Has been and past their prime bands against Bush!!

DannyinJapan

DannyinJapan

Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,594
REM, the Dave Matthews Band, the Dixie Chicks, John Mellencamp, Pearl Jam, James Taylor, Jackson Browne, John Fogerty, Bonnie Raitt, Jurassic 5, Ben Harper

Oh no !
Run for the freakin hills!

I dont own a single one of their cds.
 
I thought all of their stuff was on 8-track...
 
DannyinJapan said:
REM, the Dave Matthews Band, the Dixie Chicks, John Mellencamp, Pearl Jam, James Taylor, Jackson Browne, John Fogerty, Bonnie Raitt, Jurassic 5, Ben Harper

Oh no !
Run for the freakin hills!

I dont own a single one of their cds.
Click to expand...
Add the "Boss" Bruce Springsteen to the list. :rolleyes:
 
I agree!

Was overseas when the Dixie Bitches felt the need to run their mouthes. Needly to say it was of no help to the joes there trying to do their jobs.

I will NOT support any of them in any way in the future :mad:
 
ohen cepel said:
..Was overseas when the Dixie Bitches felt the need to run their mouthes. Needly to say it was of no help to the joes there trying to do their jobs...
Click to expand...

What does someone saying that they were embarrassed to be from the same place as Bush, have to do with "the joes" or anyone else doing their jobs?
 
DannyinJapan said:
REM, the Dave Matthews Band, the Dixie Chicks, John Mellencamp, Pearl Jam, James Taylor, Jackson Browne, John Fogerty, Bonnie Raitt, Jurassic 5, Ben Harper

Oh no !
Run for the freakin hills!

I dont own a single one of their cds.
Click to expand...

Me neither.....but I'll buy some now. ;)
 
Come on, you have to forgive the silly arrr-teeeests....

They live in fantasy land....

Has anyone noticed how safe Kerry is playing it? He serously has not said one single thing of ANY importance!! I have no idea where he stands on ANYTHING! All I know is that he is a scumbag Mass liberal piece of sh*t!
 
One of the neat things about our society in America is that all are entitled to their opinions and have the right to support whatever political party they choose to, without recrimination or acrimony.

I never understood the blacklash against the Dixie Chicks (what little I followed of it) for their statements. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.

"I may not agree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it."

Not trying to convince, just my opinion. Having the belief and living it...aren't always the same thing.


Kis
 
"Against Bush" instead of "for Kerry"?

Hmmm, that may say something.

Actually I don't see why their opinion should be automatically be accorded a weight greater than any other's, like say, the guy who bags groceries at the supermarket.

If they demonstrate that they have some special insight or experience, that may be another matter. That goes for the grocery-bagger too.

Would I spend my money to go to a concert whose proceeds went to support a cause I disagreed with? Probably not. Certainly not if I were to listen to ranting like I can hear on TV or the radio for free, instead of a performance.

Would I buy a recording if I liked the music? Sure. The artist can get taxed on their share of the proceeds and spend their money however they like. Just follow the same rules that everyone else has to if contributing to a political campaign.
 
I never understood the blacklash against the Dixie Chicks (what little I followed of it) for their statements. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone.
Click to expand...

They are perfectly entitled to state their opinion, and I will defend to the death their right to say it. Freedom of speech, however, only gives them the right to say what they will without fear of going to jail. It says nothing about having the right to continue to sell millions of CDs after publicly insulting the president of the United States. They're free to have their opinion and I'm free to boycott them for it. :D They just don't like the losing millions of dollars part.
 
I won't go into who I do or don't support, but I do have a problem with celebrities getting into politics unless they're running for office (i.e., are actually involved enough to put up or shut up). They have a high level of influence with many people that isn't based on any political expertise, and yet people will listen to their opinions on politics. I liked Dana Carvey's take on it, when asked why he refused to speak at a convention:

"Nothing good can come from it--the people listening are either smarter than me and will make fun of me, the same as me and won't pay attention, or dumber than me and they'll think I'm worth listening to! No matter which way it goes, the fact that I really don't know what I'm talking about is kind of a bad thing!"

This is not saying they can't have their opinions, but using their celebrity to get air time in a completely seperate venue doesn't sit well with me.

And, as far as the Dixie Chicks or anyone else goes, they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but something that people who often cry the most about freedom of speech don't realize is that freedom of speech does not mean that surrounding people have to like you or what you say. The Chicks were not imprisoned, beaten, or spit on, nor was their property siezed. Following what they said, some people stopped buying their music, and others started buying more. Both of those acts by the people are freedoms of expression, which is something that is ALSO guaranteed. :)

Freedom is always really popular until it starts working against you...
 
"Nothing good can come from it--the people listening are either smarter than me and will make fun of me, the same as me and won't pay attention, or dumber than me and they'll think I'm worth listening to! No matter which way it goes, the fact that I really don't know what I'm talking about is kind of a bad thing!"

That is one of the better quotes I've seen in a while.
 
Celebrities espousing political ideas is not a issue of freedom of speech. It is an issue of freedom of advertising.
 
They can say whatever they want, that's their right. But I respect artists who don't use their fame as a podium. I like plenty of unabashedly left-wing artists (Tom Waits, for one) but he doesn't tend to blather about his personal beliefs unless asked.
If I want to hear about politics I'll listen to Pete Seeger.
 
The Chicks were not imprisoned, beaten, or spit on, nor was their property siezed.
Click to expand...

Didn't they get lots of threats etc ? I didn't really follow the whole thing, but I thought I heard something like that.
 
thanks for that quote, t1mpani. Wish more of the rich-n-famous felt that way. :rolleyes:
 
t1mpani said:
I won't go into who I do or don't support, but I do have a problem with celebrities getting into politics unless they're running for office (i.e., are actually involved enough to put up or shut up). They have a high level of influence with many people that isn't based on any political expertise, and yet people will listen to their opinions on politics. I liked Dana Carvey's take on it, when asked why he refused to speak at a convention:

"Nothing good can come from it--the people listening are either smarter than me and will make fun of me, the same as me and won't pay attention, or dumber than me and they'll think I'm worth listening to! No matter which way it goes, the fact that I really don't know what I'm talking about is kind of a bad thing!"

This is not saying they can't have their opinions, but using their celebrity to get air time in a completely seperate venue doesn't sit well with me.

And, as far as the Dixie Chicks or anyone else goes, they are absolutely entitled to their opinion, but something that people who often cry the most about freedom of speech don't realize is that freedom of speech does not mean that surrounding people have to like you or what you say. The Chicks were not imprisoned, beaten, or spit on, nor was their property siezed. Following what they said, some people stopped buying their music, and others started buying more. Both of those acts by the people are freedoms of expression, which is something that is ALSO guaranteed. :)

Freedom is always really popular until it starts working against you...
Click to expand...

yep, blacklisting is not illegal. it is legal to put up signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse servise to anyone" just as it is legal to say "im not going to pay that person to sing on my stage". as long as its not for reasons of race or religious exclusively :rolleyes:

dissenstion is a bueatiful thing. it keeps presidents from getting away with things like saying that they have the right to hold people indefinitely without charge or access to a court of any kind. and when coupled with other policies, can be applied to any citizen who commits a felony against the state (wich can be as small as making a pipe bomb that misfires in the wrong place). dissenstion is a bueatiful thing to be able to put out into the public. wihout it, complete tyranies come into place.

freedom of speach results in the ability to spread information to the masses that otherwise would not seek out the information themselves, and on occasion, as dana carvey said, to peoeple who are dumb enough to think that bands and other celebrities have info that they themselves couldnt find or come up with on their own (wich they probably wouldnt anyways (not because they cant, just because they wont)). when a celebrity puts forth his or her view on stage, it may not be a well stated view, it may not be backed with an understanding of the issues, but it does reach a large audience with a view that may otherwise have not been heard. the npr polls of how a person felt about the current presidency in accordance to where they got their news was funny, and frightening. those who got it only from fox networks were massively for, those who got it fox as well as from other places were about half and half, leaning for, and those who only got it from the internet, public radio/televisions and other places were against.

a stagnant discussion pool is dangerous, in both directions.

if some "has been" artist gets up on stage and reaches 20 people who wouldnt have gave a damn, or gotten the information otherwise, and gets even 1 of those people to vote for or against what they said, at the cost of 25% or more of a pay cut to the artist im all for it.

Ben Arown-Awile said:
Celebrities espousing political ideas is not a issue of freedom of speech. It is an issue of freedom of advertising.
Click to expand...

saying someone sucks isnt quite saying "vote for him". and im not sure if saying "vote for him" quite falls under advertising laws. with a political agenda your not quite selling a product of any kind, only a sponsorship for someone who also isnt quite selling a product of any kind... but i could be completely wrong on that. it would make for an interesting court case.
(edit, or freedom to commit... didnt quite mean for that paragraph to be so law orientated...)
 
This is not a free speech issue- this issue is whether or not people paid to watch Dixie Chicks share their political opinion or whether they were paid to sing.

If the chicks wish to do both then take the consequences.


munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top