Browncoats and Blue States... Oh, and I think I mention the Dixie Chicks

POSTED BY: Terri
UPDATED: Thursday, October 26, 2006 01:26
VIEWED: 4667
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:46 AM

"We're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."

Twelve simple words. Spoken on a stage in London. The Guardian included them in their review of the concert.

And people lost their fucking minds.

It's incidents like this that look batshit crazy in hindsight. Where the hell were we at as a country that millions of Americans got their undies in a bunch over that one sentence? What kind of freaking morons allow these simple and fairly trite words to ratchet them up to a fever pitch? I swear, there are some people out there who are just dying to give back higher order cognition.

Some day I hope to look back on incidents like this and be able to shake my head and laugh and say, "See how close America came. We were close. Oh so close." But we're not out of the woods yet. We've come back a tiny bit from the crazy place many people were in three years ago. If someone said that sentence on stage now I don't think they'd get the huge outpouring of vitriol that the Dixie Chicks experienced. But there's still a long way further we have to go.

Okay, now for my obligatory bait: if you think we should threaten and do everything in our power to destroy the livelihood of those who say things we disagree with; if you think that any dissent is treasonous; if you think that Americans should just shut up and take it when our leaders give us the shaft... In other words, if you think anyone who makes public statements of shame over the actions of their leaders should be silenced, vote Republican. They're the party for people who are scared and want to lash out at other Americans instead of the real enemy.

Oh, as far as the whole browncoats thing goes ... meh.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatives, proving that big government does indeed suck, when it's run by Republicans.

* slight edit

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:18 AM

You bleeding heart liberals make me want to vomit as much as you right-wing conservatives. We're in a one party system nowadays, they just have certain 'key' points to keep them devided (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and anyone that thinks otherwise is daft. Same as anyone that thinks the Democrats will do any better running this country (into the ground) than the Republicans. And Terri, who are you to restrict what people will or will not say on this thread? If someone wants to slam the Dixie Chicks, it's their gorram right to do so.

On topic. This was a blog I posted when I heard about the Dixie Chicks 'documentary'. Please read the whole thing. It starts off pretty anti-Chicks and makes me sound like a staunch conservative, but I'm not. I make my point further down.

Quote:
Shut Up & Sing?

Are you kidding me? This has got to be a joke right?

I get ahead of myself, for those of you that don't know, Shut Up & Sing is a movie coming out by the Dixie Chicks that is nothing but 90 minutes of Bush bashing masquerading as a documentary about free speach.

Here's the thing ladies, the public's response to your statement about Bush had nothing to do with free speach. You said it, people in the audience either cheered you or booed you, and there were those that said you were un-American and stopped listening to your music. You know what that is ladies? It's the public exercising it's freedom of choice.

I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks badmouthing Bush, hell, even I don't agree with most of the things he's doing, but their reaction to the whole situation is laughable at best. I don't know what they plan on accomplishing with this movie, but it's going to be the same kind of shit that fucktard Michael Moore force feeds this country at every outing. Interviews are going to be paraphrased to give a certain slant, and the only qotes you're going to see in their entirety are the ones that make the speaker look stupid and ignorant. It's a common ploy that's been used by the media for decades.

I'm not saying the Dixie Chicks are un-American. One of the key things we have to remember in this country is not to confuse dissent with disloyalty. They feel the way they do, and I commend them for having more taste than Streisand or Midler did when voicing their disapproval of Bush. The dissent is a form of checks and balances. When the masses do not agree with what's going on, it's a sign that things need to change. It is too often though that celebrities voice their opinions thinking that we should care or be influenced because of their 'vaulted' status. I personally don't think that's what they had initially intended by their statement, and I feel bad for them that they feel it's come to the point that they need to release this trash.

And as for the people that stopped listening to their music because they had the nerve to speak their mind, I say you're pig-headed. I didn't stop listening to R. Kelly when he pissed on a teenage girl, I didn't stop listening to Tupac when he starred in 3 movies and released 5 albums after he "died", and I won't stop listening to the songs by the Dixie Chicks I like (though there are very few, I hate country for those that don't know). The music released by these artists is no less powerful now after the scandal than they were before it. If you liked it then, there is no reason not to like it now.

To the broadcasting companies that forced their radio stations to stop playing the Dixie Chicks' music, I say you are the worst form of filth out there. The minute we start penalizing people for what they think or believe, is the very moment we destroy one of the very things that make this country so great.

I end my rant as I go to get some grub in my belly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:12 PM

Quote:
Hero: I considered Hitler.

Here's your problem.

HERO

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Terri:
What about me? I agree with them. Are you saying that I'm comparable with Hitler?

Well, you could start by shaving that little mustache...

I don't know how Hitler felt about the Dixie Chicks. I suspect he would like their music and disagree with their political views like most other folk whether good, evil, and/or unCanadian.

The person who started this thread put forth the notion that message is meaningless to the discussion. I pointed out that if message is meaningless then Hitler is as much a Browncoat as anyone. My point is that message simply cannot be meaningless because it places the struggle in context.

I actually first started considering this while watching this season's Battlestar Galactica. In it the colonists on occupied New Caprica use a variety of terrorist tactics against the Cylons. I realized that while the tactics used might be similar to the real-life Jihadists, its the message that is different. Tactics that are acceptable in one circumstance are unacceptable in another. If that's true then we need to consider that in fact we are not really fighting a War on Terror, its actually a War Against Fascism (Islamic for now but with room for Little Kim and Chavez if needed).

H

HERO

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
You can't hold Hitler up against the Dixie Chicks. I don't see them going around promoting the killing of millions of Jew, Gypsies, political protesters...

Terri said that message doesn't matter. By removing the message that the Dixie Chicks have and removing the message Hitler had you are left with a comparison of their relative suffering for their cause. Hitler suffered more for his so clearly they are not nearly as good Browncoats as Terri's definition would make Hitler. UNLESS YOU CONSIDER THE MESSAGE THEY EACH HOPE TO SEND. Hitler believed in killing the innocent for whatever reason he could think of. The Dixie Chicks have a message of peace, surrender, and misguided blame. Different messages mean different contexts all adding up to HUGE DIFFERENCES. My conclusion, unlike Terri, is that message does matter.

H

HERO

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Hero: I considered Hitler.

Here's your problem.

Perhaps you are right. People saw "Hitler" and could not complete another thought. Even you demonstrate an inability to quote the next line or respond to my very simply stated notion that MESSAGE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

So I'll get rid of Mr. H and say it again:

Terri says message makes no difference, its the struggle that matters. On 9/11 a bunch of people believed strongly that crashing planes into buildings was a good idea. They struggled and died for that belief. Terri is knitting them Browncoats even now. I disagree. I think crashing into buildings is wrong. Because their belief was wrong, what they did is meaningless and counterproductive.

H

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I actually first started considering this while watching this season's Battlestar Galactica. In it the colonists on occupied New Caprica use a variety of terrorist tactics against the Cylons. I realized that while the tactics used might be similar to the real-life Jihadists, its the message that is different. Tactics that are acceptable in one circumstance are unacceptable in another. If that's true then we need to consider that in fact we are not really fighting a War on Terror, its actually a War Against Fascism (Islamic for now but with room for Little Kim and Chavez if needed).

As long as we're not simplifying it to: If we're doing it to them, that's okay, if they're doing it to us, that's evil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

HERO

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As long as we're not simplifying it to: If we're doing it to them, that's okay, if they're doing it to us, that's evil.

That works too. But I think its better stated 'if we're doing it to them for a good reason, that's ok, if they're doing it to us, that's evil'.

Oddly that makes the discussion about why we are fighting, not how we are fighting.

So to be critical of myself, I don't think a discussion is complete without a consideration of all the circumstance, both the how and the why. I think that's something most reasonable people will agree with.

Liberal Bush-Haters, not being reasonable, tend to limit the discussion in their favor. Some conservatives are guilty of the same thing, but its a calculated means to win the argument rather then the kneejerk reaction to dissent most liberals can't control.

H

TERRI

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Terri:
I'll give you this: They're Browncoats to different people (about 51% of the population), and to the rest, I guess not.

Ok, well another instance of people reading what they want to read. I believe that I ended my post with this. It would seem to me that I was making concessions on this part. And no, it's not simply the fact that I like the Dixie Chicks (though that does have to do a lot with it. But the fact remains that I think they exemplify Browncoats, and they agree with me. What I'm saying is because of what I believe, they represent the best in what makes Browncoats great. Trying to get people to look past the message wasn't me saying that Hitler was a Browncoat. It was the point that the Chicks aren't evil. They believe something different, and yes, I happen to believe with them. Also, the reason that I asked that people read the whole thread is because of responses like the ones that have been on here. The point is that it's easy to grab one point and refute that. But if you take all of the post and read it together, than it might make more sense, and might get some understanding across the table. Of course I can't stop you from posting here, but what I can do is try to make it so people are just throwing one, two punches back and forth. You take anything out of context, and you can make it as horrific as possible. The feeling that I get from a lot of people is a rage (or disgust), or what have you from a lot of people that didn't used to exist in this discussion ten years ago. Hello, why are people getting their blood boiling about something as innocuous as the statement that the Chicks made? I hate generalizations. I'm a moderate Democrat. But I have a lot of views and ideas because of that. I get that from my strictly democrat dad and my republican mom. I hear both sides of the argument, and I can deal with both. So, saying that I'm one sided, or something like that, well that's just not fair. Being judgemental in a conversation or whats supposed to be a discussion, gets the participants nowhere. So, I hope that we can avoid that.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:32 PM

Quote:
That works too. But I think its better stated 'if we're doing it to them for a good reason, that's ok, if they're doing it to us, that's evil'.

I'm sure the guy whose entire family was killed when that cluster bomb hit his house has a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside for your sentiment, no wait that's shrapnel, never mind

.

Quote:
Oddly that makes the discussion about why we are fighting, not how we are fighting.

Quote:
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

But then I remember distinctly a time when you attacked Ghandi, said he was a loser or some such. What makes you hate Ghandi so much?

Quote:
So to be critical of myself, I don't think a discussion is complete without a consideration of all the circumstance, both the how and the why. I think that's something most reasonable people will agree with.

So to be a reasonable person one would have to listen to the other side of the argument, and not try to alienate, anger or remove those sentiments. That is one would have to not make statements designed only to make offence in a fit of childish spite like this:

Quote:
Liberal Bush-Haters, not being reasonable, tend to limit the discussion in their favor. Some conservatives are guilty of the same thing, but its a calculated means to win the argument rather then the kneejerk reaction to dissent most liberals can't control.

But you, being a reasonable conservative, because after all conservatives are never unreasonable, and never attack the terminally ill or threaten to murder people because they say something they don't like, reasonable conservatives who actually respect freedom of speech and other people wouldn't make a statement like the above, even if it were true.

Which of course we know it is not because a reasonable intelligent person would know that pigeon holing people like this is always incorrect, and very dangerous, being that this is the sort of rhetorical attacks people like the Nazis used to legitimise the genocide of people like Jews.

So since we know you are a reasonable intelligent conservative we also know you can not have made the above statement, so all I can say is:
"Hero's little brother, get off the computer! We know Hero is not a Troll and you cannot persuade us otherwise!".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE