen to their records."

In recent weeks, private sector interests have freely exercised their freedom to slam people whose free speech opinions they feel are wrong. Just as these folks have expressed their free speech "Without LAW restricting that speech."

As I am sure you all know by now I hope the Dixie Chicks can be found on the side of the road holding up a cardboard sign written in crayon that says "Will Sing For Food", but I DO NOT IN ANY WAY advocate threats of safety or security of these young ladies. That is simply wrong, and should not in any way be tolerated. I will not tolerate that.



I will be watching the Dixie Chicks tonight, and I probably Will Not have a very open mind either. But that is my prerogative, as there shale be no law which says I must think one way or the other. And yes, the Dixie Chicks are free to boycott me and my business too. That is certainly one of the costs of me stating my opinion in a free society.



To me what the Dixie Chicks did wrong (in my opinion) was to go to Foreign Shores and be critical of the Commander in Chief while on the eve of war.

If you think about it, that's really an easy thing to do now isn't it? (Ever try taking a legal order from a Commander in Chief named Clinton? Not so easy to do, trust me.)

Why would the Dixie Chicks do something so stupid? Probably to work up the emotions of the crowd they were in front of, with no thought to the consequence becuase they are famous and therefore not subject to consequences.

What I find absolutely amazing is the stupidity of this. I agree with Ron, probably a case of "Young Persons Disease."

What is even more amazing is their third apology coming up tonight. Why? Becuase they think the reaction to their comments are "Too Severe"! Oh, I guess their apology like the first too is all "About Them, and not about Apologizing to all the people they offended.



I do not like Marti Sheen's action of late either but I can't help having a healthy degree of respect for his integrity.

When asked if he thought his free speech could be costly to his career he responded; "It ought to. You have to pay something. It has to cost you something, otherwise you have to question what it's worth. "

I think the Dixie Chicks should take Martin Sheen's council, just as I do in so strongly voicing my opinion on this topic. I am quite sure my opinion has indeed effected how I am viewed by others. I expect this and I support everyone's write to alter their opinion of me in this regard as well.

No I think apology number Three is happening becuase sales are down, business is being lost, Sony required it, and nothing new will come out of it.

The Chicks are On, Have to go. Earl might Die tonight, but I guess that's ok.



Frank

[TJRON]

Did the Dixie Chicks do that "Earls Gonna Die" song? I like that song.
I have one of their CDs and I don't like it. To bad Earl's not on it.

[ChrisK]

What I like is all these celebrities getting their shorts in a bunch because people are criticizing their actions.
I guess they are free to speak out against whatever they want but everyone else that wants to speak out against them are not.

Hmmmmm.................



If your going to play, you have to be willing to pay.

[Jeff Weston]

I heard a funny thing on the radio on the way home. The host was talking about the death threats that the Dixie Chicks were supposedly receiving. He said, "how do we know that somebody didn't buy their first album didn't like it and decide that they had to die"

I'm with Frank, choosing not to listen to or support that which you do not like is as American as is gets. Since when are the Dixie Chicks owed anything?

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by William
So, if a person in the military takes an oath to someone you feel doesn't use their best judgement, are they not supporting someone with bad judgement (in your eyes)? And do you not disagree with them for thier parallel choice as well?

This isn't an attack on you Jeff. I just, perhaps in my muddled senses, can not understand how you can say you support one group who completely supports the president, yet not the president him self.

William,

I know you aren't attacking me - and I'm not attacking you.

Soldiers are trained to take orders. Period. It is the basis on which any armed forces operates. Very few groups in the armed forces are allowed to truely think for themselves (Delta for example).

I'm not implying that they are mindless - quite the contrary - WWII was won by the NCOs thinking on their feet in the heat of battle - solid young men taking the initiative.

There are severe rules for questioning authority however - even if the order appears "stupid" or "not well thought out".

Captain: "First Sargent - take a squad and elimnate that machine gun"

First Sargent: "Yes sir."

The Sgt. might be thinking - holy crap, that is lame - we don't have to take that gun, guys are going to die, why are we fighting this war, etc. etc. But what does he do - he assembles a squad and takes the gun. He does this not because he believes in his heart it is the greatest decision but because he has a duty to his country which I think is larger than duty to the President.

Just because you are told to do something doesn't make the order right.

Was Kennedy's decision to start Vietnam sound? Did it matter to the men who fought that war? No. They did their duty. That is what soldiers do.

That is why I respect them so much - that ability to give everything they have for their country - right or wrong.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with the decisions made by politicians. That also doesn't mean (IMO) that the support and respect I have for the military has anything to do with my support or respect for our President. Our current Pres and his staff are career politicians - have no illusions about that. Politicians make decisions based on an intirely different set of rules then normal people.

Career military people soldier on through many Presidents - continuing to do their duty to their country - regardless of who holds that office.

I'm frankly a little surprised that you could quite the Navy so easy - it has to be more than a job for you William - you are investing your LIFE to this job - you'd better believe in it.

These points are very broad brush of course.

I would also do the Chicks and Faith Hill (Sergey she is amazingly beautiful) and Shainai, and Shaikira (saucy!) and many other famous hot people.

Just my .02

Jeff

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by William
I'm not insinuating. I'm serious. They choose to serve, knowing who the CIC is. They choose to remain, knowing who the CIC is.

Who are you talking about here? You quoted me from one paragraph while speaking to a point I made in a different one.

[BrackneyC]

Originally posted by Paradiddle
William,

I know you aren't attacking me - and I'm not attacking you.

Soldiers are trained to take orders. Period. It is the basis on which any armed forces operates. Very few groups in the armed forces are allowed to truely think for themselves (Delta for example).

I'm not implying that they are mindless - quite the contrary - WWII was won by the NCOs thinking on their feet in the heat of battle - solid young men taking the initiative.

There are severe rules for questioning authority however - even if the order appears "stupid" or "not well thought out".

Captain: "First Sargent - take a squad and elimnate that machine gun"

First Sargent: "Yes sir."

The Sgt. might be thinking - holy crap, that is lame - we don't have to take that gun, guys are going to die, why are we fighting this war, etc. etc. But what does he do - he assembles a squad and takes the gun. He does this not because he believes in his heart it is the greatest decision but because he has a duty to his country which I think is larger than duty to the President.

Just because you are told to do something doesn't make

How long did you serve, and in what branch?