• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dixie Chicks fly to No. 1 in first full week of album sales

"This is the only paragraph of your post that I read. I said that neither one of us truly knows. If you think you know, Ms. Omniscient, LOL."

Yea right.
 
"This is the only paragraph of your post that I read. I said that neither one of us truly knows. If you think you know, Ms. Omniscient, LOL."

Oh yes I'm sure....Yea right.
 
Captain America said:
I think that if a person wants to turn their radio to another channel when a Chicksy Dix song comes on, that's their right. If they choose to boycott their records, that's fine too.

But in a public place, they have no right to infringe upon my right to listen to them. They can get up, walk out, or put cigarette butts in their ears. I don't care. Not my problem.

They have absolutely NO RIGHT to arrogantly insist that I should be unable to listen to the Chicks just because they have some bug up their butt.

If I ever find myself in a place where that is happeneing, I will speak up and put this person in their proper place. Believe dat.

The frickin' nerve of some people!:roll:

Oh well, hasn't happened yet so why borrow trouble?

Goodbye Earl.:2wave:

You have as much right to put this person in their proper place as they did to ask to have the song turned off.
 
zymurgy said:
You have as much right to put this person in their proper place as they did to ask to have the song turned off.

But, at the end of the day, the chances of this scenerio playing out are slim at best.

We have enough troubles put upon us each and every day without having to make up "what if's" and borrowing other troubles that will probably never take place to begin with.

We should all get out more to smell the roses.
 
zymurgy said:
You have as much right to put this person in their proper place as they did to ask to have the song turned off.


That was my point. It's a public place..... If I want the song turned off I have the right to ask to have it turned of. You however have the right to ask differently. Nobody is capapble of reading your mind though. If you don't stand up and say something there no way people are going to know what you want. BUt we as a country seem to be getting better at not relying on personal choice. We should enact a law either forbiding the Dick Chicks from playing on the radio or a law forbiding someone from asking it to be changed. That way there is no personal responsibilities for anything
 
Captain America said:
But, at the end of the day, the chances of this scenerio playing out are slim at best.

We have enough troubles put upon us each and every day without having to make up "what if's" and borrowing other troubles that will probably never take place to begin with.

We should all get out more to smell the roses.


"Sniff Sniff Sniff Sniff"


Aahhhh Roses... Very nice !!
 
Botom line is the Hollywood elite don't know anymore about politics then anyone else...........In fact they probably know less.Just becasue your a movie star or a singer should not give you the right to put this country down or destroy it overseas......
 
Navy Pride said:
Botom line is the Hollywood elite don't know anymore about politics then anyone else...........In fact they probably know less.Just becasue your a movie star or a singer should not give you the right to put this country down or destroy it overseas......

No, they shouldn't give those rights. We are born with those rights.

And lets end the hyperbole. Bad mouthing the president in London is not the same as to "destroy it overseas"
 
zymurgy said:
No, they shouldn't give those rights. We are born with those rights.

And lets end the hyperbole. Bad mouthing the president in London is not the same as to "destroy it overseas"

It gives aid and comfort to the terrorists.even someone as bias as you can see that.....
 
Navy Pride said:
It gives aid and comfort to the terrorists.even someone as bias as you can see that.....

Navy Pride called my bias into question. :rofl

I'm not sure that you can enage in civilized debate but I'm willing to give it a try.

Please explain how speaking your mind on foreign soil gives any more comfort and aid to the enemy as speaking your mind on American soil.
 
Navy Pride said:
It gives aid and comfort to the terrorists.even someone as bias as you can see that.....

You obviously don't know what "aid and comfort" is.
 
zymurgy said:
Navy Pride called my bias into question. :rofl

I'm not sure that you can enage in civilized debate but I'm willing to give it a try.

Please explain how speaking your mind on foreign soil gives any more comfort and aid to the enemy as speaking your mind on American soil.

I will not stoop to your level and engage in personal attacks..sorry
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You obviously don't know what "aid and comfort" is.

I am well aware what it is.........The terrorists in Iraq no they can not beat our military..........They know the only chance for them to win there is for people like you to lose the stomach for the fight and want to cut and run......When they hear people like Kerry in Nam or the Dixie Chicks now putting this country down it inspires them to fight on........

That is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.........One problem though people like you and the Dixie Chicks have underestimated this president and out brave military resolve to see this war through to its satisfactory completion.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I am well aware what it is.........The terrorists in Iraq no they can not beat our military..........They know the only chance for them to win there is for people like you to lose the stomach for the fight and want to cut and run......When they hear people like Kerry in Nam or the Dixie Chicks now putting this country down it inspires them to fight on........

That is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.........One problem though people like you and the Dixie Chicks have underestimated this president and out brave military resolve to see this war through to its satisfactory completion.......

So by criticizing a president, you are putting the country down?
I bet you criticized Clinton while in office, didn't you VoR?
You put this country down.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am well aware what it is.........The terrorists in Iraq no they can not beat our military..........They know the only chance for them to win there is for people like you to lose the stomach for the fight and want to cut and run......When they hear people like Kerry in Nam or the Dixie Chicks now putting this country down it inspires them to fight on........

That is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.........One problem though people like you and the Dixie Chicks have underestimated this president and out brave military resolve to see this war through to its satisfactory completion.......

You have no idea what motivates the terrorists. It sure isn't our entertainers expressing their opinions. I know you like to think the terrorists are just like you , but they aren't. They aren't motivated by our talking heads. They have their own that do a good enough job. If another country invaded us would you really need a dissenting voice from the invading country to motivate you to fight? "Some people you just can't reach...."--from the movie, "Cool Hand Luke"
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You have no idea what motivates the terrorists. It sure isn't our entertainers expressing their opinions. I know you like to think the terrorists are just like you , but they aren't. They aren't motivated by our talking heads. They have their own that do a good enough job. If another country invaded us would you really need a dissenting voice from the invading country to motivate you to fight? "Some people you just can't reach...."--from the movie, "Cool Hand Luke"

They aren't fighting an invading force. They're blowing up their own people. Or haven't you noticed?
 
Navy Pride said:
I will not stoop to your level and engage in personal attacks..sorry

Actually, you initiated those personal attacks.

even someone as bias as you can see that

I didn't expect a decent explanation, but this cop-out was a total surprise.
 
Kelzie said:
They aren't fighting an invading force. They're blowing up their own people. Or haven't you noticed?

Yes, they are. They are blowing up the "appeasers" and/or the tribal/political enemies. They still attack us though. They object to our presence on their "sacred soil".
 
aps said:
Oh brother. How her saying that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas is indicative of "bashing her own country" is beyond me. LOL

Can you blame Jimmy Carter? ;)

You go, Dixie Chicks! Who cares if people were offended. Those that are offended clearly feel that there was some truth to your words. I salute you and will be buying your "Not Ready to Make Nice" CD. Yee haw!
Aps, you are very right - I am a brutally honest person.

Back to topic....

Do you see the irony here?

The Dixie Chicks say something you agree with and its thumbs up!! They are not happy with the current situtation in Iraq and people pay for that through purchasing their music. They could careless who they offend.

I say samething you do not agree with and you're disappointed. I wasn't happy with their words and I woulnd't pay an establishment to play their music. I felt the same and could careless if the owner was offended.

I see no differences.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yes, they are. They are blowing up the "appeasers" and/or the tribal/political enemies. They still attack us though. They object to our presence on their "sacred soil".

Please. You're doing the exact same thing you accused Navy of doing:

You have no idea what motivates the terrorists. It sure isn't our entertainers expressing their opinions. I know you like to think the terrorists are just like you , but they aren't

"Liberation" is what would be motivating you in their situation. Seeing as they are attacking their own people the majority of the time instead of the "invading" army, that is obviously not the motivation. Don't talk down to people for extrapolating their views on to the terrorists when you do the same.
 
::Major_Baker:: said:
So by criticizing a president, you are putting the country down?
I bet you criticized Clinton while in office, didn't you VoR?
You put this country down.

I criticized Clinton on many social issues, I thought he disgraced the office of the presidency more then any president in history, but when it come to his actions as commander in chief in the invasion of Bosnia Kosovo, and Haiti I was 100 percent behind him........I also agreed with him when he said in 1998 that regime change was needed in Iraq........That is the difference between you and I.......Unlike you I can put my bias aside for the good of the country.....You hate the president and have not gotten over the elections of 2000,2002, and 2004 where he kicked your butt every time........Just a little advice my friend, you really need to get over it, move on.....this hate you have is not healthy......Have a nice day.......
 
Kelzie said:
Please. You're doing the exact same thing you accused Navy of doing:



"Liberation" is what would be motivating you in their situation. Seeing as they are attacking their own people the majority of the time instead of the "invading" army, that is obviously not the motivation. Don't talk down to people for extrapolating their views on to the terrorists when you do the same.

I am sorry you feel like I am doing the same thing as NP. The terrorists are trying to gain power through intimidation. They use their religion to motivate people against the "infidels"(which includes infidel supporters). NP was talking about dissenters giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I am saying that the dissenters are irrellevant for the terrorists' cause.

If you think that I am wrong, that is fine. But I do think that my case is strong, reasonable, and accurate. If you think that if China were to have troops and bases in America wouldn't be enough motivation to fight them, I don't see how you can think Yao Ming's comment's on China's Leader would really make a difference.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I am sorry you feel like I am doing the same thing as NP. The terrorists are trying to gain power through intimidation. They use their religion to motivate people against the "infidels"(which includes infidel supporters). NP was talking about dissenters giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I am saying that the dissenters are irrellevant for the terrorists' cause.

If you think that I am wrong, that is fine. But I do think that my case is strong, reasonable, and accurate. If you think that if China were to have troops and bases in America wouldn't be enough motivation to fight them, I don't see how you can think Yao Ming's comment's on China's Leader would really make a difference.

You are trying to make the same comparison and it is STILL incorrect. If China had bases here and Americans were pissed off about it, we would be targeting the Chinese bases, NOT American men, women, and children. The fact that the majority of attacks in Iraq are against Iraqi men, women, and children shows either that the terrorists sole motivation isn't driving the Americans out, or that they are just really, really stupid.
 
zymurgy said:
Actually, you initiated those personal attacks.

even someone as bias as you can see that

I didn't expect a decent explanation, but this cop-out was a total surprise.

Hey I am biased, I don't consider that a personal attack.......If you do then I apologize..... Now calling someone dumb that is another matter...
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I am sorry you feel like I am doing the same thing as NP. The terrorists are trying to gain power through intimidation. They use their religion to motivate people against the "infidels"(which includes infidel supporters). NP was talking about dissenters giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy. I am saying that the dissenters are irrellevant for the terrorists' cause.

If you think that I am wrong, that is fine. But I do think that my case is strong, reasonable, and accurate. If you think that if China were to have troops and bases in America wouldn't be enough motivation to fight them, I don't see how you can think Yao Ming's comment's on China's Leader would really make a difference.

I can tell you one thing, If criticizing your country over and over in a time of war is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy then why Did General Giap of the NVN make Kerry a national hero in 1971:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom