Re-name the Dixie Chicks

Michael Moriarty did move to Canada for the duration of the Clinton presidency.

 

George Carlin - you must mean pre-9/11/1970

 

"Ain't No Senator's Son"

I confess: I much love to drive my 74 Blazer in the summer with the fully removable top removed and while the breeze of that undulates the remnant hairs on my head listen to the blare and bounce of Creedence Clearwater... even, those songs with the innuendos on Viet Nam. Nothing else matches that group. Somehow I enjoy CCR even if it might not fit my uninformed politics. If I am a consumer looking at and listening to , and living in , wearing, and eating, and enjoying only those products which conform perfectly to my positions, the options become too narrow. Besides...if I can stay on this forum where everyone else but me, I read, expresses wrong opinions, then I can listen to CCR too

 

I don't really care about their political views or how, when, where they choose to express them. The most damning part of the story (as I heard it) is that once they were confronted they backpeddled away from the initial statement. They should at least have the courage of their convictions. Otherwise they simply appear to be saying whatever might be popular at the moment, depending on to whom they're talking.
Jack

 

I saw George Carlin two years ago - he first went after the Marines - when the Marine sitting in front of us tried to rush the stage, he moved to Soccer Mom's, who he said are the worst kind of person - evil.......... he is there to offend, and many were, I just laughed, if you bought a ticket to see him, you knew he would be doing that.

I don't have a problem with free speech, and I find it ironic that many that are heading to the peace rallies go there in groups in their SUV's. We want the right for free speech, we want the oil, as we drive in the cars, but we don't want to defend it.

MTV had a special on, and it asked anyone from 18-25 to give their reasons why they would ever go to war. There were several that said they would never go to war, even if their rights were being taken away, but others could go defend, they thought it was their right to not have to fight, even for the rights they spoke of..... that scared me.

 

The Chicks have the right to say/do whatever they want--after all, we as a civilized society want to be tolerant do we not?

But you have no right to "make fun of them." After all, that is intolerant.

 

My favorite was the Dipsy Chix.

or Mixed-up Chix or

Dipstick Chiclettes

or Dumbxss Chix ororor

either way, the best response is to let them know in their big fat pocket books.

So intelligent of them to insult the Country music crowd which is probably the most patriotic of all.

After all maybe they are just the Stupid Chix.

 

And as soon as Mr. Bush actually wins, I'm sure that Baldwin will move to France.



Tom Nixon

 

Assuming the above and assuming that the USA attacks without UN backing, here's my guess.

I believe that once Saddam is out, the Iraqi's will tell us where all the weapons are hidden that Saddam is claiming doesn't exist. Hopefully at that point the France's of the world will rejoin us on the war on terror. Otherwise, we will have made a very large mistake. The frustrating part to me is that if it had been handled differently, I believe we could have gone in with the UN backing.

BTW, I'm guessing that the local Arab states are secretly encouraging Bush to get it over with.

The ironic part is that if there weren't the protests against the war then I believe the chance of war would have decreased. Saddam would have felt that he had no choice. Now though, he thinks that Bush is going to cave against the political pressure so he won't come clean. This time Sadam's miscalculation will probably be his last.

 

I agree with their right to voice their opinions. I also think they are musically talented. I will not buy their albums. Radio stations are expressing their right to free speech.

I think it was sad under current circumstances to travel to G. Britian and then insult Bush in front of an English crowd with all of the tension. As I understand the comment was made in England.

As I recall, one of the dixie chicks laid into Toby Keith for his patriotic song and said something to the effect of "it's stuff like that which makes people hate Americans".

I am getting somewhat annoyed at the senseless remarks made by people who say things like "Bush is simplistic", or 'stupid' or other insulting remarks. Most often this has no basis behind it other than simply childish name calling. I wonder if some of those doing this could have achieved B's & C's at Harvard. I have seen people calling Bush names on some of the cable political forums and offered no substance to support their remark. It is simply jumping on a liberal bandwagon. Surely liberals can offer something of substance other than name calling or Molly Ivins style hyperbole.

North

 

Well, I'm sure Tom Head can, but he may be about the last of the Mohicans, at least in the current dispensation. What's interesting--can't think why--is how similar a certain type of liberal snottiness is to a certain type of fundamentalist snottiness. It must be tough to be so smart, and surrounded by such unappreciative people.

 

I hope so.

It's been hard watching all the post-9-11 international support for America gradually evaporate.

(Actually, it's been surprising and perhaps instructive to see who's hung in and who hasn't.)

The best result for the US would be a lightening quick and almost bloodless war. Unfortunately, since that is what virtually everyone expects, the contrarian in me says that we will get at least one very ugly and unpleasant surprise. Things never go exactly as expected, and overconfidence can be dangerous.

Another good result would be the discovery of half a dozen almost completed A-bombs and several tons of weaponized anthrax. That would go a long way to justifying the whole operation.

I wouldn't put it past Saddam. Remember all the unexpected stuff uncovered up after Gulf War I, including a huge secret uranium enrichment operation (why didn't Saddam wait until he had some nuclear weapons before grabbing Kuwait?) and his weird (Canadian designed!) super-gun? Saddam has a demonstrated weakness for spectacular high-tech toys. (What does he spend so much time discussing with all of those guys in olive green fatigues and berets that he is always photographed with?) No doubt his fascination still exists, and these terrible toys aren't things that he would give up very easily.

On the other hand, if the US had any real hard intelligence on any of this stuff, I expect that we would have produced it at the UN accompanied by the blaring of trumpets, to justify our coming military adventure.

The wild-card is that if Saddam does have a secret WMD project, and if he sees that it's April 30 in the fuhrer-bunker for him, he'll probably order whatever it is that he has hidden to be used.

 

Where, most likely?

 

Rocket assisted artillery - like everything useful the Canadian government cut funding. Iraq picked up where Canada left off.

Unfortunately the now deceased designer had an inopportune meeting with some Mossad agents.

 

Dunno, Unk.

Probably against a concentration of US forces in Iraq, where the weapon (whatever it is) would be easy to deliver. Perhaps against Kuwait or Israel.

But I can't get past thinking that when we attack, either Iraq itself or somebody wanting to exploit the situation for their own ends (I'm thinking Osama here), will try to get some "pay-back" by bringing the war home to our shores. That could involve something spectacular, a chemical, biological or even (just conceivably) a nuclear attack, or at least something aimed at a national landmark or symbol. (The capitol building dome in DC would be a good target of that sort.) Mass casulties, economic/political disruption and public consternation would be the goal.

When people feel that they have nothing left to lose, they no longer show caution or have any fear of retaliation. The prospect of a frenzied US retaliation would mean nothing if Saddam were already dead and the US already occupied his country. Besides, the idea of going down in a gotterdammerung of total destruction might actually look good to a fatalistic megalomaniac.

 

Dixie Chicks


Second thoughts

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,433054~10~0~dixiechickapologizesfor,00.html

 

Don't know - First they make a song (a great song) about war and a fallen soldier - then the make a comment about Pres. Bush - then they say they did not mean it - then they say they support our troops.

Let's see, which side of the coin will they take today - I guess which ever will make them sell more music. I would repect them more if the stuck to their feelings.

 

I don't see a lot of inconsistency here.

1. I am a veteran and know full well the sacrifices that are made by the men and women wearing the uniform of this country. There is nothing that could make me not honor them and support them in their endeavors.

2. I am totally opposed to the manner in which this administration has forced this war. The damage that is being done to the UN and to our reputation among the nations of this planet is incredible, and all to get one man.

3. They made their statement and I think it honestly portrays their feelings. They were faced with an incredible backlash by a few ultra conservatives and a lot of what they said and believed was being twisted. They were facing the loss of significant amounts of money and their careers as a result of the outspoken critics like Hannity and Limbaugh and a handful of Country-Western DJs. They apologized for making inappropriate remarks or for what sounded like inappropriate remarks. They didn't say that they had changed their minds.

Wes

 

I would agree if this "one man" were someone on the order of a Castro (who pretty much leaves the rest of the world alone while creating his own little fiefdom). But that's not the case here; this guy is more like Hitler reincarnate. He's launched (brutal) attacks against citizens in his country, fired weapons on another, invaded a third, and has developed (and continues to develop) horrific weaponry. I think this is a situation that simply involves getting a guy that "needs to be got".

 

If this had been done in 1936-39, perhaps WWII could have been avoided. And as to the war being "forced," yes, it is being forced. However, the administration forcing it is that of Saddam Hussein--not the US.