stevie's politics?

[melly]

I'm new to the site and just want to say Hi :) I've been reading a few things about the American election coming up in November and I remember seeing a thread here a while back about Stevie donating $ to some democrats. Has she come out in support of Kerry (or anyone else?) or said anything about the election?

Cheers :xoxo:

[dissention]

To my knowledge, she's never voiced her support for a political candidate, but I think it's very safe to assume that she's a Democrat/liberal. She's donated money to Democrats and never Republicans.

To be honest, from the very few public comments she's made about politics, she seems quite naive about the whole political world. Her comments about Jackson Browne in the 80s are cringe-worthy.

Mick and Lindsey are Democrats/liberals, too, from what I've heard and seen. Mick said that he would have voted for Clinton if he was a citizen and Lindsey has expressed his dislike for the Bushes and has donated to the ACLU, GLAAD, Planned Parenthood, etc.

And no matter what anyone in the band says, I do not believe that Peacekeeper is not a political song. They knew what they were doing when they released it in MARCH OF 2003. :laugh:

[teedee]

To my knowledge, she's never voiced her support for a political candidate, but I think it's very safe to assume that she's a Democrat/liberal. She's donated money to Democrats and never Republicans.

To be honest, from the very few public comments she's made about politics, she seems quite naive about the whole political world. Her comments about Jackson Browne in the 80s are cringe-worthy.

Mick and Lindsey are Democrats/liberals, too, from what I've heard and seen. Mick said that he would have voted for Clinton if he was a citizen and Lindsey has expressed his dislike for the Bushes and has donated to the ACLU, GLAAD, Planned Parenthood, etc.

And no matter what anyone in the band says, I do not believe that Peacekeeper is not a political song. They knew what they were doing when they released it in MARCH OF 2003. :laugh:

just because someone keeps their political views to them selves, doesnt mean they are naive.

[tynan88]

I don't think diss is suggesting that she is naive by not saying anything, I think he is trying to say that from what little she has said about politics she appears to really have no idea what she is on about, I don't think that is a good or a bad thing, some people (like myself) enjoy politics and political debates to others it isn't particularly important.

I am sure Stevie uses her vote effectively and knows enough about that, but as opposed to some other artists politics isn't the most important thing to them. Now naive comments I woud suggest are comments like the ones Britney Spears made about George Bush that were used on Fahrenheit 9/11 :laugh:

Tynan

[Kelly]

Stevie is also fairly close to the Clinton's after performing for them several times, so......I would say she is most likely a Democrat/liberal. (Stevie says on the Today that "Hillary called her and asked her to perform without
Chris at Clinton's farewell party. Thats why I said "fairly close" above)

Diss..you are right on the money. If Peacekeeper is about politics/war, I will eat my tourbook. Care to share your interpretation of PK? Sounds like a love song to me.

[teedee]

I don't think diss is suggesting that she is naive by not saying anything, I think he is trying to say that from what little she has said about politics she appears to really have no idea what she is on about, I don't think that is a good or a bad thing, some people (like myself) enjoy politics and political debates to others it isn't particularly important.

I am sure Stevie uses her vote effectively and knows enough about that, but as opposed to some other artists politics isn't the most important thing to them. Now naive comments I woud suggest are comments like the ones Britney Spears made about George Bush that were used on Fahrenheit 9/11 :laugh:

Tynan

Well it appears that he made his assumption based on what stevie said about jackson. like in your post you used britneys comment about bush. Same thing.

[GateandGarden]

Well it appears that he made his assumption based on what stevie said about jackson. like in your post you used britneys comment about bush. Same thing.Well, this is new to me, so I have two questions--1) What did she say about Jackson? and 2) Could it have possibly been as ridiculous as what Britney said about Bush?
:shrug:

Also:Lindsey has expressed his dislike for the Bushes and has donated to the ACLU, GLAAD, Planned Parenthood, etc.I didn't know about that. Lindsey is too cool. :D

Hillary

[saradorna]

To be honest, from the very few public comments she's made about politics, she seems quite naive about the whole political world. Her comments about Jackson Browne in the 80s are cringe-worthy.

What comments? I like to know what she said.

Isabel

[dissention]

What comments? I like to know what she said.

Isabel

Browne attended a Diablo Canyon nuclear protest in the 80s and upon hearing this, Stevie said:

"But they could have broken your fingers-your beautiful fingers that write all those beautiful songs. Are you crazy? We need you to write songs. We don't need you to be in jail."

It's a rather childish and naive statment, IMO.

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.

[dissention]

Well it appears that he made his assumption based on what stevie said about jackson. like in your post you used britneys comment about bush. Same thing.

No, I've made my assumption based on the few times she's spoken about political issues. And that's all it is: an assumption. ;)

[dissention]

Diss..you are right on the money. If Peacekeeper is about politics/war, I will eat my tourbook. Care to share your interpretation of PK? Sounds like a love song to me.

No, no, I DO think it is about war and politics. :laugh: I think it would take quite a stretch of the imagination to think it isn't, IMO. Just look at the timing of its release as a single: MARCH OF 2003.

[Merf]

If Peacekeeper is about politics/war, I will eat my tourbook. Care to share your interpretation of PK? Sounds like a love song to me.

:nod: :nod: :nod: Two words, Kelly: Smoke and Screen.

[heyjupiter678]

No, no, I DO think it is about war and politics. I think it would take quite a stretch of the imagination to think it isn't, IMO. Just look at the timing of its release as a single: MARCH OF 2003.

I disagree. The timing of the single release doesn't have anything to do with it, IMO. What matters is when the song was written.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Buckingham: "We're not a political band, and we never will be. Some songs seem to make a specific political comment only because certain events occurred. It's a strange coincidence. On What's the World Coming To, I tried to address insensitivity to the individual. Peacekeeper is a peace song that looks at this increasingly desensitized world. It asks what is peace. You can't expect to have a static condition called peace. You can only work toward that as an ideal. It may have certain reference points that apply to events of the last couple of years. Attaching a narrow interpretation is not necessarily bad, but it probably robs those songs of a richer interpretation. Lyrics need ambiguity to be rich enough to be a Rorschach."

Also, in the beginning, wasn't he saying that the song was about marital problems? Or was that WTWCT?

[heyjupiter678]

From the Performing Songwriter article:

PEACEKEEPER
I wrote the song about two and a half years ago. It was, in a very ironic way, looking at the kind of thinking that is matter of fact and desensitized towards certain actions that go on in the world, and the kind of blankness and conformity that goes along with that. And then trying to look at what does that do for a married couple trying to work out their problems. How does it affect them? What is peace, really? The whole idea that there can be any static condition is obviously an illusion. So can there ever really be peace? There can be moments of peace or long periods of peace, possibly, whether it's in the world or in a relationship. But it seems to me what peace really means is valuing the ideal of that and just being mindful of it working towards the maintenance of it, even though you understand it will not always exist. But the irony of being matter of fact about not thinking that way is really what the song is doing.

[dissention]

I wrote the song about two and a half years ago. It was, in a very ironic way, looking at the kind of thinking that is matter of fact and desensitized towards certain actions that go on in the world, and the kind of blankness and conformity that goes along with that. And then trying to look at what does that do for a married couple trying to work out their problems.[/COLOR]

That would support both positions on the song. What I interpret him saying is that it looks at the line of thinking throughout the world that desensitizes emotions and turns them into emptiness, desensitizes people to atrocities being committed, then applying it to personal relationships.

As for the other quote you posted, if it is indeed about poltical issues (and no one is saying it can't be about perosnal relationships, too), it wouldn't surprise me that Lindsey said it wasn't. Can we say Dixie Chicks?

[no_spoken_word]

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.

I remember that, and I remember being a little dissappointed by Stevie. It made me wonder what Stevie thought of her friend Sheryl Crow when she wore her "I DON'T BELIVE IN YOUR WAR MR BUSH" t-shirt to an award show earlier that year.

[heyjupiter678]

As for the other quote you posted, if it is indeed about poltical issues (and no one is saying it can't be about perosnal relationships, too), it wouldn't surprise me that Lindsey said it wasn't. Can we say Dixie Chicks?
I really don't think you can compare the two. The Dixie Chicks are a country group that called Bush out directly -- sacrilege in that industry. Peacekeeper's lyrics are vague at best and admitting that it's a political song wouldn't garner the kind of attention the DC got, IMO. But who really knows?

[GateandGarden]

Browne attended a Diablo Canyon nuclear protest in the 80s and upon hearing this, Stevie said:

"But they could have broken your fingers-your beautiful fingers that write all those beautiful songs. Are you crazy? We need you to write songs. We don't need you to be in jail."

It's a rather childish and naive statment, IMO.

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.I agree that that is childish. If it were me, that would be something I wouldn't share with the public. I'm also disappointed about the comment about the Dixie Chicks.

And thanks for posting those quotes, Mikki. And I agree that it can't be compared to the Dixie Chicks, as Lindsey is much more subtle.

Hillary

[melly]

I just did a search and found this.. which made me laugh.

"Clinton’s speech was flanked by performances by Shelby Lynne and Stevie Nicks. Nicks’ appearance sparked a memorable moment: When R&R Publisher/CEO Erica Farber led a Q&A with Clinton, she noted that Clinton was a big Fleetwood Mac fan and asked, “When were you first exposed to Stevie Nicks?” The audience responded to the double entendre with a rumble of laughs. Clinton protested, “I’ve never been exposed to Stevie Nicks!” The comment was received with wild applause."

It's from some convention in '01.

I know Stevie seems to feel a lot of compassion for soldiers (Desert Angel, letters to Stars & Stripes), but I never really got a feeling for whether she felt the war in Iraq is wrong or simply that she wants to protect people who are in pain/ involved in conflict. Do you think Desert Angel is anti-war or more of a protective thing, that she feels for people in trouble? I remember that pic of her with the US flag behind and she's praying, or seems to be, and it kind of confuses me. I feel like Stevie would be anti war in principle. What do you guys think?

[teedee]

Browne attended a Diablo Canyon nuclear protest in the 80s and upon hearing this, Stevie said:

"But they could have broken your fingers-your beautiful fingers that write all those beautiful songs. Are you crazy? We need you to write songs. We don't need you to be in jail."

It's a rather childish and naive statment, IMO.

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.


What Stevie said in regards to what happened to the Dixie chicks is ," I've been in the business for a long time, I love my career to much, to make such a political statement as the Dixie chicks". She is not a political activist, she is an entertainer and she knows this. She is also aware of the backlash you can get from your public, with such a negative statement, as the dixie chicks are now learning about. If the chicks were so firm on believing in their statement why did they then take back what they said? To me that is absurd, not what Stevie said. I commend Stevie for keeping low key about her political views. As for what you stated she said about JAckson, that sounds like it was more out of fear for him because when you are a public figure and you put yourself in that kind of situation it can be harmful to you, riots and so on. I dont believe tho for one minute that she doesnt think you shouldnt stand up for things you believe you just have to be extra careful with what you say and how you do it. Cause either way the public is going to beat you down for it.

[Sugar]

What Stevie said in regards to what happened to the Dixie chicks is ," I've been in the business for a long time, I love my career to much, to make such a political statement as the Dixie chicks". She is not a political activist, she is an entertainer and she knows this. She is also aware of the backlash you can get from your public, with such a negative statement, as the dixie chicks are now learning about. If the chicks were so firm on believing in their statement why did they then take back what they said? To me that is absurd, not what Stevie said. I commend Stevie for keeping low key about her political views. As for what you stated she said about JAckson, that sounds like it was more out of fear for him because when you are a public figure and you put yourself in that kind of situation it can be harmful to you, riots and so on. I dont believe tho for one minute that she doesnt think you shouldnt stand up for things you believe you just have to be extra careful with what you say and how you do it. Cause either way the public is going to beat you down for it.

I wish Stevie would be willing to stand up for what she believes in. There is nothing wrong with being an artist having political beliefs, and nothing wrong with them voicing them. Rock and roll is no stranger to activism, although it seems to be lately. I suspect Stevie could weather whatever negativity might come her way.

Yes, it is unfortunate the Dixie Chicks felt they had to take back their statements, but when strangers are threatening your home and your children I can't say I would have done differently in their shoes. Not absurd at all.

Perhaps that's Stevie's issue. Not so much her career, but her personal safety. It would break my heart if I thought Stevie was too married to her rock n' roll lifestyle that she wouldn't dare threaten it with something as small potatoes as her personal beliefs.

Then again maybe Stevie does take the ostrich approach to politics. Perhaps all those donations are made because friends ask her to -- who knows? Perhaps she is just a bit out of touch...

That is a real twit-sounding thing Stevie said to Jackson Browne, though. Perhaps it was sort of light-hearted, kind of to lighten the mood or something. Hopefully it wasn't said in earnest.

[dissention]

What Stevie said in regards to what happened to the Dixie chicks is ," I've been in the business for a long time, I love my career to much, to make such a political statement as the Dixie chicks". She is not a political activist, she is an entertainer and she knows this. She is also aware of the backlash you can get from your public, with such a negative statement, as the dixie chicks are now learning about. If the chicks were so firm on believing in their statement why did they then take back what they said? To me that is absurd, not what Stevie said. I commend Stevie for keeping low key about her political views. As for what you stated she said about JAckson, that sounds like it was more out of fear for him because when you are a public figure and you put yourself in that kind of situation it can be harmful to you, riots and so on. I dont believe tho for one minute that she doesnt think you shouldnt stand up for things you believe you just have to be extra careful with what you say and how you do it. Cause either way the public is going to beat you down for it.

You seem to have carefully left out the part where she said people shouldn't speak out during wartime. ;)

[dissention]

I really don't think you can compare the two. The Dixie Chicks are a country group that called Bush out directly -- sacrilege in that industry. Peacekeeper's lyrics are vague at best and admitting that it's a political song wouldn't garner the kind of attention the DC got, IMO. But who really knows?

Not really. I think that after seeing such outrage directed towards the Chicks, Lindsey wouldn't want any of it reflected on the band. I think that if the song was about war and politics, he definitely would be fearful. It was just the Chicks, it was Pearl Jam and many other bands, too.

[saradorna]

Browne attended a Diablo Canyon nuclear protest in the 80s and upon hearing this, Stevie said:

"But they could have broken your fingers-your beautiful fingers that write all those beautiful songs. Are you crazy? We need you to write songs. We don't need you to be in jail."

It's a rather childish and naive statment, IMO.

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.

Thank you, dissention for the info. Yes that statement is silly but that was the 80's and she was using drugs at that time so may have been xtra naive and xtra childish than she usually is. lol

Part of the appeal of Stevie is that her persona is a bit childlike and naive(with fairy, witches and so on). Some people like that, some people don't. I don't always like what she says to the point that makes me cringe but I forgive her because I love her music. Btw, her music (sometimes) is a bit childlike and naive.

About her comment on the Dixie Chicks controversy, I thought she handle it well. She did not say people shouldn't speak out, she said that SHE would never speak out in the manner that DC did. And even though I don't agree with her it is her opinion and her decision not to speak about politics. I'm sure she has a political opinions and she probably makes comments around her friends and that's it.

I like to point out something positive about Stevie, when it comes to this political or any kind of questions for that matter, she always has an answer for everything, even if they're cringe worthy to some people. lol!

Isabel

[saradorna]

You seem to have carefully left out the part where she said people shouldn't speak out during wartime. ;)

Maybe I saw a different interview but she never said that in the CNN interview where she was with John. I have that videotape and she never said that people shouldn't speak out during wartime. She did say that SHE would not.

Isabel

[saradorna]

I think this song is not about politics but about relantionships. I think the reason that it was the first single is because of the tittle and what was happening at the time. I think the decision of which single to put first and send to radio is done by the record company. I maybe wrong but I thought that's how is done. :shrug:

Isabel

[teedee]

I wish Stevie would be willing to stand up for what she believes in. There is nothing wrong with being an artist having political beliefs, and nothing wrong with them voicing them. Rock and roll is no stranger to activism, although it seems to be lately. I suspect Stevie could weather whatever negativity might come her way.

Yes, it is unfortunate the Dixie Chicks felt they had to take back their statements, but when strangers are threatening your home and your children I can't say I would have done differently in their shoes. Not absurd at all.

Perhaps that's Stevie's issue. Not so much her career, but her personal safety. It would break my heart if I thought Stevie was too married to her rock n' roll lifestyle that she wouldn't dare threaten it with something as small potatoes as her personal beliefs.

Then again maybe Stevie does take the ostrich approach to politics. Perhaps all those donations are made because friends ask her to -- who knows? Perhaps she is just a bit out of touch...

That is a real twit-sounding thing Stevie said to Jackson Browne, though. Perhaps it was sort of light-hearted, kind of to lighten the mood or something. Hopefully it wasn't said in earnest.


What kind of reaction did the dixie chicks expect, im sure they got threats of all kinds. what i am saying is why didnt they think about what they were saying before they said it . they said it cause they believed what they said, now to take it back, makes them look like idiots. Sure people are they caused their own riot with the people, being booed everywhere from everyone.if you stand for something , stand behind what you say. You stated stevie could handle any negativity,sure she could, but as she stated she has been in this business for a long time and why invite that kind of negativity she is not a political person, she is an entertainer. You are always going to have controversy when it comes to politics, and she chooses not to make that her platform. when she made that remark about the dixie chicks, it was because she knew what the outcome would be for that kind statement. as for her not standing up for her personal beliefs, I think she does, she just doesnt do it in a public grand way. She is a public figure and she chooses to do it quietly. If she chooses not to discuss politics , thats her wish. if someone asks for her comment on the DC or someone else, thats her opinion and that what SHE Believes. So i think you have to respect her views of what she thinks is appropriate. People like the DC should learn from someone like stevie. i dont mean in all aspects of life, but for someone who has survived in the biz for so long. do you mean to tell me that the DC dont regret what they said. they sure do or they wouldnt have apologized for it. Sure the threats had something to do with it, but like i said earlier, did they not think that people would not threaten them with such a statement?

[teedee]

You seem to have carefully left out the part where she said people shouldn't speak out during wartime. ;)



I didnt mean to leave any part out, in fact i will elaborate on that comment. If stevie is being interviewed and being asked to comment on the DC or whatever , I think its her right to the opinion that she feels people shouldnt speak out at war time in the terms of , The DC spoke out about the President, in a negative way, and pretty straight forward. you hear people all the time say i support the troops but not the war,etc...Stevie being a public figure , i think refers to well if you are going to say something like that, be ready for the back lash, and thats exactly what happened. its not like the DC are standing behind what they said, they apologized. why cause of threats, because of the bashing they were recieving, what the heck did they expect. well if you believe in anything , say what you mean and mean what you say. Stevie strongly feels that its best for her not to take that public view on politics . I think stevies was like, if you do it prepare yourself for your own personal war with the people you are about to offend.
Public displays of politics is not stevies goal in life . does that make her bad< NO. If the DC apologized cause of threats , as the above poster stated, then why would you knock stevie, for not wanting to get personally involved , with a subject that could cause her a negative backlash or personal safety. I respect her for choosing to keep politics out of her public career.

[dissention]

Maybe I saw a different interview but she never said that in the CNN interview where she was with John. I have that videotape and she never said that people shouldn't speak out during wartime. She did say that SHE would not.

Isabel

No, I'm talking about her appearance on Access Hollywood. It was our first public glimpse at the parted-in-the-middle hairdo. :laugh:

[dissention]

What kind of reaction did the dixie chicks expect, im sure they got threats of all kinds. what i am saying is why didnt they think about what they were saying before they said it . they said it cause they believed what they said, now to take it back, makes them look like idiots. Sure people are they caused their own riot with the people, being booed everywhere from everyone.if you stand for something , stand behind what you say. You stated stevie could handle any negativity,sure she could, but as she stated she has been in this business for a long time and why invite that kind of negativity she is not a political person, she is an entertainer. You are always going to have controversy when it comes to politics, and she chooses not to make that her platform. when she made that remark about the dixie chicks, it was because she knew what the outcome would be for that kind statement. as for her not standing up for her personal beliefs, I think she does, she just doesnt do it in a public grand way. She is a public figure and she chooses to do it quietly. If she chooses not to discuss politics , thats her wish. if someone asks for her comment on the DC or someone else, thats her opinion and that what SHE Believes. So i think you have to respect her views of what she thinks is appropriate. People like the DC should learn from someone like stevie. i dont mean in all aspects of life, but for someone who has survived in the biz for so long. do you mean to tell me that the DC dont regret what they said. they sure do or they wouldnt have apologized for it. Sure the threats had something to do with it, but like i said earlier, did they not think that people would not threaten them with such a statement?

They didn't take back what they said. They said that maybe they said it too crudely and not with enough finesse. They were on Primetime right after the controversy started and when asked what they would say to Bush if he was watching right now, they told Diane Sawyer that the censors would go nuts and that there wasn't enough airtime available. :laugh:

As far as what Stevie said about not speaking out against a war, I disagree and find that notion to be anti-American. Sorry, but this country was founded on dissent and it is your duty as an American to dissent when you don't like what actions are being taken in your name. I could care less if it was Stevie or Joe Schmoe that said it, it's an absurd line of thinking.

[dissention]

I didnt mean to leave any part out, in fact i will elaborate on that comment. If stevie is being interviewed and being asked to comment on the DC or whatever , I think its her right to the opinion that she feels people shouldnt speak out at war time in the terms of , The DC spoke out about the President, in a negative way, and pretty straight forward. you hear people all the time say i support the troops but not the war,etc...Stevie being a public figure , i think refers to well if you are going to say something like that, be ready for the back lash, and thats exactly what happened. its not like the DC are standing behind what they said, they apologized. why cause of threats, because of the bashing they were recieving, what the heck did they expect. well if you believe in anything , say what you mean and mean what you say. Stevie strongly feels that its best for her not to take that public view on politics . I think stevies was like, if you do it prepare yourself for your own personal war with the people you are about to offend.
Public displays of politics is not stevies goal in life . does that make her bad< NO. If the DC apologized cause of threats , as the above poster stated, then why would you knock stevie, for not wanting to get personally involved , with a subject that could cause her a negative backlash or personal safety. I respect her for choosing to keep politics out of her public career.

Nice spin, but that isn't what she said.

[saradorna]

No, I'm talking about her appearance on Access Hollywood. It was our first public glimpse at the parted-in-the-middle hairdo. :laugh:


Well, I remember seeing that interview but I don't remember Stevie saying the statement that you wrote. I think I would remember because that would be out of the ordinary for her to have said. Stevie never in any of her comments says to people, "do this" - "do that". She always say SHE would do it or she won't.

In all of the interviews I've seen (and they're many) of Stevie, she nevers makes comments of what people should do but rather what she would do.

Another trait I like about Stevie Nicks. lol :D

Isabel

[dissention]

Well, I remember seeing that interview but I don't remember Stevie saying the statement that you wrote. I think I would remember because that would be out of the ordinary for her to have said. Stevie never in any of her comments says to people, "do this" - "do that". She always say SHE would do it or she won't.

In all of the interviews I've seen (and they're many) of Stevie, she nevers makes comments of what people should do but rather what she would do.

Another trait I like about Stevie Nicks. lol :D

Isabel

Well, she didn't apply the statement to only herself, she clearly stated that she doesn't think people should speak out against a war when it's being fought. I don't agree with it, that's all. It has no bearing on her music.

[saradorna]

Well, she didn't apply the statement to only herself, she clearly stated that she doesn't think people should speak out against a war when it's being fought. I don't agree with it, that's all. It has no bearing on her music.

Its obvious we did not received her statement in the same way. (shocking isnt it) :lol: But I just want to say that in the CNN interview she clearly said that SHE would speak out about the war.

Isabel :wavey:

[Sugar]

What kind of reaction did the dixie chicks expect, im sure they got threats of all kinds. what i am saying is why didnt they think about what they were saying before they said it . they said it cause they believed what they said, now to take it back, makes them look like idiots.

I'm sure they expected a backlash. People burning their records, people saying, "you suck" and all that. But I'm sure they didn't expect death threats, and I find it really chilling that you think that people who speak against the president should expect death threats.

I do think they believed it when they said it. I don't think they look like idiots for apologizing. I think they looked scared. I think a lot of people were taken a back by the ferocity of those yabos who decided that because a country singer said she was ashamed of the president, that she deserves to be terrorized.


Sure people are they caused their own riot with the people, being booed everywhere from everyone.if you stand for something , stand behind what you say.

Not when the safety of your childern are at stake. This is America. You're supposed to be able to speak without being threatened. Once people cross that line, I don't have a problem with them backing over it.

You stated stevie could handle any negativity,sure she could, but as she stated she has been in this business for a long time ...yada yada yada

Of course I respect Stevie's desire not to be political. I just wish she would take a stand on things now and then. It doesn't mean I hold it against her. I have a lot of respect for those who do take a stand. That's all

People like the DC should learn from someone like stevie. i dont mean in all aspects of life, but for someone who has survived in the biz for so long. do you mean to tell me that the DC dont regret what they said. they sure do or they wouldnt have apologized for it. Sure the threats had something to do with it, but like i said earlier, did they not think that people would not threaten them with such a statement?

Now I think that's crap. Understanding why some people don't stand up doesn't mean I don't think people should. What are you saying? That artists shouldn't stand up for what they believe in politically? That it's artistic suicide if you do? If someone tries to kill you, you had it coming?

Someone has to stand up, and I have immense respect for Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam and anyone else who wants to make their voice heard. They have nothing to learn from Stevie Nicks in that regard.

[dissention]

I'm sure they expected a backlash. People burning their records, people saying, "you suck" and all that. But I'm sure they didn't expect death threats, and I find it really chilling that you think that people who speak against the president should expect death threats.

I don't think they expected a backlash, honestly, because I don't think they said it in a premediatated manner. I think that the comment was just made in the heat of the moment and, to their surprise, was blown way out of proportion. For cripes sake, they were performing in front of Texans. :lol:

[teedee]

I'm sure they expected a backlash. People burning their records, people saying, "you suck" and all that. But I'm sure they didn't expect death threats, and I find it really chilling that you think that people who speak against the president should expect death threats.

I do think they believed it when they said it. I don't think they look like idiots for apologizing. I think they looked scared. I think a lot of people were taken a back by the ferocity of those yabos who decided that because a country singer said she was ashamed of the president, that she deserves to be terrorized.



Not when the safety of your childern are at stake. This is America. You're supposed to be able to speak without being threatened. Once people cross that line, I don't have a problem with them backing over it.



Of course I respect Stevie's desire not to be political. I just wish she would take a stand on things now and then. It doesn't mean I hold it against her. I have a lot of respect for those who do take a stand. That's all



Now I think that's crap. Understanding why some people don't stand up doesn't mean I don't think people should. What are you saying? That artists shouldn't stand up for what they believe in politically? That it's artistic suicide if you do? If someone tries to kill you, you had it coming?

Someone has to stand up, and I have immense respect for Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam and anyone else who wants to make their voice heard. They have nothing to learn from Stevie Nicks in that regard.


I never said that artists shouldnt stand up f0r what they believe in. But the whole point of standing up for something means backing it up. yeah they apologized because they were scared, I know all about freedom of speech, you shouldnt expect death threats, but what i was trying to say about the DC is, being in the public eye, people are going to react to you in a much more fierce way, if you are going to say such a thing about the president, dont expect that people wont get upset by your statement. And being an artist where you depend on the public for your wealth, it causes damage to your career. Thats what i was really referring to in my original post. So stevie decides to stay quiet on subjects like that. I respect that. As for Springsteen, he has always been vocal about politics or world events, that he doesnt see eye to eye with, and i very much admire him for doing and saying what he believes in, but i dont recall him taking his words back. The DC took their statement back because of threats , i can understand being scared but now how do they actually feel about thier original statement. Stevies point, i feel was, when she saw all the public hate that was being thrown towards the DC, her comment of her loving her career, meant she would never do anything to jeopardize it with such negativity buy her public. Meaning the DC should have known that this was gonna stir up some not so pleasant comments back at them.


as for them learning from Stevie, i was referring to the DC.


as far as the DC childrens safety being harmed, exactly, but she should of thought of that before she opened her mouth. yes this is America and death threats today are not uncommon, we dont expect them, but in todays world, its part of our lives. all im saying is think before you speak. think of how this will effect your entire life, not just the moment you are in.

As far as people speaking against the President in public infront of thousands of ppl, I think you should expect the unexpected.

[teedee]

Nice spin, but that isn't what she said.


no spin here,
as for it not being what she said, i am going back to review that actual clip, that comment that you stated she said about ppl shouldnt speak out against the war while it is going on. I will have to review it. i dont remember her stating that in the interview i was referring to. but the comment i made about it when you stated she said it, i stand by my comment. If thats what she believes thats what she believes, i believe for the reason of what happened to the DC is a perfect example of why she feels that way. I respect her for not getting involved, but that doesnt mean that i would disrepect springsteen, but springsteen didnt take back his words because he was scared or threatened when you have something controversial to say in public, to a large audience, you have to weigh all the aspects of what to expect, the good and the bad.

[teedee]

I don't think they expected a backlash, honestly, because I don't think they said it in a premediatated manner. I think that the comment was just made in the heat of the moment and, to their surprise, was blown way out of proportion. For cripes sake, they were performing in front of Texans. :lol:


OMG . please, They were in a concert, and if it was in Texas as you stated, what the hell did they expect the reaction to be from an audience full of texans, cheers? well they sure found out that it was not well received. This is what I dont like about celebs that just use their status to think that everyone will agree with them cause of who they are. Altho we all have the right to say what we want, but we also have to accept the negativity that comes along with it.

[Sugar]

Again, I suspect they expected a backlash, just not this crazy a backlash. And with good reason, I think. All she said was that she was embarassed to be from the same state as him! Hardly a scathing criticism. God knows there's been a lot worse said about this president! I don't think it's hard to believe that they underestimated the backlash, since the backlash was truly excessive.

And there were (are) a lot of people who did (do) agree with her. So I don't think she was expecting anyone to agree with her just because she was a celebrity, I think she just felt comfortable expressing her views where she was.

Actually I thought they were in London.

[heyjupiter678]

Actually I thought they were in London.
Yes, they were. A lot of people made a big deal out of them expressing their freedom of speech on "foreign soil." :rolleyes:

[Sugar]

Yes, they were. A lot of people made a big deal out of them expressing their freedom of speech on "foreign soil." :rolleyes:

Right, right...and god knows no one's EVER said disrespectful things about a sitting president before... :rolleyes:

[teedee]

Again, I suspect they expected a backlash, just not this crazy a backlash. And with good reason, I think. All she said was that she was embarassed to be from the same state as him! Hardly a scathing criticism. God knows there's been a lot worse said about this president! I don't think it's hard to believe that they underestimated the backlash, since the backlash was truly excessive.

And there were (are) a lot of people who did (do) agree with her. So I don't think she was expecting anyone to agree with her just because she was a celebrity, I think she just felt comfortable expressing her views where she was.

Actually I thought they were in London.


I truly dont recall where they were, when DISS said they were in texas, i thought wow that was even more stupid to say it infront of thousands of texans. Well I shouldnt take what Diss says as facts, lol.

(Edit.. when diss said they were infront of texans, not in texas) (so why were there so many texans there anyways?)

[GateandGarden]

For cripes sake, they were performing in front of Texans. :lol:And even if there happened to be an inordinate amount of Texans in London that night, my take on it was that she was not dissing Texas, but the president. She was ashamed that the president was from Texas because she felt that he was representing Texas in a bad way.
:shrug: I guess some people took that to mean that she was saying that she was ashamed that someone from Texas would be the president instead. I think the fact that it was so nebulous only goes to prove that it was not premeditated at all, but then again even the Goddess Stevie says some things that are premeditated and don't really make all that much sense.

But did the comment really hurt the Dixie Chicks' career that much? Did their following really decline significantly? Did they lose money? I guess I figured that the vast majority of the people who turned against them weren't really devoted fans to begin with.

Hillary

[MikeBangle]

Hey all,

The Dixie Chicks were in London, and what they said was not the "watered down" version that was reported by the media. The statement was a bit more involved and was quite vulgar in content.

I call that a lack of respect that beyond the issue of if they were for or against the war, you don't do that. What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing about anything? Nasty T-shirts, destroying property, making other peoples lives miserable does nothing to advance ANY cause. IMO, if the Dixie Chicks want to spout off like that, then they better be able to accept the consequences. (I.e. people burning CDs, not attending shows or buying their records. See, the consumer has the right to voice an opinion too. The death threats were a bit much however.)

Besides, a concert venue is NOT appropriate for artists who don't know JACK to start spouting off...

I go to concerts to be ENTERTAINED, not be lectured on an artists political beliefs. I go to concerts to get AWAY from that...

I think Stevie's decision to abstain from politics is right on the money. She is an entertainer, not a politician, and that goes for Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and the rest of that ratpack. (And gee, Dave Matthews is so pro enviornmentalists that they went ahead and dumped several tons of sewage into a river in Ohio and are being sued by the state for it. Hmmmm.... )

It is fine to voice opposition, but do it with respect okay?

I apologize for the rant.

So how about Fleetwood Mac eh?

MikeBangle

[GateandGarden]

Hey all,

The Dixie Chicks were in London, and what they said was not the "watered down" version that was reported by the media. The statement was a bit more involved and was quite vulgar in content.

I call that a lack of respect that beyond the issue of if they were for or against the war, you don't do that. What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing about anything? Nasty T-shirts, destroying property, making other peoples lives miserable does nothing to advance ANY cause. IMO, if the Dixie Chicks want to spout off like that, then they better be able to accept the consequences. (I.e. people burning CDs, not attending shows or buying their records. See, the consumer has the right to voice an opinion too. The death threats were a bit much however.)

Besides, a concert venue is NOT appropriate for artists who don't know JACK to start spouting off...

I go to concerts to be ENTERTAINED, not be lectured on an artists political beliefs. I go to concerts to get AWAY from that...

I think Stevie's decision to abstain from politics is right on the money. She is an entertainer, not a politician, and that goes for Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and the rest of that ratpack. (And gee, Dave Matthews is so pro enviornmentalists that they went ahead and dumped several tons of sewage into a river in Ohio and are being sued by the state for it. Hmmmm.... )

It is fine to voice opposition, but do it with respect okay?

I apologize for the rant.

So how about Fleetwood Mac eh?

MikeBangle
How did they destroy property or make someone else' s life miserable? I wasn't aware of any of that. The death threats were a bit much? Well, I don't know...I guess. :laugh: If Stevie is supposed to be an entertainer and not someone who is supposed to voice her political opinions, what about the fans you just said had every reason to express their views? I don't understand this idea that singers are not supposed to express their political beliefs. Shouldn't everyone's opinion be taken seriously, based on their knowledge of the subject and nothing else? Isn't that part of having an democracy (be it an indirect one), or a "rule by the people"? Aren't we all allowed to vote at a certain age? So shouldn't everyone be able to say how he or she feels about political issues?

Anyway, about Fleetwood Mac...they rock! :)

Hillary

[tynan88]

I suppose one of the worst parts about the whole incident for fans would be a level of dissolussionment and alientation it could cause to hear of your favourite artists political views that made contrast to your own, it could effect some peoples enjoyment (not saying it would effect mine though)

Tynan

[MikeBangle]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!

BTW - I never said celebs can't have political beliefs. What I said was they need to use sound judgement on where and how they voice them. At a political rally, okay. At a concert, NO WAY!

Shut up and sing, shut up and act.

MikeBangle

[teedee]

How did they destroy property or make someone else' s life miserable? I wasn't aware of any of that. The death threats were a bit much? Well, I don't know...I guess. :laugh: If Stevie is supposed to be an entertainer and not someone who is supposed to voice her political opinions, what about the fans you just said had every reason to express their views? I don't understand this idea that singers are not supposed to express their political beliefs. Shouldn't everyone's opinion be taken seriously, based on their knowledge of the subject and nothing else? Isn't that part of having an democracy (be it an indirect one), or a "rule by the people"? Aren't we all allowed to vote at a certain age? So shouldn't everyone be able to say how he or she feels about political issues?

Anyway, about Fleetwood Mac...they rock! :)

Hillary


Of course everyone has a right to voice their opinion. But as an entertainer, they have to realize that any backlash is going to be dealt with on a greater level. You may not like that statement but it is true. Like mike said, a music concert is not the right place to do such a thing. The artist feels, all these people are here for me, which they are, but open your mouth about politics, religion, or abortion and you are throwing a match into a stream of gasoline, People are going to disagree. and they will react any way they feel fit. I strongly believe that Stevie doesnt get involve with politics in a public way because she knows she is an entertainer and not a politician. She cares to much about her career to make that kind of foolish mistake. What kills me about the DC, is if you say something, stand behind it. What would happen if all the people out their who stood for something backed down because of negative feed back. someone stated she got death threats, (thats enough to scare anyone, true, but do you think that politicians, or war protesters, or abortion rights protesters, or the President, themselves dont recieve the same kinds of threats). How would the world be if everyone who stood for something backdown because of fear. As soon as we open our mouths bout something, there is always going to be an oposition. But if you are a public figure, your gonna see it displayed in a public way, ( negative or positive) and they should of expected it.

[saradorna]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!

BTW - I never said celebs can't have political beliefs. What I said was they need to use sound judgement on where and how they voice them. At a political rally, okay. At a concert, NO WAY!

Shut up and sing, shut up and act.

MikeBangle

Artist are people too and they have the right to say there opinion whenever, however they want to. Some of them do it, some them don't. If an artist says something political you have the right to get out of the concert. You can speak out against the artist. But I find it funny because I bet if you were in a concert an artist said a political view that you agree with you would not protest or get out of the concert. In fact, I bet you would applaud the artist. Right? So if this is true, your statement would be very hipocritical and very un american. You're basically saying any artist who don't agree with you should shut up and sing. Sad very sad :rolleyes:

Isabel

[teedee]

Artist are people too and they have the right to say there opinion whenever, however they want to. Some of them do it, some them don't. If an artist says something political you have the right to get out of the concert. You can speak out against the artist. But I find it funny because I bet if you were in a concert an artist said a political view that you agree with you would not protest or get out of the concert. In fact, I bet you would applaud the artist. Right? So if this is true, your statement would be very hipocritical and very un american. You're basically saying any artist who don't agree with you should shut up and sing. Sad very sad :rolleyes:

Isabel

I dont think that is the point he or I am trying to make, I will only speak for my self, but i think the point being made is a concert is not the right place for a political statement. If this were a concert for say " artists against the war" then I think if I werent against the war, I wouldnt attend this concert. Artists have all the rights that we do, its just that when they do it in such a public forum, they should be aware that there are going to be some that disagree. Thats not to s ay that there isnt some who agree as well. but the problem is with those who do disagree. And if they( the artist) cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. My point is they said something, but they didnt stand behind it. IF you are worried about the safety of your children and your families and you make such a statement in public. think before you speak.

[GateandGarden]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!

BTW - I never said celebs can't have political beliefs. What I said was they need to use sound judgement on where and how they voice them. At a political rally, okay. At a concert, NO WAY!

Shut up and sing, shut up and act.

MikeBangle
I never said that you were implying that celebs couldn't have political beliefs. (Or if I did, that's not what I meant to say). I thought you were saying that they shouldn't express them as politicians do. Now you're saying that they shouldn't express them at a concert. I don't understand this. These issues affect all of us and it shows that an artist is at least somewhat in tune with the world if he or she actually discusses them. I really and truly don't understand this "shut and sing, shut up and act" concept, as I read Laura Ingraham's book and she was very quick to criticize any liberal or democractic celebrity who spoke his or her mind (those who new what they were talking about as well as those who didn't), but completely ignored the ignorant comments that have been made by Republican and/or conservative celebrities as well. Because, to her, it was okay for them to open their mouths, as long as they agreed with her.

Hillary

[GateandGarden]

but the problem is with those who do disagree. And if they( the artist) cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. My point is they said something, but they didnt stand behind it.I understand the other things you said, but I thought we estasblished that the Dixie Chicks did stand behind what Natalie said. They apologized, but that doesn't mean they took it back. The other two swore that they would stand behind her, and she actually said during the Diane Sawyer interview that would say something similar again. So, unless I missed some turn of events during which she did decide to take it all back, she has stood behind her comments about Bush.

Hillary

[saradorna]

I dont think that is the point he or I am trying to make, I will only speak for my self, but i think the point being made is a concert is not the right place for a political statement. If this were a concert for say " artists against the war" then I think if I werent against the war, I wouldnt attend this concert.

Are you kidding? A concert is the best place to reach 10,000 or 20,000 people immediately about political views or any for that matter. For example, if the artist just said "please vote, is important that you vote", a concert is the perfect place to say it. Some artists would want to say more specifics things like "vote for this guy or that guy". It's their choice, opinion and is the american thing to do or is it not? Americans makes a hoopla saying they're the most free country because of it. Are you telling me it's a lie. What a Shock!! :rolleyes:

Artists have all the rights that we do, its just that when they do it in such a public forum, they should be aware that there are going to be some that disagree. Thats not to say that there isnt some who agree as well. but the problem is with those who do disagree. And if they( the artist) cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. My point is they said something, but they didnt stand behind it. IF you are worried about the safety of your children and your families and you make such a statement in public. think before you speak.

Oh my, that read like if we were talking about china. I mean, beware artists if you speak your mind, you could get killed.

WATCH OUT!!! :shocked: :rolleyes:

Again, everyone has the right to speak against each others views but they DO NOT have the right to harm ANYONE for them.

Isabel

[Kelly]

IMHO, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that PK is not a political/anti war, pro peace song considering that Lindsey himself stated that the song is a love song. His words, not mine. All his quotes about PK can be found on Nancy's site. He started commenting on the peace aspect after the record company chose PK as the first single because of the positive message that could be gleaned from the lyrics. The war had started and it was a comforting, positive message to send at the time it was released. However, Lindsey is the one who stated that was not his original intent, so I tend to give more weight to his view about his lyrics. PK was the perfect song to be released as a single in March of 2003 and I understand why Lindsey to chose explain his lyrics in the way he did...however his original feelings when writing the song are what is most important to me when trying to understand the song.

Although Stevie's comments do sound very naive, I think her intentions were good. Most likely she was saying that she didn't believe we should speak out against the war during the war because of the troops. I tend to think she was thinking about the soldiers and trying to say that we should not speak out against the war out of respect for the men and women who were over their fighting for us, putting themselves in harm's way to do what they were ordered to do. IMHO, I think that is what she meant. Stevie has always had a hard time expressing herself in interviews and tends to come across as naive or even flighty. Sometimes I think her message gets lost and that she doesnt express what she really means very well. I would bet that she "really" doesn't believe that people should not speak out about the war, even during wartime. I think she was probably thinking about how the anti war sentiments could affect the soldiers morale and how our support should be behind them while they were fighting. When they are home safe, well then speak out as much as you want. This is just my opinion and how I interpret what she said to mean...who knows what Stevie really feels about any of this.

[estranged4life]

I agree that musicians, Like the REST of the people on this green/blue orb called E-A-R-T-H, are entitled to their opinions (Remember opinions are like assholes; Everyone has one and they ALL smell!) But I could really give a "Jesus jumped up Christ" about their political opinions.

Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam & especially U2 have my respects due to their musical talent, Not their political views...NOTHING on this planet can change that, NOTHING!

Speaking of Bruce, I recently was regretfully shopping at a national retail chain store (Who will NOT get a name mention here due to their CENSORSHIP of music! Plus they control nearly 35% of the retail market here in OKLAHOMA, Can ya say M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y?) when the lady behind the cash register said to me the following (After she noticed my Bruce "Summer Tour 2003" t-shirt) "I bet the next thing you will say is that you will want me to vote for Kerry", to which I replied the following "VOTE for whoever you WANT, I do NOT FORCE my political views on ANYONE...Nor should any other person, Be it musician or actors. Decide for yourself".

I think her jaw must've broke after my comment because it left her in a state of "befuddle-ment"

Brian "Still having chest pain, And still not dead yet" j.

[dissention]

OMG . please, They were in a concert, and if it was in Texas as you stated, what the hell did they expect the reaction to be from an audience full of texans, cheers? well they sure found out that it was not well received. This is what I dont like about celebs that just use their status to think that everyone will agree with them cause of who they are. Altho we all have the right to say what we want, but we also have to accept the negativity that comes along with it.

:lol: Yet another case of people acting as if they know what they're talking about.

You obviously have not read the articles about the incident in question, which explicitly state the Texans howled with approval and applause. Again, all evidence suggests that it was an off-the-cuff remark, whether you want to believe it or not.

I also find your assertion that celebrities automatically think everyone will agree with them on politics to be incredulous at best. It's quite disingenuous; they have just as much right to say what they want as you do.

[dissention]

Actually I thought they were in London.

They were; it was a concert for Texan expatriates. ;)

[dissention]

I truly dont recall where they were, when DISS said they were in texas, i thought wow that was even more stupid to say it infront of thousands of texans. Well I shouldnt take what Diss says as facts, lol.

I didn't say they were in Texas. Read before you reply and put words in the mouths of others. But I guess that takes too much effort on your part.

[teedee]

I understand the other things you said, but I thought we estasblished that the Dixie Chicks did stand behind what Natalie said. They apologized, but that doesn't mean they took it back. The other two swore that they would stand behind her, and she actually said during the Diane Sawyer interview that would say something similar again. So, unless I missed some turn of events during which she did decide to take it all back, she has stood behind her comments about Bush.

Hillary


Firstly I was never Seperating any of the Dixie Chicks.

Secondly, If they did apologize, what did they apologize for, if they didnt take back what was originally said? \


Thirdly when i Was referring to the DC, I wasnt seperating either of them from the other. So please let me ask a question based on your above post ok, please clarify this for me. If you are stating that natalie went on stage at a DC concert and informed her other partners of whatshe was going to say, which would be the rigt thing to do because she is not standing on that stage alone, and they all agreed, fine, now the after effect happens and the other two bail out on natalie and apologize (for what, I'd like to know) well then i think thats sh*tty of them to take back what they originally believed in . I do feel that if you take action and then later apologize for that action, you are infact taking back what you stood up for. Whats the point in saying anything at all then. The fact is it was done with the wrong approach.

Now if you are telling me that natalie went on stage with the DC and didnt inform them of what she was planning on saying to "their" audience, then i can see the other 2 DC apologizing for something they had nothing to do with.


If the case is natalie thought they were behind her because she informed them and the other 2 apologized out of fear, but natalie herself didnt apologize for it , then so be it.

[dissention]

Hey all,

The Dixie Chicks were in London, and what they said was not the "watered down" version that was reported by the media. The statement was a bit more involved and was quite vulgar in content.

I call that a lack of respect that beyond the issue of if they were for or against the war, you don't do that. What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing about anything? Nasty T-shirts, destroying property, making other peoples lives miserable does nothing to advance ANY cause. IMO, if the Dixie Chicks want to spout off like that, then they better be able to accept the consequences. (I.e. people burning CDs, not attending shows or buying their records. See, the consumer has the right to voice an opinion too. The death threats were a bit much however.)

Besides, a concert venue is NOT appropriate for artists who don't know JACK to start spouting off...

I go to concerts to be ENTERTAINED, not be lectured on an artists political beliefs. I go to concerts to get AWAY from that...

I think Stevie's decision to abstain from politics is right on the money. She is an entertainer, not a politician, and that goes for Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews and the rest of that ratpack. (And gee, Dave Matthews is so pro enviornmentalists that they went ahead and dumped several tons of sewage into a river in Ohio and are being sued by the state for it. Hmmmm.... )

It is fine to voice opposition, but do it with respect okay?

I apologize for the rant.

So how about Fleetwood Mac eh?

MikeBangle

That's bull. Go read the British newspapers that first broke the story, they didn't say anything else that was "vulgar in content" and her comments were not "watered down." But, if oyu can prove otherwise, let's see a link and some quotes.

And why the assertion that they don't know "jack"? How do you know how well-versed they are in politics and world issues?

Your post has quite the disregard for where they were performing: in London in front of Texan expatriates.

As for Dave Matthews, all evidence suggests that it wasn't their boat that dumped the waste. ;)

[dissention]

What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing about anything? Nasty T-shirts, destroying property, making other peoples lives miserable does nothing to advance ANY cause.

The Dixie Chicks did none of those things.

You should direct that statement to the Republican pigs at the Linda Ronstadt concert last month.

[teedee]

:lol: Yet another case of people acting as if they know what they're talking about.

You obviously have not read the articles about the incident in question, which explicitly state the Texans howled with approval and applause. Again, all evidence suggests that it was an off-the-cuff remark, whether you want to believe it or not.

I also find your assertion that celebrities automatically think everyone will agree with them on politics to be incredulous at best. It's quite disingenuous; they have just as much right to say what they want as you do.


And you know what you are talking about, you stated it was in texas infront of texans. At least i stated i wasnt sure where the Concert was when i saw the following posts. and as far as what Stevies comments were, I have it on tape and i do not have that comment in those such words.

[dissention]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!

:laugh:

What about the thousands of people Dubya and his cronies have murdered in cold blood? What about the thousands in thsi country and across the world who are dying of AIDs because Dubya won't give them another dime to fight it? What about the GENOCIDE in Sudan that is killing thousands upon thousands each day with the help of Bush? Gimme a break. These people were protesting those acts of crulety and filth that this administration is perpetrating.

BTW - I never said celebs can't have political beliefs. What I said was they need to use sound judgement on where and how they voice them. At a political rally, okay. At a concert, NO WAY!

This statement contradicts this statement:

Shut up and sing, shut up and act.

Fact is, they're Americans and can say what they want where they want, just like you.

[dissention]

IF you are worried about the safety of your children and your families and you make such a statement in public. think before you speak.

I didn't know we lived in Cuba. Where's the welcome wagon?

[dissention]

Secondly, If they did apologize, what did they apologize for, if they didnt take back what was originally said?

They apologized for saying it in such a gruff manner, but not once did they apologize or retract their statements. ;)

[dissention]

And you know what you are talking about, you stated it was in texas infront of texans. At least i stated i wasnt sure where the Concert was when i saw the following posts. and as far as what Stevies comments were, I have it on tape and i do not have that comment in those such words.

No, I did not. I said it was in front of Texans. Never did I say they were in Texas. Quote me if I said otherwise; I submit you cannot. ;)

You obviously have eyes, please read before responding to my posts.

And I have it on tape, too, and that's what she says.

[teedee]

That's bull. Go read the British newspapers that first broke the story, they didn't say anything else that was "vulgar in content" and her comments were not "watered down." But, if oyu can prove otherwise, let's see a link and some quotes.

And why the assertion that they don't know "jack"? How do you know how well-versed they are in politics and world issues?

Your post has quite the disregard for where they were performing: in London in front of Texan expatriates.

As for Dave Matthews, all evidence suggests that it wasn't their boat that dumped the waste. ;)


LOL look who woke up! "lets see the Quotes" oh please if it isnt carne, trying to talk thru Diss,its Diss trying to do his best impressions of Carne. ITs a little to clear someones feeding you. lol.

as far as being well versed in the issues, they sure didnt present their statement in the most well versed way did they.

[dissention]

LOL look who woke up! "lets see the Quotes" oh please if it isnt carne, trying to talk thru Diss,its Diss trying to do his best impressions of Carne. ITs a little to clear someones feeding you. lol.

as far as being well versed in the issues, they sure didnt present their statement in the most well versed way did they.

It's also clear that you're talking out of your ass, but that's nothing new. :xoxo:

[teedee]

I didn't know we lived in Cuba. Where's the welcome wagon?



Do you actually think you live in the Same worry free America as it once was? No, its not the same. People dont respond in a light hearted manner today, you should know that. people get shot for looking at you too long. Its America, but its not the same world today. Do you not agree with that.? We all have the right to freedom of speech, but its all in the presentation of how you present it. You do it in a "gruff" way, people will respond to it the same way.

[teedee]

It's also clear that you're talking out of your ass, but that's nothing new. :xoxo:



Ill trade you an apple for an orange. At least its my own ass.


Diss = Carne
Carne = Diss


LOL

Do you enjoy the arm up your ass, which makes your lips move>

LOL

[teedee]

Not really. I think that after seeing such outrage directed towards the Chicks, Lindsey wouldn't want any of it reflected on the band. I think that if the song was about war and politics, he definitely would be fearful. It was just the Chicks, it was Pearl Jam and many other bands, too.



so its alright for lindsey to refrain from not going public with his beliefs and standing up for his beliefs because of fear, does the same not apply to stevie.

[MikeBangle]

:laugh:

What about the thousands of people Dubya and his cronies have murdered in cold blood?

Excuse me? Just what are you referring to here?

What about the thousands in thsi country and across the world who are dying of AIDs because Dubya won't give them another dime to fight it?

Oh really? What source are you getting this from? The United States spends the most on AIDS research and aide to other countries. It is a fact that Bush has spent more money on AIDS related research and aide than any previous administration.


What about the GENOCIDE in Sudan that is killing thousands upon thousands each day with the help of Bush? Gimme a break.

Where would you like it? Kit-Kats are great candy bars!

What the HELL are you talking about? We are helping the Sudanese massacre each other? I guess the conspiracy theorists are really working overtime.... Do you honestly believe this craptrap?

Oye ve


These people were protesting those acts of crulety and filth that this administration is perpetrating.

LOL! Acts of cruelty and filth? Oh my GOD. That's a good one. Try better next time.. LOL



Fact is, they're Americans and can say what they want where they want, just like you.

Yes, they are Americans just like me. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Read my previous posts...

MikeBangle

[teedee]

And even if there happened to be an inordinate amount of Texans in London that night, my take on it was that she was not dissing Texas, but the president. She was ashamed that the president was from Texas because she felt that he was representing Texas in a bad way.
:shrug: I guess some people took that to mean that she was saying that she was ashamed that someone from Texas would be the president instead. I think the fact that it was so nebulous only goes to prove that it was not premeditated at all, but then again even the Goddess Stevie says some things that are premeditated and don't really make all that much sense.

But did the comment really hurt the Dixie Chicks' career that much? Did their following really decline significantly? Did they lose money? I guess I figured that the vast majority of the people who turned against them weren't really devoted fans to begin with.

Hillary


I dont think it was taken as tho she was against texas at all. it was a statement purely against the president.

[MikeBangle]

Yikes for some reason the font in my responses ended up being the same as the post I was responding too...

Hope everyone can sort it out.......

MikeBangle

[Sugar]

Ill trade you an apple for an orange. At least its my own ass.


Diss = Carne
Carne = Diss


LOL

Do you enjoy the arm up your ass, which makes your lips move>

LOL

What the hell is this??? I frankly never heard that what the DC said was vulgar, as was actually wondering about a source as well. Diss asked for one. Completly acceptable, because Mike was using it as part of his argument.

And you come out of left field with this crap? If you have some "personal issues" keep them the hell off the board. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

[dissention]

Excuse me? Just what are you referring to here?

Ever heard of Iraq? Just how many Americans have been killed over lies? Just how many Iraqi's have been killed over Bush's lies? As we sit here and type our arguments onto this board, American children are having their limbs blown off, Iraqi children and elderly citizens are being bombed, people are living in streets full of human waste and sewage, there is no clean water, no economy. Shall I go on? Just how many people have suffered and died because of Bush's lies?

[QUOTE=MikeBangle]Oh really? What source are you getting this from? The United States spends the most on AIDS research and aide to other countries. It is a fact that Bush has spent more money on AIDS related research and aide than any previous administration.

Oh really? That's why the International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative was passed in 2002 and only appropriated $500 million in funds over two years. That isn't peanuts, kid. Not only is it too little, but it ignores the fact that in the time it takes for the whole $500 million to be doled out, AIDs infections shared between mothers and their children would spread almost 33%. In the two years it has taken for the money to be spread out, 6 million have died. Also, the second installment of $300 million from that same initiative has not been fully allocated yet.

In 2002, Bill Frist (shocking, eh), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy intorduced an AIDs package that would have given $5 billion in AIDs assistance. Bush refused to sign the bill.

Randall Tobias, a man with no experience in fighting AIDs, was appointed by Bush to head the Emergency Plan for AIDS. He was the ex-CEO of Ely Lilly.

In his most recent State of the Union address, Bush promised $15 billion to fight AIDs. How much has he actually allocated to fight AIDs since then? $350 million. Out of that supposed $15 billion, only $1 billion has been allocated to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and (surprise surprise) they haven't seen a dime yet.

Bush has privatized the manner in which Africa can purchase drugs to fight AIDs. If they want the money, he demands that they use it to purchase the drugs from GlaxoSmithKline instead of using generics. The very same drug company that has contributed $30 million dollars to his campaign. That means that much less drugs will be purchased for much more money.

Bush is also trying to push his abstinence program across the globe. That's simply unrealistic and a waste of good money.

Bus has also abandoned the UN-backed Global AIDS initiative and only gave 6.6% of what was needed to it in 2004.

Where would you like it? Kit-Kats are great candy bars!

What the HELL are you talking about? We are helping the Sudanese massacre each other? I guess the conspiracy theorists are really working overtime.... Do you honestly believe this craptrap?

Yes, we are helping them commit those atrocities by refusing to help them. We're too concerned with arresting Danny Glover for protesting the Sudanese genocide. So, tell me: What are we doing to stop the murders of millions? The Bush administration even told the Congress not to refer to it as genocide!

LOL! Acts of cruelty and filth? Oh my GOD. That's a good one. Try better next time.. LOL

Don't make me laugh. You're lbind if you can't see what this amdinistration is doing. They lie and lie and lie and refuse to help the people who need it. They're cold-blooded murderers, plain and simple.

Yes, they are Americans just like me. And no, I didn't contradict myself. Read my previous posts...

I did...unfortunately. :wavey:

[GateandGarden]

Firstly I was never Seperating any of the Dixie Chicks.

Secondly, If they did apologize, what did they apologize for, if they didnt take back what was originally said? \


Thirdly when i Was referring to the DC, I wasnt seperating either of them from the other. So please let me ask a question based on your above post ok, please clarify this for me. If you are stating that natalie went on stage at a DC concert and informed her other partners of whatshe was going to say, which would be the rigt thing to do because she is not standing on that stage alone, and they all agreed, fine, now the after effect happens and the other two bail out on natalie and apologize (for what, I'd like to know) well then i think thats sh*tty of them to take back what they originally believed in . I do feel that if you take action and then later apologize for that action, you are infact taking back what you stood up for. Whats the point in saying anything at all then. The fact is it was done with the wrong approach.

Now if you are telling me that natalie went on stage with the DC and didnt inform them of what she was planning on saying to "their" audience, then i can see the other 2 DC apologizing for something they had nothing to do with.


If the case is natalie thought they were behind her because she informed them and the other 2 apologized out of fear, but natalie herself didnt apologize for it , then so be it.I didn't really mean to bring the other two into it, since I suppose that was futile. That brings a whole different issue, because it is my opinion that she should've told the other two that she was going to say something like that ahead of time, but that's me. Anyway, as for the question you asked, dissention said almost exactly what I was going to say. It was like instead of saying "I'm sorry I said that," she said, "I'm sorry you took what I said in a bad way." I've had arguments after which the person refused to really apologize to me, they'll just say, "I still think I'm right and you're wrong, but I'm sorry that I upset you about it." That was how I looked at what Natalie said afterward. :shrug: I did...unfortunately.I agree with dissention. Those two sentences you posted do contradict each other, MikeBangle, though you've since contradicted the "shut and sing, shut up and act," more, from what I can see. In the end, I don't really see what the problem is that you have with the whole DC thing.

Hillary

[teedee]

What the hell is this??? I frankly never heard that what the DC said was vulgar, as was actually wondering about a source as well. Diss asked for one. Completly acceptable, because Mike was using it as part of his argument.

And you come out of left field with this crap? If you have some "personal issues" keep them the hell off the board. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand.



I am not sayin that this is what the DC said, I was repsonding to what Diss publically said to me.

And lets not just be one sided here, I suggest you read all the posts before you tell me how to post, or say im coming out of left field. I do agree private things should be kept private. but you know what when you do Pm someone, you cant prevent that person from responding publically . so please dont use that tone with me ok, if you dont like it, just ignore it. Why didnt you take your own advice and PM me yourself??????

[dissention]

I am not sayin that this is what the DC said, I was repsonding to what Diss publically said to me.

And lets not just be one sided here, I suggest you read all the posts before you tell me how to post, or say im coming out of left field. I do agree private things should be kept private. but you know what when you do Pm someone, you cant prevent that person from responding publically . so please dont use that tone with me ok, if you dont like it, just ignore it. Why didnt you take your own advice and PM me yourself??????

Why didn't you just PM me instead of crowding up this thread with cryptic statements? My word.

Again, where did I say they were playing in Texas? Can you not admit when you're wrong?

[teedee]

I didn't really mean to bring the other two into it, since I suppose that was futile. That brings a whole different issue, because it is my opinion that she should've told the other two that she was going to say something like that ahead of time, but that's me. Anyway, as for the question you asked, dissention said almost exactly what I was going to say. It was like instead of saying "I'm sorry I said that," she said, "I'm sorry you took what I said in a bad way." I've had arguments after which the person refused to really apologize to me, they'll just say, "I still think I'm right and you're wrong, but I'm sorry that I upset you about it." That was how I looked at what Natalie said afterward. :shrug: I agree with dissention. Those two sentences you posted do contradict each other, MikeBangle, though you've since contradicted the "shut and sing, shut up and act," more, from what I can see. In the end, I don't really see what the problem is that you have with the whole DC thing.

Hillary



i dont think mike contradicted himself. Singers should shut up and sing and actors should shut up and act. Is how i took it. If they want to make a political statement do it at an appropriate place, where it makes more sense. mike if thats not what you meant, well thats how i understood it.

As far as the DC not apologizing, then why did natalie, say she was embarrassed to be from the same state as bush. then on abc news or cnn websites she states im not really embarassed by that at all. go see for your selves. so she said it but now she didnt really mean it...

[Sugar]

I am not sayin that this is what the DC said, I was repsonding to what Diss publically said to me.

And lets not just be one sided here, I suggest you read all the posts before you tell me how to post, or say im coming out of left field. I do agree private things should be kept private. but you know what when you do Pm someone, you cant prevent that person from responding publically . so please dont use that tone with me ok, if you dont like it, just ignore it. Why didnt you take your own advice and PM me yourself??????

I read the entire thread. Diss never spoke outside of the debate. Yeah, he said you were talking out your ass, but even that was in the context of the debate.

You made a mistake and Diss called you on it. Hell, I made the same mistake, but I'm not going to jump on Diss because I made an assumption about one of his posts.

What does Carne Vaca have to do with any of this. Did he post here on this thread? Are we discussing something he said? Is he one of the Dixie Chicks?

I don't like it. It was a personal attack. It was not relevent to the thread. I will not ignore it.

Maybe you should have thought about the consequences before you said something like that in a public forum. We all have freedom of speech, but it's all in how you present it. If you say something gruff, people will respond in kind.

[dissention]

As far as the DC not apologizing, then why did natalie, say she was embarrassed to be from the same state as bush. then on abc news or cnn websites she states im not really embarassed by that at all. go see for your selves. so she said it but now she didnt really mean it...

Gimme a link or else that little nugget of info is useless. She never apologized.

[dissention]

What does Carne Vaca have to do with any of this. Did he post here on this thread? Are we discussing something he said? Is he one of the Dixie Chicks?

:laugh:

Exactly. If she has a problem with Carne, take it up with him, babe, not me.

[teedee]

Why didn't you just PM me instead of crowding up this thread with cryptic statements? My word.

Again, where did I say they were playing in Texas? Can you not admit when you're wrong?


Darling if that is what you need to make you feel like a big boy, ... look i made that statement when you said it was done it front of a bunch of texans, i referred to your post, and thought you said it was in texas.. then when i responded after i saw the post that stated it was london, i edited my original reference... if you didnt see that, then what can i say , but to keep up. as for PM'when you made the statement about my ass blah blah blah, why didnt you pm me. I feel if it gets personal doit privately also, but i responded publically cause you posted it publically. I have posted things in PM and i cant tell you how many times their replies come back in public with my post attached, as if i was doing it publically, when i was not.

[dissention]

Darling if that is what you need to make you feel like a big boy, ... look i made that statement when you said it was done it front of a bunch of texans, i referred to your post, and thought you said it was in texas.. then when i responded after i saw the post that stated it was london, i edited my original reference... if you didnt see that, then what can i say , but to keep up. as for PM'when you made the statement about my ass blah blah blah, why didnt you pm me. I feel if it gets personal doit privately also, but i responded publically cause you posted it publically. I have posted things in PM and i cant tell you how many times their replies come back in public with my post attached, as if i was doing it publically, when i was not.

You didn't just edit it, you kept harping on it when you knew that wasn't what I said. :wavey:

And I didn't make it personal, I simply said that you were talking out of your ass when it came to a specific portion of this debate. Which you were. It's the same as saying that you have no grasp of what you're talking about, only in a much cruder manner. ;)

As for the PM's, I don't post private messages on the forum. Not that you would know that because you didn't bother to PM me.

[teedee]

I read the entire thread. Diss never spoke outside of the debate. Yeah, he said you were talking out your ass, but even that was in the context of the debate.

You made a mistake and Diss called you on it. Hell, I made the same mistake, but I'm not going to jump on Diss because I made an assumption about one of his posts.

What does Carne Vaca have to do with any of this. Did he post here on this thread? Are we discussing something he said? Is he one of the Dixie Chicks?

I don't like it. It was a personal attack. It was not relevent to the thread. I will not ignore it.

Maybe you should have thought about the consequences before you said something like that in a public forum. We all have freedom of speech, but it's all in how you present it. If you say something gruff, people will respond in kind.


oh please who is going off topic now. so he can personally attack me here and thats staying in the thread topic and i respond and im attacking him.. why may i ask are you getting involved . if you dont like this personal crap so much. ? as for carne , that comment was directed at dis, for reasons i stated when i read his posts. if yo didnt get it. thats not my fault. you will not ignore what? what was a personal attack, look i really dont care. I know i said diss said it was in texas, then i edited my post.. go see ... for someone who thinks private issues should be private then why you getting involved that has nothing to do with you.? are you that bored . so why didnt you pm me? as for your quote of my statement, I love it , i stand by it and i mean it. peace to u sister, i will not feed your fire here in public, if i speak to dis its meant for dis.. i dont care if you stick up for him , i think its great that he has you in his corner, but honestly i dont think he needs you in his corner.i know i certainly dont. i think when people post publically and are having a discussion if you dont like it ignore it. if you have something to add to the convo thats great but dont tell me otherwise. seems your the type that has to try to fit in somewhere and cling rather than let 2 ppl talk.

[saradorna]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"No you PM me"
"No you PM me"
"No No, Youuu PM Me"
"No No YOU should've PM me"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This WAS a great discussion, now...

It's just silly. :rolleyes:

Adios!!!

Isabel

[Sugar]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"No you PM me"
"No you PM me"
"No No, Youuu PM Me"
"No No YOU should've PM me"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This WAS a great discussion, now...

It's just silly. :rolleyes:

Adios!!!

Isabel

That is essentially my point. It was a good debate until teedee decided to accuse Diss of speaking for Carne (???) and all that. But whatever...

[teedee]

You didn't just edit it, you kept harping on it when you knew that wasn't what I said. :wavey:

And I didn't make it personal, I simply said that you were talking out of your ass when it came to a specific portion of this debate. Which you were. It's the same as saying that you have no grasp of what you're talking about, only in a much cruder manner. ;)

As for the PM's, I don't post private messages on the forum. Not that you would know that because you didn't bother to PM me.


I never said that i pm you diss. did i?

And when you asked me why didnt i pm you, then what would of been the dif. if you still would of responded publically. whos talkin out of their but now? hey peace to you to , this is crazy, i know i am the only one who is crazy,right, so i edited , then i went on to harp as you so called . you never harp do you. if i was only just like you . and your mentor..please im going to start referring to you as

junior, you are making someone really happy i bet by such posts. oh and i will give you the addy to where natalie says im not really embarassed by etc.... seein as you need quotes and links and proof... see ya ..

[teedee]

Browne attended a Diablo Canyon nuclear protest in the 80s and upon hearing this, Stevie said:

"But they could have broken your fingers-your beautiful fingers that write all those beautiful songs. Are you crazy? We need you to write songs. We don't need you to be in jail."

It's a rather childish and naive statment, IMO.

She was also on Access Hollywood last year and was questioned about the Dixie Chicks controversy. She made a rather absurd comment about people not speaking out against the war.

btw do you have the link as to where stevie said this statement about jackson brown? would be interested in reading the article. im sure you will post it promptly... please do.

[dissention]

junior, you are making someone really happy i bet by such posts. oh and i will give you the addy to where natalie says im not really embarassed by etc.... seein as you need quotes and links and proof... see ya ..

Who's that someone? :confused:

The link you sent me didn't work, sorry.

[dissention]

btw do you have the link as to where stevie said this statement about jackson brown? would be interested in reading the article. im sure you will post it promptly... please do.

It's on the NicksFix in the "Past Trivia Questions" section. David has also posted it before. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Hey all,

The Dixie Chicks were in London, and what they said was not the "watered down" version that was reported by the media. The statement was a bit more involved and was quite vulgar in content.

Bull****. Did someone send you an email on this or something? :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!



Then your party should have picked a different city in which to have their convention-like Houston- instead of using the tragedy of 9/11 for their own political gain.

[teedee]

Who's that someone? :confused:

The link you sent me didn't work, sorry.




Funny it worked for me im there right now.

dont use a backslash after dixie chicks.


that should do it.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Actually,

I was referring the the thousands of people who protested in New York during the RNC. Alas, my mistake. And they did make peoples lives miserable, just ask the businesses that were trashed and the communters whose cars were egged on or people who were threatened and spit on as they just tried to get to work!



MikeBangle

The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, a republican -- actually said he felt it went ok, and the protests were rather peaceful, and good for business as well

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Stevie's comments on Access Hollywood, I had the clip on my computer, but I lost a lot of stuff...She said, point blank actual words " i pretty much think people should keep their mouths shut." (although my taking of it was her saying it reference to musicians.)

Because after she said that she said something to the effect "its like you wake up and your career is just gone, its not a good idea." - not an exact quote but something like that..

She was rather bold, which is odd for Stevie, but she did seem to be directing it at musicians, not americans in general..

The Dixie Chicks were in no way disrespectful to Texans, native Texans themselves they said "Just so you know we are ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Obviously they feel strongly about Texas and are shamed Bush is from their home state...

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

President Bush was asked about Natalie Maines' comment shortly after the incident exploded and he said "Well i think we all see that freedom of speech sometimes comes with consequences"

Chris

[estranged4life]

The Dixie Chicks were in no way disrespectful to Texans...

that is a job BEST left for us "Okies" (aka Oklahomans...aka the Smart side of the Red River) :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[saradorna]

Stevie's comments on Access Hollywood, I had the clip on my computer, but I lost a lot of stuff...She said, point blank actual words " i pretty much think people should keep their mouths shut." (although my taking of it was her saying it reference to musicians.)

Because after she said that she said something to the effect "its like you wake up and your career is just gone, its not a good idea." - not an exact quote but something like that..

She was rather bold, which is odd for Stevie, but she did seem to be directing it at musicians, not americans in general..

I recorded that interview and she does not say that. It is odd because she did not say it.

Btw, I'm LMAO with the picture. :laugh: :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I recorded that interview and she does not say that. It is odd because she did not say it.

Btw, I'm LMAO with the picture. :laugh: :laugh:



You need to re-watch it...this was not a show that Fleetwood Mac was featured on or anything...it was Access Hollywood and they were discussing the Dixie Chicks thing, and had little interview snippets from other artists..and had Stevie's comments for about 20-30 secs

Maybe there were two diff segments?

Chris

[dissention]

I recorded that interview and she does not say that. It is odd because she did not say it.

Btw, I'm LMAO with the picture. :laugh: :laugh:

She says it on my tape. :shrug:

[saradorna]

You need to re-watch it...this was not a show that Fleetwood Mac was featured on or anything...it was Access Hollywood and they were discussing the Dixie Chicks thing, and had little interview snippets from other artists..and had Stevie's comments for about 20-30 secs

Maybe there were two diff segments?

Chris

Okay...

I just re watch the interview and it still doesn't say what you wrote. I recorded it and I have the CNN interview where she's asked the same thing about the DC and nowhere she said "people should keep their mouths shut". The CNN interview is on my computer if you want it I'll send it to you.

Isabel

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Okay...

I just re watch the interview and it still doesn't say what you wrote. I recorded it and I have the CNN interview where she's asked the same thing about the DC and nowhere she said "people should keep their mouths shut". The CNN interview is on my computer if you want it I'll send it to you.

Isabel


I'm not referring to the CNN interview you are talking about...this was ACCESS HOLLYWOOD or either EXTRA which airs on regular tv stations, it airs on NBC here in Atlanta......and on that show she does say that..i havent seen the cnn one...although i would like to

Chris

[saradorna]

I'm not referring to the CNN interview you are talking about...this was ACCESS HOLLYWOOD or either EXTRA which airs on regular tv stations, it airs on NBC here in Atlanta......and on that show she does say that..i havent seen the cnn one...although i would like to

Chris

Chris, what I meant to say is that I have both the AH and the cnn comments.

If you want the CNN video, PM me.

Isabel

[GateandGarden]

i dont think mike contradicted himself. Singers should shut up and sing and actors should shut up and act. Is how i took it. If they want to make a political statement do it at an appropriate place, where it makes more sense. I don't want to keep arguing for no real reason, but I think that sentence is contradictory. They should shut up, but wait...unless it's appropriate--then they don't have to shut up. I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure you and Mike agree, or I just don't get it. Either way, I don't think anyone should be telling singers, actors, lawyers, farmers, Wal-Mart greeters, or any citizens to shut up about their political beliefs. I'm being redundant, but I cannot subscribe to that view. Yeah, they can do it in a place that makes more sense (which is very subjective anyway), but why should they? And as Isabel already pointed out, a concert is good place to reach lots of people. But I should probably stop, since I'm not into the "you pm ME" game. (Not that I'm likely to get involved, anyway). Sometimes I think you guys are just playing around, but then sometimes I think you've pissed each other off, and all too often it doesn't seem like something worth being quite so pissed about. But that's me. :rolleyes:

Hillary

[gldstwmn]

You need to re-watch it...this was not a show that Fleetwood Mac was featured on or anything...it was Access Hollywood and they were discussing the Dixie Chicks thing, and had little interview snippets from other artists..and had Stevie's comments for about 20-30 secs

Maybe there were two diff segments?

Chris

I remember that but I can't remember which show it was.

[MikeBangle]

[QUOTE=dissention]Oh really? That's why the International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative was passed in 2002 and only appropriated $500 million in funds over two years. That isn't peanuts, kid. Not only is it too little, but it ignores the fact that in the time it takes for the whole $500 million to be doled out, AIDs infections shared between mothers and their children would spread almost 33%. In the two years it has taken for the money to be spread out, 6 million have died. Also, the second installment of $300 million from that same initiative has not been fully allocated yet

Dissention. It is unfortunate that so many are effected by this disease. Unfortunately, government is perhaps one of the most inefficient ways of getting ANYTHING done when it comes to funding. I do have to take issue with you here, $15 billion is a nice chunk of change. I don't see any other country forking out more...



In 2002, Bill Frist (shocking, eh), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy intorduced an AIDs package that would have given $5 billion in AIDs assistance. Bush refused to sign the bill.

And why was that? Were there all sorts of add-ons on the appropriations bill? Do you honestly believe that Bush did that because he wanted all these people to die?

Randall Tobias, a man with no experience in fighting AIDs, was appointed by Bush to head the Emergency Plan for AIDS. He was the ex-CEO of Ely Lilly.

So?

In his most recent State of the Union address, Bush promised $15 billion to fight AIDs. How much has he actually allocated to fight AIDs since then? $350 million. Out of that supposed $15 billion, only $1 billion has been allocated to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and (surprise surprise) they haven't seen a dime yet.

Ahem, government at work yet again.


Bush has privatized the manner in which Africa can purchase drugs to fight AIDs. If they want the money, he demands that they use it to purchase the drugs from GlaxoSmithKline instead of using generics. The very same drug company that has contributed $30 million dollars to his campaign. That means that much less drugs will be purchased for much more money.


Uh huh, and Democratic candidates haven't put similar requirements in their legislation. I forgot, they are sooo perfect.

Bush is also trying to push his abstinence program across the globe. That's simply unrealistic and a waste of good money.

No, it is not unrealistic and no, it's not a waste of money.


Bus has also abandoned the UN-backed Global AIDS initiative and only gave 6.6% of what was needed to it in 2004.

The UN is a corrupt toothless organization with no backbone. Money given to the UN disappears into a great big black hole...

Yes, we are helping them commit those atrocities by refusing to help them. We're too concerned with arresting Danny Glover for protesting the Sudanese genocide. So, tell me: What are we doing to stop the murders of millions? The Bush administration even told the Congress not to refer to it as genocide!

Okay, do you see any other nation stepping in? Do you? Nope. I don't see the oh so saintly UN doing anything.

Don't make me laugh. You're lbind if you can't see what this amdinistration is doing. They lie and lie and lie and refuse to help the people who need it. They're cold-blooded murderers, plain and simple.

Sorry, I actually listen to things with an open mind. I'm not saying Bush is a saint, but I am not going to sit here and let you state that Clinton and Gore and Kerry are the greatest things since sliced bread. They are just as much a pack of liars, cheats and scam artists.

There is a ton of HATE in your posts. That is SO sad. That someone who professes to say they support tolerance of differences would sit here and bash people with an opposite viewpoint, in this case, Republicans.

What's more, you sit there and whine about the "innocent Iraqis" Are you going to tell me that Saddam and his sons are innocent? Are you going to tell me that you tolerate torture, rape and murder for even voicing political dissention?

Because if you do, and you lived in Saddam's Iraq, you would not be typing anything that you have said thus far on this messageboard.

MikeBangle

[ShangriLaTroubl]

[QUOTE=dissention]

Because if you do, and you lived in Saddam's Iraq, you would not be typing anything that you have said thus far on this messageboard.

MikeBangle


It's interesting about Saddam...and the whole rape thing and all that..considering a small amount of our troops did just the same horrible things to Iraqis as Saddam's regime did with the prison abuse...

Saddam was horrible, he didnt deserve his position..was it our place to take him out? Well i dunno...the world is no safer now than before his capture, i would say its less safe..so look at it how you want..Bush claimed in his campaign in 2000 he would not participate in "nation building" and would not strive to be a "World police" but it seems to have "flip flopped"

Chris

[dissention]

[QUOTE=dissention]Oh really? That's why the International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative was passed in 2002 and only appropriated $500 million in funds over two years. That isn't peanuts, kid. Not only is it too little, but it ignores the fact that in the time it takes for the whole $500 million to be doled out, AIDs infections shared between mothers and their children would spread almost 33%. In the two years it has taken for the money to be spread out, 6 million have died. Also, the second installment of $300 million from that same initiative has not been fully allocated yet

Dissention. It is unfortunate that so many are effected by this disease. Unfortunately, government is perhaps one of the most inefficient ways of getting ANYTHING done when it comes to funding. I do have to take issue with you here, $15 billion is a nice chunk of change. I don't see any other country forking out more...



In 2002, Bill Frist (shocking, eh), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy intorduced an AIDs package that would have given $5 billion in AIDs assistance. Bush refused to sign the bill.

And why was that? Were there all sorts of add-ons on the appropriations bill? Do you honestly believe that Bush did that because he wanted all these people to die?

Randall Tobias, a man with no experience in fighting AIDs, was appointed by Bush to head the Emergency Plan for AIDS. He was the ex-CEO of Ely Lilly.

So?

In his most recent State of the Union address, Bush promised $15 billion to fight AIDs. How much has he actually allocated to fight AIDs since then? $350 million. Out of that supposed $15 billion, only $1 billion has been allocated to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and (surprise surprise) they haven't seen a dime yet.

Ahem, government at work yet again.


Bush has privatized the manner in which Africa can purchase drugs to fight AIDs. If they want the money, he demands that they use it to purchase the drugs from GlaxoSmithKline instead of using generics. The very same drug company that has contributed $30 million dollars to his campaign. That means that much less drugs will be purchased for much more money.


Uh huh, and Democratic candidates haven't put similar requirements in their legislation. I forgot, they are sooo perfect.

Bush is also trying to push his abstinence program across the globe. That's simply unrealistic and a waste of good money.

No, it is not unrealistic and no, it's not a waste of money.


Bus has also abandoned the UN-backed Global AIDS initiative and only gave 6.6% of what was needed to it in 2004.

The UN is a corrupt toothless organization with no backbone. Money given to the UN disappears into a great big black hole...

Yes, we are helping them commit those atrocities by refusing to help them. We're too concerned with arresting Danny Glover for protesting the Sudanese genocide. So, tell me: What are we doing to stop the murders of millions? The Bush administration even told the Congress not to refer to it as genocide!

Okay, do you see any other nation stepping in? Do you? Nope. I don't see the oh so saintly UN doing anything.

Don't make me laugh. You're lbind if you can't see what this amdinistration is doing. They lie and lie and lie and refuse to help the people who need it. They're cold-blooded murderers, plain and simple.

Sorry, I actually listen to things with an open mind. I'm not saying Bush is a saint, but I am not going to sit here and let you state that Clinton and Gore and Kerry are the greatest things since sliced bread. They are just as much a pack of liars, cheats and scam artists.

There is a ton of HATE in your posts. That is SO sad. That someone who professes to say they support tolerance of differences would sit here and bash people with an opposite viewpoint, in this case, Republicans.

What's more, you sit there and whine about the "innocent Iraqis" Are you going to tell me that Saddam and his sons are innocent? Are you going to tell me that you tolerate torture, rape and murder for even voicing political dissention?

Because if you do, and you lived in Saddam's Iraq, you would not be typing anything that you have said thus far on this messageboard.

MikeBangle

What's sad is your line of thinking that the Bush adminstration should just be excused for ignoring AIDS because it's the "government." You obviously know nothing that you're talking about when it comes to this administration and their ignoring of the AIDS crisis.

One of my best friends died last year of AIDS. He died a lot sooner than he should have because he didn't get the healthcare that he SHOULD have gotten because this current administration has drastically underfunded everything that has to do with the AIDS virus. When you have people unable to afford the outrageous costs of drugs and medical supplies and they're dying a painfu, slow death with each passing day, you don't just say "Oh well, that's just the government," you HELP THEM. So, next time you want to profess how much this administration has done for combatting the AIDs virus, sell it somewhere else because it's pure bull****. If you've sat in the company of a 26 year old kid as they lay there and are unable to chew food because they don't have enough energy because they had gotten little to no help form the medical industry, you wouldn't be such a cheerleader for these bastards.

As for your comments about Iraq, they just show your ignorance.

[MikeBangle]

Dissention, I am many things, but ignorant is not one of them.


What's sad is your line of thinking that the Bush adminstration should just be excused for ignoring AIDS because it's the "government." You obviously know nothing that you're talking about when it comes to this administration and their ignoring of the AIDS crisis.

WELL IT'S TRUE!! When was the last time government did anything efficient and under budget? Find me an example instead of frothing at the mouth.

And no, I didn't say that anyone should be excused for anything. I just love how people like to put words in my mouth. You are belly aching about how long it took and how much funding was diverted here and there.... that's govt buracracy at work kid!

One of my best friends died last year of AIDS.

:( I am truly sorry to hear this. In your zeal to condemn my stand on various issues, you probably don't believe me when I say that.


As for your comments about Iraq, they just show your ignorance.

Dissention, your comments on Iraq border on stupidity. If you are going to tell everyone on this messageboard that various human rights abuses in Iraq never happened, that the cutting off of people limbs, the raping of children in front of their parents, the gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq are nothing but lies.....

There are accounts, forth and fifth hand of these events. Why don't you ask the Iraqi men how they liked having their hands chopped off. Are you going to sit there and tell the surviving family members who watched their daughter get repeatedly raped and tortured because they were against Saddam that it didn't happen?

What next? Are you going to tell us that Hitler was a good guy and the Holocaust never happened? (God I hope not.)

Sorry Dissention, my comments on Iraq come from reading, listening and researching many sources of news, TV, radio and newspaper, liberal and concervative.

Don't insult MY intelligance Dissention, it's a war you WILL loose.

Since I do have an open mind, why don't you give me some facts to back up your claim that I am ignornant, other than the fact that the WMDs haven't been found yet...

MikeBangle

[strandinthewind]

. . . Dissention, your comments on Iraq border on stupidity. If you are going to tell everyone on this messageboard that various human rights abuses in Iraq never happened, that the cutting off of people limbs, the raping of children in front of their parents, the gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq are nothing but lies.....

There are accounts, forth and fifth hand of these events. Why don't you ask the Iraqi men how they liked having their hands chopped off. Are you going to sit there and tell the surviving family members who watched their daughter get repeatedly raped and tortured because they were against Saddam that it didn't happen?

What next? Are you going to tell us that Hitler was a good guy and the Holocaust never happened? (God I hope not.)

I am confused regarding your point - I think we all know SH was a bad person. I do not think anyone is saying or has ever said he was not.

I think, but could be wrong, people justifiably are pissed because W never asserted SH's bad nature as the sole reason for going to war - if he had, it would never have passed Congress or the UN and he knew it because even W asserted that we would go to war only as a last resport and only if the US was in clear and present danger from Iraq. So, W asserted that after 9/11, SH's persistent non-compliance with the UN's requirement from the end of the first Gulf War that SH PROVE he had destroyed his WMD, was too much of a variable of risk for the US to sustain any longer. The world agreed with that via UN Res. 1441.

The problem is W did not stop there. He did not allow the UN's remedy to see its fruition in that he did not allow the inspections to continute even though SH in the end apparently finally was complying with them. Instead, W and his admin. said they "knew" SH had WMD and they knew where they were. Then W himself relied on KNOWINGLY false info. to assert SH was making a nuclear bomb. All of this was in an effort to scare the US and the world into attacking Iraq as soon as possible and not waiting for the fewe months the inspections would have taken to conclude. THOUSANDS of lives perhaps could have been saved if W had tempered his rash action with a little wisdom.

Then, in the rush to war, he ill equipped the military making parents send needed equipment to their sons and daughters, W had no plan to win the peace in Iraq, no exit strategy, he used what essentially all of his military advisors deemed and insufficient amount of troops, and the National Guardsmen used did not have the proper training, which resulted in the autrocities they committed on the Iraqi prisoners. He also gave a no bid contrat to Halliburton which has admitted fraud in govt. contracts, and then he lied and said the Iraqi oil would pay for the liberation and now we are stuck with a price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars with no end in sight.

So, I say the facts clearly state that W lied to rush to war with Iraq and he then botched the Iraq war from start to finished. That is why I am pissed at W and cannot vote for him. Again, I agree SH was a bad guy, but W did not have the balls to assert that as the only reason for going to war because he knew the US and the UN would NEVER buy it. Am I glad SH is no longer in power - yes. Does that excuse W's lying and knowingly fraudulant manipulation of the truth to get to there - no. In fact, he needs to make peace with God for the deaths of over 1,000 U.S. soldiers and the 10's of thousands of Iraqi's he killed and/or injured in his bloodlusting rush to war and then using such a pathetic excuse in hindsight to justify his war when his lies were exposed :mad:

Again, if he were my employee and he screwed up this much, I would fire him on the spot no matter how altruistic his intentions. I think anyone would. Yet, people persist in their support for him - why I will never know :shrug:

Not to mention:

he spends on borrowed money worse than any Democrat I have ever seen

he has failed to produce any significant number of the new jobs he promised his economic plan would produce

he has failed to help Social Security

he has failed to fund his education legislation, which has left the already burdened states in a quandry

the Medicare bill is a joke that not even DHHS can figuere out how to implement

he talked a good game on AIDS funding but he has not seen it to its end and has let the religious right use the funding bill as a tool to force their mores on the non-Christian world who already mostly despises us

he has waged a hate war on gay people who are just trying to get the same benefits that staight people get - he knowingly did this in an attempt to use peoples' hatred of gays as a springboard of support for him

his scorched earth policy of attacking - both personally and through use of side groups that he "disavows" only in general - veterans like McCain and Kerry is appalling and an insult considering he was partying in an undiclosed location in the states while THEY were risking their lives in Vietnam :mad:

and - his adminisration failed to stop 9/11 (which there was a slim shot of doing) and, perhaps more importantly, he failed to catch OBL, who actually attacked the contintental US and her holdings elsewhere, and instead caught SH who never attacked the continental US, although he did invade Kuwaitt over ten years ago.

How ANYONE can justify this is just beyond me AND - I am a fiscal conservative!!!!!!!!! Thus, I must vote for Kerry, who could not POSSIBLY be any worse than this idiot and hate mongerer we have now.

P.S. Mike - not all of this was directed at you :cool:

[dissention]

Dissention, your comments on Iraq border on stupidity. If you are going to tell everyone on this messageboard that various human rights abuses in Iraq never happened, that the cutting off of people limbs, the raping of children in front of their parents, the gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq are nothing but lies.....

There are accounts, forth and fifth hand of these events. Why don't you ask the Iraqi men how they liked having their hands chopped off. Are you going to sit there and tell the surviving family members who watched their daughter get repeatedly raped and tortured because they were against Saddam that it didn't happen?

What next? Are you going to tell us that Hitler was a good guy and the Holocaust never happened? (God I hope not.)

How absurd. This is a FABULOUS example of how the right-wingers like to spin things, folks. :wavey:

Again, what about Sudan? What about the dozen other police states on this earth? What do we say to the people in those countries who live under circumstances just as harsh as the Iraqi's did under Saddam? Your logic makes no sense.

Sorry Dissention, my comments on Iraq come from reading, listening and researching many sources of news, TV, radio and newspaper, liberal and concervative.

:laugh: You really want to make me laugh, eh? Turn off Faux News and read real journalism.

Don't insult MY intelligance Dissention, it's a war you WILL loose.

Obviously you've never gotten into a political conversation with me. ;) You do it to yourself, my dear. What am I supposed to think when you support a murderous thug whose intelligence is so low that he waved at Stevie Wonder to get his attention?

Since I do have an open mind, why don't you give me some facts to back up your claim that I am ignornant, other than the fact that the WMDs haven't been found yet...

Read your posts, they speak for themselves. A right-winger with an open mind is like a man who doesn't love sex, a very rare breed.

[Gypsy-Rhiannon]

A right-winger with an open mind is like a man who doesn't love sex, a very rare breed.
:laugh: This made me laugh!

[MikeBangle]

How absurd. This is a FABULOUS example of how the right-wingers like to spin things, folks. :wavey:

Ahem, are you aren't working on your OWN SPIN Dissention?

Again, what about Sudan? What about the dozen other police states on this earth? What do we say to the people in those countries who live under circumstances just as harsh as the Iraqi's did under Saddam? Your logic makes no sense.

Dissention, you completely avoided my questions from my previous post. So typical. Are you afraid to answer or address it directly?

:laugh: You really want to make me laugh, eh? Turn off Faux News and read real journalism.

I'm already laughing at your standard wacko liberal comeback. How unoriginal. What, may I ask, is "real journalism" according to you? This I have got to see...


Obviously you've never gotten into a political conversation with me. ;)

Babe, me thinks you are terribly overconfident.

What am I supposed to think when you support a murderous thug whose intelligence is so low that he waved at Stevie Wonder to get his attention?

Once again, you prove just how hate filled you really are... I can see not agreeing with Bush's policies, but to actually hate the man.... that is wrong.

Read your posts, they speak for themselves. A right-winger with an open mind is like a man who doesn't love sex, a very rare breed.

LAMO!!! You think from my posts on this thread that I am a right-winger? ROTFLAMO!!! I can tell you that I am most definately NOT a right-winger. Not everyone who supports Bush is right-wing or Republican.

Oh, and I do like sex too!

MikeBangle

[MikeBangle]

LAMO!!! You think from my posts on this thread that I am a right-winger? ROTFLAMO!!! I can tell you that I am most definately NOT a right-winger. Not everyone who supports Bush is right-wing or Republican.

Oh, and I do like sex too!

MikeBangle


BLAST IT! It happened again. Sorry for the font wierdness.....

Carry on....

MikeBangle

[diamondsnake]

I love how Stevie is not out there with political t-shirts and buttons like Susan Sarandon, Sheryl Crow, etc. because it is borderline tacky. Using your celeb. status to brainwash your fans is not right and come to think of it that is just yet another reason Stevie is so incredible. She is a peaceful person (a peacekeeper if you will!) and while she is willing to tell it like it is (telling Brit and Madonna their on screen kiss was obnoxious) she is very respectful of our government.

I really find it refreshing when Artists like Stevie, Matt LeBlanc (who I just read an article about- the only actor on Friends who trusts the president), etc. are not pushing their political beleifs down our throats.

I also think a lot of people are becoming anti-Bush for the sole reason that it is trendy. And some people, while not misinformed, have only seen one side of politics. Watching Farenheit 911 does not make you ready to vote. It is clearly stretching the truth and almost brainwashing its audience.

[dissention]

I also think a lot of people are becoming anti-Bush for the sole reason that it is trendy. And some people, while not misinformed, have only seen one side of politics. Watching Farenheit 911 does not make you ready to vote. It is clearly stretching the truth and almost brainwashing its audience.

Brainwashing its audience? No one who attended a screening of F9/11 could possibly go in under the assumption that it wasn't a partisan film, Michael Moore has said he has an agenda and this film was a big part of it. That being said, there was nothing untrue in the movie and 90% of it was comprised of actual footage from the cronies currently in the White House. Nothing has been disproved and there was no stretching fo the truth. Did you see it?

[dissention]

Matt LeBlanc (who I just read an article about- the only actor on Friends who trusts the president)

I've always wondered if he was really acting when he played Joey.

[strandinthewind]

Brainwashing its audience? No one who attended a screening of F9/11 could possibly go in under the assumption that it wasn't a partisan film, Michael Moore has said he has an agenda and this film was a big part of it. That being said, there was nothing untrue in the movie and 90% of it was comprised of actual footage from the cronies currently in the White House. Nothing has been disproved and there was no stretching fo the truth. Did you see it?


AND - everything in it is true - MM offered a $$$ reward for anyone who could disprove his assertions and to my knowledge no one has gotten the $$$$$.

My only beef with the movie is that it is full of innuendo and it is one sided. For example, showing W making the golf shot after making a sound byte looks bad, but is done all of the time in that once the camera is off you no longer have to act for it, etc. But, in the end, MM never set out to make a fair and balanced movie. He set out to skewer W on the facts and he succeeded - more power to him :shrug:

[dissention]

AND - everything in it is true - MM offered a $$$ reward for anyone who could disprove his assertions and to my knowledge no one has gotten the $$$$$.

My only beef with the movie is that it is full of innuendo and it is one sided. For example, showing W making the golf shot after making a sound byte looks bad, but is done all of the time in that once the camera is off you no longer have to act for it, etc. But, in the end, MM never set out to make a fair and balanced movie. He set out to skewer W on the facts and he succeeded - more power to him :shrug:

I think that the "Now watch this drive" part just showed a great degree of insensitivity to the whole situation. In one breath, he's making a plea to "stop these terra-ist killers" and, in the next, he's urging the media to watch him golf. It came off as very disingenuous on his part. JMO. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I think that the "Now watch this drive" part just showed a great degree of insensitivity to the whole situation. In one breath, he's making a plea to "stop these terra-ist killers" and, in the next, he's urging the media to watch him golf. It came off as very disingenuous on his part. JMO. :wavey:

Well, it did and that was MM's intent. But, to be fair, that could have been the 50th take :shrug: Also, anyone who has ever done any staged soundbytes, which this apparently was, knows that the emotion is for the camera, etc. But even if it was not, in any scenario, once the camera was off and the take completed, there was no need for the emotion. So, I think that is important to know. Otherwise it looks like W just said something one time for the camera and then forgot about it and concentrated on his golf game and it was all a great big joke to him. Yet, MM cleverly does not fill people in on this industry known fact. Instead he makes it look like W is sincere one minute and swinging his golf club the next, which is unfair in the context of his point.

Again, I think if we looked at the activites done after every soundbyte ever made by a politician, W's activities here would not seem strange :shrug:

[diamondsnake]

Well, like I said, if you have seen the movie you are not misinformed but have only seen one side. It is stretching the truth, I beleive. Not making things up but stretching the truth a bit.

[dissention]

Well, like I said, if you have seen the movie you are not misinformed but have only seen one side. It is stretching the truth, I beleive. Not making things up but stretching the truth a bit.

In what way? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just would like you to explain how presenting facts is stretching the truth. It honestly can't be stretching it any further than Dumbya did when it came to Iraq. :lol:

[dissention]

But even if it was not, in any scenario, once the camera was off and the take completed, there was no need for the emotion.

And that's my point: he said something incredibly serious, urged other nations fight the terra-ists, then laughed it off and played golf. Gee, maybe you should stop putting around the golf course and do what you just told everyone else to do? Instead, he showed a great deal of hypocrisy and insensitivity. Food for thought.

[estranged4life]

Michael Moore has said he has an agenda
and that is to make enough $$$ to buy 5,000,000,000,000 Krispy Kreme® glazed donuts so he can gain enough weight to try out for the role of "Fat Bastard®" in the next "Austin Powers®" movie :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey MM, I have a movie idea for ya, It's called "2-below"...That is that you have 2 feet below that case of "dumlap" (Aka-"His gut it done lapped over his waistline")...Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Brian "Michael Moore-In comparison making rednecks and the 'Im-moral majority" not look as stupid as they do..." j.

[strandinthewind]

In what way? I'm not trying to be an ass, I just would like you to explain how presenting facts is stretching the truth. It honestly can't be stretching it any further than Dumbya did when it came to Iraq. :lol:

Well, as I just explained, he does not explain the facts he presents - it is like he is using quotes out of context. Instead, he shows things that require explaining - like the sound byte example earlier. So, that is not exactly presenting a clear picture even though what transpired is factual :shrug: Rather, it is a conscious attempt to paint W in the worst light possible, which was his intent. AND - I am not commenting on his intent, I am merely pointing out that the film is full of conscious innuendo - I really cannot see how you can deny that :shrug: Moreover, my saying that is not an insult to the high and much venerated by the far left MM :laugh: I think he accomplished his goal, which was to present facts in such a way as to make W look as bad as possible - and he succeeded and I laud him for it :cool: But, to say the facts as depicted are all bright and shiny, self-evident, in context, and in no need of some explanation is just not accurate.

[dissention]

and that is to make enough $$$ to buy 5,000,000,000,000 Krispy Kreme® glazed donuts so he can gain enough weight to try out for the role of "Fat Bastard®" in the next "Austin Powers®" movie :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey MM, I have a movie idea for ya, It's called "2-below"...That is that you have 2 feet below that case of "dumlap" (Aka-"He gut he done lapped over his waistline")...Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Brian "Michael Moore-In comparison making rednecks and the 'Im-moral majority" not look as stupid as they do..." j.

In all actuality, almost 70% of the profits went to charity, it was a clause in the distribution contract. :shocked:

[estranged4life]

In all actuality, almost 70% of the profits went to charity, it was a clause in the distribution contract. :shocked:

the "Feed the Dumb" organization...:lol: :laugh: :lol:

[dissention]

Well, as I just explained, he does not explain the facts he presents - it is like he is using quotes out of context. Instead, he shows things that require explaining - like the sound byte example earlier. So, that is not exactly presenting a clear picture even though what transpired is factual :shrug: Rather, it is a conscious attempt to paint W in the worst light possible, which was his intent. AND - I am not commenting on his intent, I am merely pointing out that the film is full of conscious innuendo - I really cannot see how you can deny that :shrug: Moreover, my saying that is not an insult to the high and much venerated by the far left MM :laugh: I think he accomplished his goal, which was to present facts in such a way as to make W look as bad as possible - and he succeeded and I laud him for it :cool: But, to say the facts as depicted are all bright and shiny, self-evident, in context, and in no need of some explanation is just not accurate.

He didn't have to paint Dumbya in a bad light, he just had to use actual footage. Fact is, the movie was filled with facts. Facts comprised 95% of the film. What people can't seem to distinguish are the facts that were presented and Moore's conclusions that were presented. There can be no denying the facts (such as Condie Rice saying that Iraq was not a threat and could be contained, Bush sitting in a classroom for minutes and minutes for a photo-op while are loved ones died, etc.), but obviously no one has to agree with Moore's own conclusions.

As for context, do a Lexis Nexis search and you'll come to the conclusion that 99% were presented in the exact same context that they were used. Even the right-wing bloggers haven't been able to refute this.

[strandinthewind]

And that's my point: he said something incredibly serious, urged other nations fight the terra-ists, then laughed it off and played golf. Gee, maybe you should stop putting around the golf course and do what you just told everyone else to do? Instead, he showed a great deal of hypocrisy and insensitivity. Food for thought.

But - you are basing your conclusion on an incorrect premise. We know nothing of the set up of the shot do we - MM does not let us know does he? Maybe that was the only time he or the camera crew could do the soundbyte - maybe the soundbyte was unexpected and it was easier for them to come to him. There are a million reasons why the soundbyte was done. AND - if you do not think that kind of thing happens all of the time, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :laugh:

Seriously, the Pres. is allowed to play golf - that he recorded a soundbyte during it does not negate the sincerity of the soundbyte. The industry just does not work that way. In other words, if he had done another soundbyte about the tax cut right after it, would that have made it better :shrug: The industry does not work that way and I think you know that :cool:

[dissention]

But - you are basing your conclusion on an incorrect premise. We know nothing of the set up of the shot do we - MM does not let us know does he? Maybe that was the only time he or the camera crew could do the soundbyte - maybe the soundbyte was unexpected and it was easier for them to come to him. There are a million reasons why the soundbyte was done. AND - if you do not think that kind of thing happens all of the time, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :laugh:

Seriously, the Pres. is allowed to play golf - that he recorded a soundbyte during it does not negate the sincerity of the soundbyte. The industry just does not work that way. In other words, if he had done another soundbyte about the tax cut right after it, would that have made it better :shrug: The industry does not work that way and I think you know that :cool:

We are not talking about the news industry, we're talking about Shrub's words and actions.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in the end. It all showed a lack of taste.

[strandinthewind]

He didn't have to paint Dumbya in a bad light, he just had to use actual footage. Fact is, the movie was filled with facts. Facts comprised 95% of the film. What people can't seem to distinguish are the facts that were presented and Moore's conclusions that were presented. There can be no denying the facts (such as Condie Rice saying that Iraq was not a threat and could be contained, Bush sitting in a classroom for minutes and minutes for a photo-op while are loved ones died, etc.), but obviously no one has to agree with Moore's own conclusions.

As for context, do a Lexis Nexis search and you'll come to the conclusion that 99% were presented in the exact same context that they were used. Even the right-wing bloggers haven't been able to refute this.

Here we go again - someone even looks like they are attacking MM - and you get all up in arms :laugh: Bless your heart :cool:

I AM NOT ATTACKING HIM. I AM NOT SAYING THE MOVIE IS NOT FULL OF FACTS.

ALL - AND I MEAN ALL I am saying is some of the facts are presented out of context and/or require some explanation. But, you will never admit that because to admit that in your mind seemingly means MM's film is bad and/or W is getting some credit - both of which can never happen.

Put it this way, if I filmed from a bad angle W patting Laura on the back - it could look like he was beating her. Then, if I showed only that clip with no explanation, it would be factual, but not representative of the truth. In a similar way, that is what MM does in this film. I think that is unfair, but MM and apparently you, have no problem with that. So be it.

[strandinthewind]

We are not talking about the news industry, we're talking about Shrub's words and actions.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in the end. It all showed a lack of taste.

So, the Pres. of the U.S. never does soundbytes out of the context of what he currently was doing. The Pres. of the U.S. is not a quasi-part of the news industry in the sense that he makes news everyday and does countless soundbytes all of the time. I think you are too smart to argue that :cool:

You are just wrong here and you know it but will never admit it. De Ja Vu :laugh:

P.S. Ollie North was NEVER convicted!!! :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[estranged4life]

MM might be an idiot, But compared to Shrub he is Albert Einstein!!!

Btw, Shrub can get my congrats on ONLY one thing he ever did to benefit my life:

He traded Sammy Sosa away to the suckassed Chicago White-SUX (I think Shrub should liberate Chicago from their suckass attempt at a baseball team :lol: ) who in turn traded him to my BELOVED Cubs...So thanks for that one thing "Shruby-Shruby-Doo"!!!

Brian "Shruby-Shruby-Doo...Where are you?" j.

[estranged4life]

I've always wondered if he was really acting when he played Joey.

Matt Le-BLANK is as much an actor as William "TJ Hooker" Shatner is a Shakespearian poet...Which brings 3 words to mind:

Dont Think So!

Brian j.

[Patti]

Dissention vs. Strand--

They're baaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Dissention vs. Strand--

They're baaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

they should headline "Wrassle-Mania XXI" with their epic no-holds barred, falls counts anywhere, no countout or time limit, no outside intereference, steel cage, grudge match!!!!

Brian "Of course ya know ya this means War-Daffy Duck" j.

[strandinthewind]

Dissention vs. Strand--

They're baaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:blob2: :blob2:

AND - wait until Goldie chimes in later!!!!!!! :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

:laugh:

[dissention]

Dissention vs. Strand--

They're baaaaaaaaaack!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Oh lord, I don't have the energy in me to prove him wrong for the 3,984,013th time right now. And I swore I'd be nice. :laugh:

PS: Ollie North lived life as a convict for three years. ;)

[strandinthewind]

. . . And I swore I'd be nice. :laugh:

That's a first :wavey: :D :xoxo:

PS: Ollie North lived life as a convict for three years. ;)

Nope - he was never convicted because the subsequent overturning of the conviction makes it as if he was never convicted - if he was never convicted, then he could never have lived that way for three years :wavey:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I also think a lot of people are becoming anti-Bush for the sole reason that it is trendy. And some people, while not misinformed, have only seen one side of politics.
.


You know it just depends on where you are referring to. In the south it has become trendy to be anti Kerry and pro Bush...and it certainly didnt used to be that way in the south...it just depends on who you are around...it is VERY VERY unpopular in GA to be for Kerry ..period

Chris

[dissention]

You know it just depends on where you are referring to. In the south it has become trendy to be anti Kerry and pro Bush...and it certainly didnt used to be that way in the south...it just depends on who you are around...it is VERY VERY unpopular in GA to be for Kerry ..period

Chris

It's funny, because I told you to rush out and see F9/11 and you said you'd still be leaning towards Bush. Months later, you've turned into another one of us raving loons, Chris. :laugh: :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

You know it just depends on where you are referring to. In the south it has become trendy to be anti Kerry and pro Bush...and it certainly didnt used to be that way in the south...it just depends on who you are around...it is VERY VERY unpopular in GA to be for Kerry ..period

Chris
I sure as hell is. I live in Buckhead and if I see ONE more MF'ing Buckhead Betty on her cell driving her Range Rover/Volvo staion wagon with a faded Sonny Perdue and a new W sticker, I may hurl!!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

That's a first :wavey: :D :xoxo:

And quite a load of ****, if I've ever smelled one. :D Me? Nice? :eek:

Nope - he was never convicted because the subsequent overturning of the conviction makes it as if he was never convicted - if he was never convicted, then he could never have lived that way for three years :wavey:

If he was never convicted, then he could never have had his conviction overturned. :wavey:

[dissention]

I sure as hell is. I live in Buckhead and if I see ONE more MF'ing Buckhead Betty on her cell driving her Range Rover/Volvo staion wagon with a faded Sonny Perdue and a new W sticker, I may hurl!!!! :laugh:

Describe that picture again and I'LL hurl. :laugh: :xoxo: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . If he was never convicted, then he could never have had his conviction overturned. :wavey:

No that is not the way it works. When the Court of Appeals overturns a conviction, it is as if the conviction never existed. So, to say Ollie North was ever convicted is just wrong. I know you know this!!! :cool: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Describe that picture again and I'LL hurl. :laugh: :xoxo: :wavey:


The power was off for three days due to Frances. So, I have had to go get take out (NOT Gen. Tso's :laugh: ) for dinner. Each time there were like 50 such things in the parking lot with about ten or more circling and stopping in any place they wanted while talking on the phone. If you DARE blow the horn, much less shriek "GET THE FU*& OUT OF MY MF'ING WAY YOU %*%&#*#(&%$*$(#*$" - they act put upon and glare at you. I mean how dare someone as Betty to think past herself much less HANG UP THE #O%*()$#%*)(#% PHONE AND DRIVE. Let me tell ya, being flipped the bird by a blond bob on her cell is a tribute, not an insult :cool:


PHEW! :laugh:

[dissention]

No that is not the way it works. When the Court of Appeals overturns a conviction, it is as if the conviction never existed. So, to say Ollie North was ever convicted is just wrong. I know you know this!!! :cool: :laugh:

No, I'm right and I know that you know this. ;)

Ollie North lived as a convict for three years. Even you agreed. Shall I quote? :laugh: :wavey:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

It's funny, because I told you to rush out and see F9/11 and you said you'd still be leaning towards Bush. Months later, you've turned into another one of us raving loons, Chris. :laugh: :thumbsup:


You're right...and Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what turned me around..I had decided to vote for Kerry before seeing it...but it does present facts like you said...and if you want the facts presenting in deeper explanation, and with sources you can go to his website and read more...


You're right...I was one of the many although, who were blinded by this thing, I cant explain it, I just thought that everything they said about Kerry was true...I found myself calling Kerrry a flip flopper, and all kinds of stuff, and I had no idea why, I hadnt researched anything but georgebush.com

So I decided I would research both men, by looking up Kerry's senate record on my own, and looking up all kinds of stuff on Bush and Kerry...and make my decision that way..and turns out I didnt agree with Bush on ANYTHING...isnt that weird?

Chris

[Patti]

No that is not the way it works. When the Court of Appeals overturns a conviction, it is as if the conviction never existed. So, to say Ollie North was ever convicted is just wrong. I know you know this!!! :cool: :laugh:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound???? :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound???? :wavey:

:laugh:

Yes!

And - the light goes off in the fridge when you shut the door :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

You're right...and Fahrenheit 9/11 is not what turned me around..I had decided to vote for Kerry before seeing it...but it does present facts like you said...and if you want the facts presenting in deeper explanation, and with sources you can go to his website and read more...


You're right...I was one of the many although, who were blinded by this thing, I cant explain it, I just thought that everything they said about Kerry was true...I found myself calling Kerrry a flip flopper, and all kinds of stuff, and I had no idea why, I hadnt researched anything but georgebush.com

So I decided I would research both men, by looking up Kerry's senate record on my own, and looking up all kinds of stuff on Bush and Kerry...and make my decision that way..and turns out I didnt agree with Bush on ANYTHING...isnt that weird?

Chris

It's weird, but utterly fabulous. ;) The man stands for nothing but imperialism and hatred. How anyone can resist the urges of their gag reflexes long enough to vote for him is beyond me!

[strandinthewind]

. . .Ollie North lived as a convict for three years. Even you agreed. Shall I quote? :laugh: :wavey:

If you quote the whole thing, which was the subsequent overturning of the conviction made it impossible to say with any truth that he lived as a convict for three years :wavey: :xoxo:

Why you ask:laugh: - well silly it is because when a conviction is overturned, it is as if it never existed!!!! :wavey:

[dissention]

:laugh:

Yes!

And - the light goes off in the fridge when you shut the door :laugh: :laugh:

Yes, and Pickles Bush wipes her ass just like the rest of us even though we aren't privy enough to view it. Point is, Oliver North was found guilty on three charges, lived life as a convict for three years, then had it overturned on a technicality, even though the court of appeals said that in their eyes he was still guilty as sin. He was convicted, it was overturned. :wavey:

[dissention]

If you quote the whole thing, which was the subsequent overturning of the conviction made it impossible to say with any truth that he lived as a convict for three years :wavey: :xoxo:

Why you ask:laugh: - well silly it is because when a conviction is overturned, it is as if it never existed!!!! :wavey:

Oh, I read the whole thing and oyu didn't mention that little nugget of info until I called you on it. Shame, shame, I know your name. :p :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and Pickles Bush wipes her ass just like the rest of us even though we aren't privy enough to view it. Point is, Oliver North was found guilty on three charges, lived life as a convict for three years, then had it overturned on a technicality, even though the court of appeals said that in their eyes he was still guilty as sin. He was convicted, it was overturned. :wavey:

and the next statement is . . . .

IT IS AS IF THE CONVICTION NEVER EXISTED!!!! :wavey: :p

P.S. ITA he was guilty. But, factually he was never convicted.

[strandinthewind]

Oh, I read the whole thing and oyu didn't mention that little nugget of info until I called you on it. Shame, shame, I know your name. :p :wavey:

FOUL - I said it about ten times prior to then and I said it in about ten prior threads.

Nice try though :rolleyes:

His conviction was overturned which means he was never convicted. Get over it :cool: :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

and the next statement is . . . .

IT IS AS IF THE CONVICTION NEVER EXISTED!!!! :wavey: :p

P.S. ITA he was guilty. But, factually he was never convicted.

Dammit, I thought my Pickles line was quite funny. Crude and disgusting, but hell, I made myself laugh with that one.

I thumb my nose to you. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Dammit, I thought my Pickles line was quite funny. Crude and disgusting, but hell, I made myself laugh with that one.

I thumb my nose to you. :cool:

She uses a bidet!!!!!!!!!!! - unfortunately, W originally thought it was a water fountain!!!! :cool: :wavey: :woohoo:

On a side note, a friend on mine's mother did the bathrooms in the WH residence section when Jackie O was there. He has this note from Jackie (which is framed and over his toilet) that says Dear ______ - As you know the WH toilets and bathrooms can be so cold. Please schedule an appointment with me to change them - Fondly - Jackie

Or something like that. It is a scream!!!!

[estranged4life]

a conviction "expunged" (2 Class "A" felonies...Let's put it this way, In my past I was a very violent person! Still can be when provoked!!! I more reserved online than I EVER can be offline...), So after completing my probational guidelines the 5 year sentence never existed!!!

Brian "Need I say more???" j.

[dissention]

She uses a bidet!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note, a friend on mine's mother did the bathrooms in the WH residence section when Jackie O was there. He has this note from Jackie (which is framed and over his toilet) that says Dear ______ - As you know the WH toilets and bathrooms can be so cold. Please schedule an appointment with me to change them - Fondly - Jackie

Or something like that. It is a scream!!!!

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:

OMG, funny story time:

When I was five, I was at my grandfathers for the first time. I had never met him because my mother hadn't spoken to him for years, and he had such a nice house that it was a crime. I had to go to the bathroom, so his wife showed me where it was. Long story short, after I peed, I saw the bidet and mistook it for a water fountain because someone had left it on. :shocked: When my mother found out, she was positively horrified.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:

OMG, funny story time:

When I was five, I was at my grandfathers for the first time. I had never met him because my mother hadn't spoken to him for years, and he had such a nice house that it was a crime. I had to go to the bathroom, so his wife showed me where it was. Long story short, after I peed, I saw the bidet and mistook it for a water fountain because someone had left it on. :shocked: When my mother found out, she was positively horrified.

AAARRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

She uses a bidet!!!!!!!!!!! - unfortunately, W originally thought it was a water fountain!!!! :cool: :wavey: :woohoo:


Oh my, I am so horrified that you edited that to add the Dubya joke. :eek:

[Patti]

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:

OMG, funny story time:

When I was five, I was at my grandfathers for the first time. I had never met him because my mother hadn't spoken to him for years, and he had such a nice house that it was a crime. I had to go to the bathroom, so his wife showed me where it was. Long story short, after I peed, I saw the bidet and mistook it for a water fountain because someone had left it on. :shocked: When my mother found out, she was positively horrified.

LMFAO!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dissention]

AAARRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I know, I know. Don't ever accuse me of having a filthy mouth because you'd be right. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Oh my, I am so horrified that you edited that to add the Dubya joke. :eek:I edited it before I read your water fountain story :laugh: But . . . . .:cool: :wavey:

[GoldDustGypsy03]

I can't STAND it when celebs voice their political opinions, i've stopped getting in to politics since my blood pressure grows WAY too high on discussing that topic; I grew up in a Republican family and I know that i've always been on that side but since Bush got in, but I saw his "true colors," so i'm not fond of him, Clinton is worse thoug... to me... :shrug: But i'm glad and hope that Stevie will continue to keep it on the low down with politics lol I know that when I used to like Bush, Cher was talking bad about him so I didn't listen to her music for months lmao

[diamondsnake]

I can't STAND it when celebs voice their political opinions


I agree 100%!!!! I love how Stevie does not force her political ideas down our throats. :nod:

[dissention]

I can't STAND it when celebs voice their political opinions

Yeah, god forbid they use their constitutional rights.

[David]

I agree 100%!!!! I love how Stevie does not force her political ideas down our throats. :nod:I love how Stevie does not prepare collard greens with baby red potatoes.

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, god forbid they use their constitutional rights.

You know this is just RANK spin :laugh:

The First Amendment says (emphasis supplied):

__________________________________________________

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.
__________________________________________________

So, the only right stemming from the Const. is the right not to have the GOVT. limit freedom of speech by passing some law. Last I checked, some rock star spouting off their political beliefs or people racting to that politcial speech hardly qualifies under that protection :shrug: So, the Const. does NOT give people the right to say anything they want without non-legal and public consequence - never has, never will.

Also and again, the sword cuts both ways. I know of no hard core liberal who would buy the record of some heavy Republican supporter like Toby Keith yet they cry foul when the far right does the same exact thing to groups like the Dixie Chicks :shrug:

So, I say anyone can spout off all they want, but they should be prepared for people to walk through that door they have just opened :cool:

[dissention]

You know this is just RANK spin :laugh:

The First Amendment says (emphasis supplied):

__________________________________________________

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.
__________________________________________________

So, the only right stemming from the Const. is the right not to have the GOVT. limit freedom of speech by passing some law. Last I checked, some rock star spouting off their political beliefs or people racting to that politcial speech hardly qualifies under that protection :shrug: So, the Const. does NOT give people the right to say anything they want without non-legal and public consequence - never has, never will.

Also and again, the sword cuts both ways. I know of no hard core liberal who would buy the record of some heavy Republican supporter like Toby Keith yet they cry foul when the far right does the same exact thing to groups like the Dixie Chicks :shrug:

So, I say anyone can spout off all they want, but they should be prepared for people to walk through that door they have just opened :cool:

You're something, Jason. And the one who's spinning it. It's called freedom of speech, period. If they were breaking the law by saying what they're saying,y ou;d have a good argument, but they are not. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people on this board who hate that a celebrity expresses their political beliefs, yet they do the exact same thing.

Again, I was never suggesting that people don't have the right to dislike the fact that celebs speak out. But it is their right, just like it's the right of the people who criticize them.

As for your ridiculous liberal entertainer vs. conservative entertainer bull****, you're ALWAYS making assumptions about how I feel about conservatives. I never professed to hate the Gropenfueher. ;) ****, I just bought Predator on DVD. I don't buy Toby Keith because I don't like his music and find it to be absurd. I love Patricia Heaton, I think Drew Carey is funny, Robert Duvall is amazing, the list goes on. You're guilty of painting the same broad strokes that you accuse me of always painting.

[strandinthewind]

You're something, Jason. And the one who's spinning it. It's called freedom of speech, period. If they were breaking the law by saying what they're saying,y ou;d have a good argument, but they are not. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people on this board who hate that a celebrity expresses their political beliefs, yet they do the exact same thing.

Again, I was never suggesting that people don't have the right to dislike the fact that celebs speak out. But it is their right, just like it's the right of the people who criticize them.

As for your ridiculous liberal entertainer vs. conservative entertainer bull****, you're ALWAYS making assumptions about how I feel about conservatives. I never professed to hate the Gropenfueher. ;) ****, I just bought Predator on DVD. I don't buy Toby Keith because I don't like his music and find it to be absurd. I love Patricia Heaton, I think Drew Carey is funny, Robert Duvall is amazing, the list goes on. You're guilty of painting the same broad strokes that you accuse me of always painting.

Excuse me, but I was responding to the exchange (emphasis supplied):

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldDustGypsy03
I can't STAND it when celebs voice their political opinions

Dissention:

Yeah, god forbid they use their constitutional rights.

________________________________________________

So, you called what they were doing part of our "[C]constitutional rights," which it is not - period. Again, you show me where in the Const. it provides the right to free speech without consequence and I'll agree with you, but you cannot because it is not there :laugh: Again, the Const. ONLY prohibits the GOVT. from passing a law limiting free speech, and even that is subject to limitations like safety - you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre, etc. So, do not say I am spinning what is factual, regardless of whether you like it or not - :xoxo:

Also, I did not name you in my example and I was not referring to you. If you took it that way because I used the generic lable "hard core liberal," into which you profess to fit, in an abstract hyporthtical example, then that assumption was your own and it was incorrect :cool: :sorry:

[saradorna]

:shrug: :laugh: :lol:

[Sugar]

An entertainer voicing their political views does not equal them forcing them down our throats.

A singer or actor has as much right to say how they feel as much as anyone else. Of course they have the same right to not voice their beliefs or even to be completly ignorant. I suspect Stevie has some vague political beliefs, probably social issues, but for the most part has no clue.

And sure, actors have to be prepared for some backlash, ANYONE has to be prepared for some backlash. If I walk into work tomorrow and start espousing a hatred for Bush, someone may call me on it. So that's a rule we all have to deal with, IMO.

That being said, if the backlash in question breaks the law (terroristic threats) that is a whole seperate issue. But if they want to burn their CDs, people can. I think they're stupid, but that's an American right, too. :]

[gldstwmn]

I love how Stevie does not prepare collard greens with baby red potatoes.

Are you sure?

[GoldDustGypsy03]

I knew I was going to get some kind of response that would be towards me in a rude kind of manner, I didn't say that they're not allowed to ~ I was just saying that I don't like it, sometimes they go overboard and sometimes they have to know that they have fans.

[dissention]

Excuse me, but I was responding to the exchange (emphasis supplied):

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldDustGypsy03
I can't STAND it when celebs voice their political opinions

Dissention:

Yeah, god forbid they use their constitutional rights.

________________________________________________

So, you called what they were doing part of our "[C]constitutional rights," which it is not - period. Again, you show me where in the Const. it provides the right to free speech without consequence and I'll agree with you, but you cannot because it is not there :laugh: Again, the Const. ONLY prohibits the GOVT. from passing a law limiting free speech, and even that is subject to limitations like safety - you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre, etc. So, do not say I am spinning what is factual, regardless of whether you like it or not - :xoxo:

You're arguing against an argument that was never made, Jason. You quoted me and can clearly see that I never said anything about the repurcussions and public opinion of celebrities expressing their constitutional right to free speech. Why? Because that was not part of the discussion. It was a comment in response to someone who said they don't like it when a celebrity uses their constitutional right, which I said is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Methinks you need to take an American government class.

It doesn't sound like you've ever read any John Stuart Mill or read any comments made by Justice Holmes. Free speech is not simply the right of an individual to express themselves, it is the right of everyone else to hear it.

Also, I did not name you in my example and I was not referring to you. If you took it that way because I used the generic lable "hard core liberal," into which you profess to fit, in an abstract hyporthtical example, then that assumption was your own and it was incorrect :cool: :sorry:

Yeah, because when you make an argument using your favorite and mysterious phrase "hard core liberals," we all know that it isn't referring to me. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

I knew I was going to get some kind of response that would be towards me in a rude kind of manner, I didn't say that they're not allowed to ~ I was just saying that I don't like it, sometimes they go overboard and sometimes they have to know that they have fans.

So everyhting they do and say should be dictated by what their fans like? If you like an artist, good. Chances are you like that artist because of the movies they make or the songs they record, not the beliefs they hold on political issues. If they want to express their thoughts on a certain political issue, that is their right. Of course you can stop listening or watching them, but I find that pretty ridiculous.

[strandinthewind]

You're arguing against an argument that was never made, Jason. You quoted me and can clearly see that I never said anything about the repurcussions and public opinion of celebrities expressing their constitutional right to free speech. Why? Because that was not part of the discussion. It was a comment in response to someone who said they don't like it when a celebrity uses their constitutional right, which I said is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Methinks you need to take an American government class.

It doesn't sound like you've ever read any John Stuart Mill or read any comments made by Justice Holmes. Free speech is not simply the right of an individual to express themselves, it is the right of everyone else to hear it.

I guess I am confused by what you were calling a Const. Right. in that statement.

I thought you were making the argument that an artist who expresses their opinion is using their Const. Right. - ostensibly to the general thought of free speech, which many erroneously believe exists in the First Amendment. I thought you chose the wrong the expression. If not and again, show me where in the Const. it says anyone has a right to free speech in general. It does not say that. It just says the govt. cannot pass a law abridging free speech. Correct me if I am wrong, but the govt. passed no law here. So, the Const.'s prohibition against the state stifling free speech really has nothing to do with it :shrug: In other words, no one has the Const. right not to have another person (not the state) tell them to shut up, kick them off of their land or out of their store for saying something unliked, etc. :laugh:

I think what you are instead talking about is the inherent right we all think we have to free speech. I totally agree with that concept and that is what the above people you mentioned were referring to. It, along with a few other things like the King suppressing all unfavorable speech, was also the basis of the First Amendment, but the First Amendment can only control what the govt. can and cannot do. You were not talking about that - at least I think you were not. You were talking about a citizen expressing their opinion, which is not a Const. Right. Again, show me where the Const. says that. So, with respect, you were incorrect in calling it a Const. Right :shrug: That is all I am saying. I am not saying it is not some other right or even that the spirit of that other right is not one of the foundations of the Const.'s sole prohibition against the govt. interferring with free speech.

BTW - Justice Holmes was referring to the right not to have the govt. interfer with free speech, which and again, is all the Const. allows for and that is all he had jurisdiction to rule on :cool: The reason I knoe w this is for the case to even be in front of The Court, the state (of any form) would have had to have acted in some way. The Const. cannot take effect unless the state acts. Thus, Holmes had to have been talking about the state trying to limit free speech, which the Const. prohibits :shrug:

Yeah, because when you make an argument using your favorite and mysterious phrase "hard core liberals," we all know that it isn't referring to me. :rolleyes:

When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and me. I was not referring to you - I swear. Take it or leave it :cool:

[dissention]

BTW - Justice Holmes was referring to the right not to have the govt. interfer with free speech, which and again, is all the Const. allows for and that is all he had jurisdiction to rule on :cool:

Boy, you sure would be slaughtered in a discussion with a political scientist. :cool:

When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.

Again, have you read any Mills?

[strandinthewind]

Boy, you sure would be slaughtered in a discussion with a political scientist. :cool:

When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.

Again, have you read any Mills?

No I would not and I am 100% correct here because I am talking about the actual Const. Right. nothing else.

Again, I agree Holmes and anyone else, including you, may refer to the general idea of free speech and think that that idea is what the First Amendment prohibits. But is it not. So, Holmes was applying the general principles of free speech but he was applying them within the scope of the right contained in the First Amendment, which was all he had jursisdiction to do - in other words, in all of the cases the state acted to prohibit speech and the Court had to determine whether that state action violated the First Amendment. So, Holmes was solely ruling on the govt.'s inability to prohibit free speech within the context of the right against govt. intrusion on free speech established by the First Amendment.

He was not talking about speech between two people and their reactions to it a la me telling you to shut up or vice versa :shrug: :laugh: He and all of the others are talking mostly about the Govt. using its authority to stifle free speech in an attempt to control the citizens and perpetuate its power, which is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits and rightly so. The First Amendment has no application to lay people, again rightly so because if I do not want certain things said in my house at my dinner table, who the hell is the govt. to tell me I have to hear them or say them, etc. The First Amend. protects us from this govt. intrusion - that is the only right est. by the First Amendment.

Again, I am not saying free speech does not exist in the abstract and I am glad it does. All I am saying is I think you referred to it between two lay people as a Const. Right, which I submit it is not. If I am wrong, please explain how an artist or anyone expressing their opinion is a Const. Right when the Const. only prohibits govt. from abridging free speech?

[cliffdweller]

The First Amendment has no application to lay people, again rightly so because if I do not want certain things said in my house at my dinner table, who the hell is the govt. to tell me I have to hear them or say them, etc. The First Amend. protects us from this govt, intrusion.

Again, I am not saying free speech does not exist. All I am saying is you referred to it as a Const. Right, which I submit it is not. If I am wrong, please explain how an artist expressing their opinion is a Const. Right?

What's with the splitting of hairs here? Free speech, we all have this "elastic" right, I can say whatever I want to you, and you don't have to hear it. Now here's where your rights begin: you can walk away or close your ears. I don't understand why this particular issue should be argued, seems like a no-brainer to me.


(in general, not directed at you Strand)
As far as celebrities voicing their political beliefs, look at it his way: they are American citizens with the same rights as us. AND, it just so happens that they are American citizens who have microphones shoved in their faces more often than than the rest of us, so, they take the opportunity to express themselves. Who among us wouldn't take advantage of that kind of opportunity once in a while? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

What's with the splitting of hairs here? Free speech, we all have this "elastic" right, I can say whatever I want to you, and you don't have to hear it. Now here's where your rights begin: you can walk away or close your ears. I don't understand why this particular issue should be argued, seems like a no-brainer to me.

As far as celebrities voicing their political beliefs, look at it his way: they are American citizens with the same rights as us. AND, it just so happens that they are American citizens who have microphones shoved in their faces more often than than the rest of us, so, they take the opportunity to express themselves, who among us wouldn't take advantage of that kind of opportunity once in a while? :shrug:

I think others see it as splitting hairs, but to me it is an important distinction because I think the govt. has no business telling me who and what I have to listen to. Do you want that? I do not!!!!!!

Again, the First Amend. prohibits the goct. from acting and that is it!!!!

I was just referring to to Dissention calling it a Const. Right, which I did not understand :cool:

[cliffdweller]

I think others see it as splitting hairs, but to me it is an important distinction because I think the govt. has no business telling me who and what I have to listen to.

Exactly, that is your right. ;)

...doesn't mean that I'm not going to spout my $.02 at you anyway! :laugh:

I supposed this is my point.

[GoldDustGypsy03]

So everyhting they do and say should be dictated by what their fans like? If you like an artist, good. Chances are you like that artist because of the movies they make or the songs they record, not the beliefs they hold on political issues. If they want to express their thoughts on a certain political issue, that is their right. Of course you can stop listening or watching them, but I find that pretty ridiculous.

Uh...Did I see specifically that they should? I'm just saying that can be a way for people to lose fans, if someone is so in to an aritst, and they suddenly say something horrible and probably out of line about a politician that the fan may like ~ it's possible that the person would then lose respect for the entertainer, I just think that some people in the biz should be more cautious. And do you have any idea how old I was when I had that problem with Cher? I was 15, only obvious that at that age there's going to be a bit of immaturity.