Natalie's shirt
Whittaker Walt
performed by satellite at the ACM awards the other night.
In glittery letters, it read, "F.U.T.K."
Maybe that's why Toby Keith left early...
I LOVE it that Natalie and the Chicks aren't backing down and are still
speaking their minds. Free speech rocks!
---
WW
"Whitaker Walt, all the time I'm saying goodbye to you and all the time I'm
seeing you again." --Lt. Rozanov
Karl Fisher
> speaking their minds. Free speech rocks!
Here's some free speech for you, You're an idiot.
Does that free speech rock your world? If you really like it so much,
I can give you some more if you want.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
The Troll
Fisher.
>
> Here's some free speech for you, You're an idiot.
And HERE'S SOME FREE SPEECH FOR YOU - FUCK YOU FOR TRYING TO CENSOR THE
ORIGINAL POSTER. IF HE CAN'T SPEAK HIS MIND, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE HEARD
EITHER, MORON. I'm shouting because I'm sure it takes a very loud voice
to be heard through the drivel in your brain.
>
> Does that free speech rock your world? If you really like it so much, I
> can give you some more if you want.
Fuck You! Someone needs to put you over a knee and spank you for a very
long time. Your Opinions are as worthless as your attempt to censor
anything you don't agree with. Go Back to Communist China FUCKWIT!
B. Nice
"Whittaker Walt" <third...@aol.compass> wrote in message
news:20030523091548...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> In glittery letters, it read, "F.U.T.K."
Would somebody explain what the hell that is supposed to mean?
-b
Karl Fisher
> ORIGINAL POSTER. IF HE CAN'T SPEAK HIS MIND, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE HEARD
> EITHER, MORON. I'm shouting because I'm sure it takes a very loud voice
> to be heard through the drivel in your brain.
What? He says he likes it when people speak their minds and insult
others like Natalie has done.
If he loves what Natalie has done, he will love what I have done.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Let's not be hypocritical.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
>
> Would somebody explain what the hell that is supposed to mean?
Since Natalie didn't explain it, we are left to interpret it
ourselves. WWW.CMT.COM speculates that it stands of "FU Toby Keith".
Others have naively suggested that it stands for Freedomd, United,
Total Love, and Kompassion.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Since Natalie didn't explain it, we are left to interpret it
> ourselves. WWW.CMT.COM speculates that it stands of "FU Toby Keith".
So now the woman is being vilified for wearing a t-shirt with 4 letters the
rednecks don't like on it?
Gee. She's evil. I guess.
-b
Karl Fisher
> So now the woman is being vilified for wearing a t-shirt with 4 letters the
> rednecks don't like on it?
Oh come on, you know this is not an isolated incident. This is just
another in a serious of stunts for Natalie Maines.
Can't people disagree without resorting to name-calling?
> Gee. She's evil. I guess.
Maybe you think she's evil. I simply believe she has a big mouth and
no self-control.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Brian Bernardini
karlf...@yahoo.com (Karl Fisher) wrote:
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > So now the woman is being vilified for wearing a t-shirt with 4 letters the
> > rednecks don't like on it?
>
> Oh come on, you know this is not an isolated incident. This is just
> another in a serious of stunts for Natalie Maines.
>
> Can't people disagree without resorting to name-calling?
You tell me. I see endless streams of self-proclaimed Republicans
calling her a slut, telling her to go back to Iraq. Is that any better?
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Karl Fisher
> calling her a slut, telling her to go back to Iraq. Is that any better?
I didn't see anybody in this thread calling them that.
"But Mommy all the other kids are talking like that" That statement
never worked when I was growing up. Did it ever work for you?
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
> > So now the woman is being vilified for wearing a t-shirt with 4 letters
the
> > rednecks don't like on it?
>
> Oh come on, you know this is not an isolated incident. This is just
> another in a serious of stunts for Natalie Maines.
Such as . . .?
> Can't people disagree without resorting to name-calling?
Sure I can. Sometimes I choose not to. Just like folks who have disagreed
with Maines right here in this forum.
> > Gee. She's evil. I guess.
>
> Maybe you think she's evil. I simply believe she has a big mouth and
> no self-control.
Or maybe she has a legitimate opinion, and a right to voice it.
Why should she keep her mouth shut, hillbilly?
-b
B. Nice
> "But Mommy all the other kids are talking like that" That statement
> never worked when I was growing up. Did it ever work for you?
Doesn't work for George W. Bush. In front of an open microphone during the
campaign he called a reporter a "first class asshole".
I'm sure you fired off a letter to him right away chiding him for his
language.
-b
Karl Fisher
> > never worked when I was growing up. Did it ever work for you?
>
> Doesn't work for George W. Bush. In front of an open microphone during the
> campaign he called a reporter a "first class asshole".
>
> I'm sure you fired off a letter to him right away chiding him for his
> language.
Once again you have proved my point. Rather than accept responsibility
for one's own action, the attempt is to find an example of someone
else doing it.
"But Mommy all the other kids are talking like that" That statement
never worked when I was growing up. Did it ever work for you?
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
> Once again you have proved my point. Rather than accept responsibility
> for one's own action, the attempt is to find an example of someone
> else doing it.
What is there to accept responsibility for?
Bush is a fucking idiot. End of story. Do I take responsibility for saying
that? Damn right. Does it mean I lack coherent arguments about *why* Bush
is a fucking idiot? No, I have lots of them.
Your turn.
As to asking Mommy what I should or should not be doing, I quit doing that a
number of years ago. As to advising my child about behavior, certain
behavior that is appropriate for adults isn't appropriate for children.
Or didn't your Mommy teach you that?
-b
Karl Fisher
Okay, here is a recap.
I asked, "Can't people disagree without resorting to name-calling?"
You said that President Bush, "called a reporter a 'first class
asshole'."
I said, "Once again you have proved my point. Rather than accept
responsibility
for one's own action, the attempt is to find an example of someone
else doing it."
Do you believe that if you can point to someone else doing something
first, then somehow that makes it okay for you?
> Bush is a fucking idiot. End of story. Do I take responsibility for saying
> that? Damn right. Does it mean I lack coherent arguments about *why* Bush
> is a fucking idiot? No, I have lots of them.
It means that rather than attempting to use facts to pursuade others,
you have determined that you would rather use inflamatory language.
That might work for some people, but it has been my experience most
people of relative intelligence prefer facts to name-calling.
> As to asking Mommy what I should or should not be doing, I quit doing that a
> number of years ago. As to advising my child about behavior, certain
> behavior that is appropriate for adults isn't appropriate for children.
My question was an attempt to determine if you believe your personal
responsibility is independant of others actions? What you do or don't
teach your children is not germaine to this discussion. Please focus
on the questions that have asked. Not once have you been asked about
your relationship with your children or what you do or don't teach
them.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
>
> Sure I can. Sometimes I choose not to. Just like folks who have disagreed
> with Maines right here in this forum.
So others actions somehow justify yours?
> > Maybe you think she's evil. I simply believe she has a big mouth and
> > no self-control.
>
> Or maybe she has a legitimate opinion, and a right to voice it.
Not everything that is allowed is productive, wise, or beneficial. Who
has said she doesn't have the right? Please quote someone who has said
she doesn't have that right. If you have the quote, post it.
Otherwise, stop arguing a point that no one has made. You are arguing
with no one. No one has made that statement.
Just as she has a right to express herself, I also have that right. If
you support and encourage her for expressing her opinion strongly,
then surely you must strongly support and encourage me expressing my
opinion strongly.
Let's not be hypocritical.
> Why should she keep her mouth shut, hillbilly?
Because she is spouting her views at her place of employment. Imagine
if I were to start talking politics at work in a business meeting. And
what if one of our clients was muslim and I express how much I
disagree with the Quran. What do you think my boss would do about
that? He wouldn't deny me my freedom of speech, he would tell me that
my comments were inappropriate. He might even say, keep you "mouth
shut".
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Okay, here is a recap.
<snip?
> Do you believe that if you can point to someone else doing something
> first, then somehow that makes it okay for you?
I'm saying that there is no relationship between name-calling and the
ability to make an argument. Period. They are quite simply two different
things - there is no qualitative relationship between one and the other.
> It means that rather than attempting to use facts to pursuade others,
> you have determined that you would rather use inflamatory language.
An incorrect assumption on your part. It means that I am as willing to use
"inflammatory language" to express myself as I am to use facts. I often use
both in the same sentence. The use of so-called "inflammatory language"
does not negate or invalidate any factual information also included, nor
does it indicate the lack of alternatives.
> That might work for some people, but it has been my experience most
> people of relative intelligence prefer facts to name-calling.
And in my experience, most people tend to experience both from time to time
in their own communication styles.
> My question was an attempt to determine if you believe your personal
> responsibility is independant of others actions?
No. I don't honestly know anyone whose personal responsibility is
independent of others' actions.
Do you?
> Not once have you been asked about your relationship with your children or
what you do or don't teach
> them.
I beg your pardon. I realize that it was my parents, not your children you
were asking about.
-b
B. Nice
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Sure I can. Sometimes I choose not to. Just like folks who have
disagreed
> > with Maines right here in this forum.
>
> So others actions somehow justify yours?
No, my actions don't need justifying. On the other hand, once certain
"ground rules" and precedents are set, it seems reasonable to expect that
people will function to a degree based on said ground rules and precedents.
> > Or maybe she has a legitimate opinion, and a right to voice it.
>
> Not everything that is allowed is productive, wise, or beneficial.
True enough. Why were Maines' comments unproductive, unwise, or beneficial?
These sound an awful lot like advocacy of the idea of allowing the behavior
of others to govern one's own. I thought you were against that.
> Who has said she doesn't have the right? Please quote someone who has said
> she doesn't have that right. If you have the quote, post it.
> Otherwise, stop arguing a point that no one has made. You are arguing
> with no one. No one has made that statement.
Ah, the Power of Google. Suggest you use it. Many, many folks have said
outright that they believe Maines to be guilty of treason, and that she
should be arrested, tried, convicted, and even executed for saying that she
was ashamed the President is from Texas (which he isn't really anyway). A
number of right-wingers have openly advocated rounding up Maines and others
who have expressed similar sentiments into camps (see: Michael
Savage/Wiener).
> Just as she has a right to express herself, I also have that right.
Who has said you don't have the right? Please quote someone who has said
you don't have that right. If you have the quote, post it. Otherwise, stop
arguing a point that no one has made.
You are arguing with no one. No one has made that statement.
I find it amazing (not really - you hillbilly's are pretty stupid) that you
would say:
> If you support and encourage her for expressing her opinion strongly,
> then surely you must strongly support and encourage me expressing my
> opinion strongly.
>
> Let's not be hypocritical.
. . .and then say:
> > Why should she keep her mouth shut, hillbilly?
>
> Because she is spouting her views at her place of employment.
She's self-employed, moron.
-b
Karl Fisher
> "ground rules" and precedents are set, it seems reasonable to expect that
> people will function to a degree based on said ground rules and precedents.
So if you can find someone somewhere in the world that has done it
first, then you can do it? That is a ludicrous logic. Who sets the
precedents? Anybody? Surely there is someone somewhere that has done
everything.
> True enough. Why were Maines' comments unproductive, unwise, or beneficial?
> These sound an awful lot like advocacy of the idea of allowing the behavior
> of others to govern one's own. I thought you were against that.
Wrong. She is criticizing the actions of others while he own action
are flawed. In my opinion, he actions are much more agregious than
those she condemns.
I have never criticized, "allowing the behavior of others to govern
one's own" I have criticize using anothers actions to discount one's
own actions. There is a difference.
> Ah, the Power of Google. Suggest you use it. Many, many folks have said
> outright that they believe Maines to be guilty of treason, and that she
> should be arrested, tried, convicted, and even executed for saying that she
> was ashamed the President is from Texas (which he isn't really anyway). A
> number of right-wingers have openly advocated rounding up Maines and others
> who have expressed similar sentiments into camps (see: Michael
> Savage/Wiener).
Once again, you can find someone somewhere that has done anything.
Would that then be a precedent to do that? That logic is flawed.
> Who has said you don't have the right? Please quote someone who has said
> you don't have that right. If you have the quote, post it. Otherwise, stop
> arguing a point that no one has made.
> You are arguing with no one. No one has made that statement.
I said, "support and encourage". Is name-calling ( "hillbilly" ? )
your way of encouraging others to express their freedom of speech?
Maybe you are not so much a supporter of people that express their
freedom of speech, as you are a supportter of those that agree with
your views.
If you are such an adamant encourager of Free Speech then you should
be encourage me. Perhaps you merely encourage those you agree with.
> I find it amazing (not really - you hillbilly's are pretty stupid) that you
> would say:
>
> > If you support and encourage her for expressing her opinion strongly,
> > then surely you must strongly support and encourage me expressing my
> > opinion strongly.
You find it amazing but you won't answer the question. Once again you
have attempted to do the same thing again. I have asked a question
about your behavior, and you are looking to someone else's behavior of
some sort of "precedent".
Once again you prove my point.
> She's self-employed, moron.
She is in partnerships with many other people and organization. (Sony,
Lipton, other Dixie Chicks)
But that is not the issue. She has complained that people have
retaliated economically for her statements. The reason is because she
said them in her workplace. It doesn't matter who makes inappropriate
statements in the workplace. They are still wrong and economic
remedies can follow.
Using the previous analogy, the mulim business man doesn't care if a
worker or the CEO insults him. The company faces the threat of
economic ramifications. That is an issue of appropriate speech, not
freedom of speech.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
> > No, my actions don't need justifying. On the other hand, once certain
> > "ground rules" and precedents are set, it seems reasonable to expect
that
> > people will function to a degree based on said ground rules and
precedents.
>
> So if you can find someone somewhere in the world that has done it
> first, then you can do it?
Depends on what "it" is. Hacking Tutu's to death with machetes: no. Using
strong language in a Usenet forum: yes.
> That is a ludicrous logic.
Of course it is. Why even suggest such a thing?
> > True enough. Why were Maines' comments unproductive, unwise, or
beneficial?
> > These sound an awful lot like advocacy of the idea of allowing the
behavior
> > of others to govern one's own. I thought you were against that.
>
> Wrong. She is criticizing the actions of others while he own action
> are flawed.
What was flawed about her actions? And what human beings are not flawed?
Should only the perfect be permitted to criticize or observed? Oh, yeah -
you're the one saying that someone should have a degree in political science
or history before expressing a political opinion - degrees the President
himself doesn't have.
>In my opinion, he actions are much more agregious than
> those she condemns.
Saying that you're ashamed the President is from Texas is more eggregious
than ordering the deaths of thousands? More eggregious than embarking upon
a war predicated on lies?
What kind of logic is that?
> Once again, you can find someone somewhere that has done anything.
> Would that then be a precedent to do that? That logic is flawed.
There is a difference between using information to justify actions, and
using information to point out the hypocrisy of those who would criticize
certain types of communication.
> I said, "support and encourage"
Do you see any anti-war groups bulldozing piles of Toby Keith CD's?
> Is name-calling ( "hillbilly" ? ) your way of encouraging others to
express their freedom of speech?
No, it's my way of pointing out the idiocy of those who would suppress free
speech.
> Maybe you are not so much a supporter of people that express their
> freedom of speech, as you are a supportter of those that agree with
> your views.
I am certainly more supportive of those that agree with my views than I am
with those who express values I abhor. However, were I in an audience of
students with a conservative speaker, I would not attempt to shout that
speaker down, and would support that speaker's right to express their views
to the point of condemning those who *would* attempt to shout them down. I
have been opposed to the Iraq war (although like most who oppose this war I
support the idea of war when necessary and did support the Afghanistan
action), but have yet to speak against Dennis Miller, to attempt to organize
any boycotts, or to even suggest that any non-political public figure
expressing their support for the Iraq war should keep their mouth shut.
Does that answer your question?
Usenet is a bit of a different arena than the world at large. It's the
"wild west", where posters in this particular forum regularly talk about:
Dixie Sluts
Dixie Slits
Dixie Twits
Dixie Cunts
Natalie Maines is called a "fat whore" who should "go back to France" and
"giving blowjobs to Saddam Hussein".
Should I "strongly support" people's right to express themselves thusly? Of
course I do. However, your premise seems to be that the appropriate
response is "That's nice. So why do you feel that way?" rather than "Gee,
what an ignorant cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving hillbilly you are."
I maintain that the latter response is hardly unsupportive of the
initiator's right to express themselves in the manner of their choosing.
It's character is unrelated to the issue of who has the "right" to express
themselves in what manner. It is simply a response without charge that
either comment should not be allowed or expressed.
Actually I support the rights of ignorant cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving
hillbilly's to express themselves in the manner of their choosing, up to and
including bulldozing CD's if they really want to. I think they demonstrate
their ignorance and un-Americanism when they do so, but this is their right,
a right I myself spent four years active duty defending.
> If you are such an adamant encourager of Free Speech then you should
> be encourage me. Perhaps you merely encourage those you agree with.
You are working with an odd definition of "encourage" that I am not familiar
with. Could you enlighten me?
I actively oppose (through freely expressed views of my own) those who would
suppress dissent against government entities. This goes for both public
agencies and private entities who feel that it is appropriate to convince
others that those who speak out against the policies of a presidential
administration (any party). This is unAmerican. Am I actively inclined to
discourage or be "unsupportive" or fail to "encourage" those who think that
people who speak out against the President should shut the hell up?
Guilty as charged. I think people should be able to say what they damn well
please (with the exception of libel and 'fire in a crowded theater'
examples).
Don't you?
> You find it amazing but you won't answer the question.
What question?
> I have asked a question
> about your behavior, and you are looking to someone else's behavior of
> some sort of "precedent".
Asked and answered, I'm pretty sure. If you feel my answer remains
unsatisfactory, I'm happy to go on to clarify further.
> > She's self-employed, moron.
>
> She is in partnerships with many other people and organization. (Sony,
> Lipton, other Dixie Chicks)
And?
On last check, none of her partners have abandoned her, and in fact have
been very supportive.
> She has complained that people have retaliated economically for her
statements.
Yes. And?
> Using the previous analogy, the mulim business man doesn't care if a
> worker or the CEO insults him. The company faces the threat of
> economic ramifications. That is an issue of appropriate speech, not
> freedom of speech.
I guess if you equate insulting someone's religion with insulting a sitting
Republican president, that says a lot about you, doesn't it?
-b
--
Buck the polls. Have YOUR say. Sign the petition on-line:
http://www.petitiononline.com/bushass/petition.html
A PETITION DECLARING GEORGE W. BUSH TO BE A HORSE'S ASS
Karl Fisher
> > That might work for some people, but it has been my experience most
> > people of relative intelligence prefer facts to name-calling.
>
> And in my experience, most people tend to experience both from time to time
> in their own communication styles.
Agreed. Your first statements were more loaded with inflammatory
language and light on the facts or logical argument. I challenged you
to use more facts(and or logic) and less emotion loaded language. It
has been my experience that emotional loaded arguments are easier to
prepare and more effective for a less educated audience. Preparation
of a well created fact-based argument takes more time, but is more
persuasive to and educated audience.
> No. I don't honestly know anyone whose personal responsibility is
> independent of others' actions.
>
> Do you?
Although it is not ever entirely possible to be "independant of
others' actions", this country's legal system was built upon the
concept of personal responsibity. If you murder someone, you can't use
the defense that others have murder before, therefore you should be
held innocent of your actions. You can use the defense of
self-defense, but that is not the "precedent" defense. If you were
accused of robbery, you can't use the "precedent" defense, saying that
others have done it before therefore you are innocent.
It didn't work when I was a child with my parents, and it doesn't work
now as an adult with the legal system.
> > Not once have you been asked about your relationship with your children or
> what you do or don't teach
> > them.
>
> I beg your pardon. I realize that it was my parents, not your children you
> were asking about.
I was sure that you were intelligent enough to understand I was using
a rhetorical tool called, "analogy". Many times people use example
situations to analyze and discuss a current situation.
The issue of the discussion was "Personal Responsibility" vs
"Precedents" as a guide to personal behavior. That is the core issue
to the Natalie vs Toby controvery.
If I were truly interested in your childhood or parenting skills, I
would have posted in alt.fan.parenting or some such newsgroup.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
Karl Fisher
> Should only the perfect be permitted to criticize or observed?
No, but the standards she uses to measure others will probaby be used
to measure her. Its inevitable. If she claims that Toby Keith's songs
are "ignorant", then she had better be prepared when Toby responds at
his concerts about her.
Is a concert the proper place to make political statements? And better
yet, who are the people that get to answer that question? The artist
or the fans? Who carries the greater right to determine the answer? I
suggest that the fan is the ultimate authority of what is proper and
what is improper. Sometimes artists get caught up in the glitz and
glamour and believe that since fans love their music, they will love
their political views. That is where their ego steps in front of their
better judgement.
> Oh, yeah -
> you're the one saying that someone should have a degree in political science
> or history before expressing a political opinion - degrees the President
> himself doesn't have.
Really? I don't believe I have ever said that.
I think you are getting a little confused with all your cross-posting. "BubbazMom" <bubb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030523201355...@mb-m05.aol.com... made a reference to Natalie Maines and a political science degree. Not me. Please try to stay focused.
Why not accurately present my position and then refute my position
with the accuracy of a scapel?
> Saying that you're ashamed the President is from Texas is more eggregious
> than ordering the deaths of thousands?
Once again we are attempting to assess her as innocent due to some
action someone else has done. Once again a lack of personal
responsibility.
But, I will attempt to follow you. Giving orders that could lead to
the death of thousands is not alway wrong. Find that hard to believe?
What if the death of thousands will insure that hundreds of thousands
will not be killed in the future? Then would the death of thousands be
worth it? US Presidents, have made those decisions since the
beginning of this country. I can cite examples starting from George
Washington right down to George Bush.
> No, it's my way of pointing out the idiocy of those who would suppress free
> speech.
Wouldn't it be much more effective to point to the error of someone's
position rather than wasting your time and theirs coming up with
little names to call each other? Does stereotyping really encourage
debate?
> Usenet is a bit of a different arena than the world at large. It's the
> "wild west", where posters in this particular forum regularly talk about:
Not all posters resort to that kind of communication. I can point you
to numerous, numerous, threads where people can have reasonable
intelligent discussions. Just because two people disagree on an
issue, doesn't mean that one or the other is an idiot. Perhaps both
have valid positions and merely have two different views on the same
subject. Can't people stongly disagree without stereotyping the other?
(Name-calling equates to stereotyping)
> It's character is unrelated to the issue of who has the "right" to express
> themselves in what manner. It is simply a response without charge that
> either comment should not be allowed or expressed.
So if you support this type of speech, why don't you support this
type, "I think Natalie Maines should shut up". That statement doesn't
suggest governmental controls on her. It merely expresses a opinion
that she should control what comes out of her mouth. Surely you would
encourage that type of free speech.
> You are working with an odd definition of "encourage" that I am not familiar
> with. Could you enlighten me?
I will suggest a very liberal definition. How about, "anything that
doesn't discourage" That would be a minimalist view.
> Guilty as charged. I think people should be able to say what they damn well
> please (with the exception of libel and 'fire in a crowded theater'
> examples).
> Don't you?
Some limits to Free Speech are legal. Such as incitement to riot.
However there are many other social limits to freedom of speech.
Although not illegal, the use of the "N" word in puplic life is
socially unacceptable. If public person uses that word at a national
meeting of the NAACP, there would be immediate social repercussion.
And there might be financial repercussions.
Just because someone hasn't crossed a legal limit, he(or she) might
still be guilty of crossing a social limit for which there can be
repercussions.
>> On last check, none of her partners have abandoned her, and in fact
have
> been very supportive.
Just because Dixie Chicks are somewhat self-employed, there can and
will be financial ramifications when you insult the purchasers of your
product. If the purchasers of your product are muslim, you had better
not publically criticize the Quran. Although it is legal, it goes
beyond the social limits of the purchasers of your product.
Supportive publically. Don't you imagine that SONY management had some
words of encouragement for her? What do you think was her motivation
for the apology?
> I guess if you equate insulting someone's religion with insulting a sitting
> Republican president, that says a lot about you, doesn't it?
If your consumer is a country music fan, you might be careful if you
criticize the President, apple pie, or baseball. Country music fans,
as a group, have their own views and beliefs that are just a little
different than the average American.
What if a white rapper were to publically criticize Jesse Jackson (or
Martin Luther King? Although legal, do you think there would be
financial repercussions? If that happened, would you then call the rap
fans names or would you say that the white rapper didn't understand
his audience?
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
"Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I challenged you to use more facts(and or logic) and less emotion loaded
language.
Actually no you didn't, but you got that anyway.
> It has been my experience that emotional loaded arguments are easier to
> prepare and more effective for a less educated audience.
That certainly has worked well for this administration, yes.
> > I beg your pardon. I realize that it was my parents, not your children
you
> > were asking about.
>
> I was sure that you were intelligent enough to understand I was using
> a rhetorical tool called, "analogy".
Gee, perfessor, I guess I'm just a dumb ol' moron. Dur. Doy.
> The issue of the discussion was "Personal Responsibility" vs
> "Precedents" as a guide to personal behavior. That is the core issue
> to the Natalie vs Toby controvery.
Says you. In my view the core issue to the Natalie vs. Toby controversy is
which one has a better handle on what it is to be a good American. In my
view, Natalie wins hands down. Toby is just another dumb rich hypocrite
traitor-flag waving redneck.
Just like all you folks in Wylie, Texas.
-b
B. Nice
> Is a concert the proper place to make political statements?
I suppose that's up to the folks holding the concerts.
> And better yet, who are the people that get to answer that question? The
artist
> or the fans?
The artist ultimately decides this, and the degree to which they wish to be
influenced by the fan base. The fan base in England LOVED Natalie's
comments. She knew they would. That's probably why she made those
comments. That and she really believed that Bush is an embarassment (which
he is).
> I suggest that the fan is the ultimate authority of what is proper and
> what is improper.
And I suggest that is not the case. The artist ultimately decides. The
fans can either respond or not.
Ever been to a concert?
> Sometimes artists get caught up in the glitz and
> glamour and believe that since fans love their music, they will love
> their political views.
And sometimes artists believe that their political views are worth standing
up for - even if some among their audience disagree. Those are called
"people with integrity".
Something you wouldn't recognize if it bit you on the ass.
> > Oh, yeah -
> > you're the one saying that someone should have a degree in political
science
> > or history before expressing a political opinion - degrees the President
> > himself doesn't have.
>
> Really? I don't believe I have ever said that.
My mistake.
-b
The Rooster
Stan,
www.thesequencers.us
"We were building a fire just to see the sparks fly" - Peter Bardens
+- +- +- +-
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2899ca21caba5a313e9240a5e299aa38@TeraNews...
The Rooster
>
> "Karl Fisher" <karlf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > Brian Bernardini <bbern...@comLOOKATTHATcast.net> wrote
>
> > "But Mommy all the other kids are talking like that" That statement
> > never worked when I was growing up. Did it ever work for you?
>
> Doesn't work for George W. Bush. In front of an open microphone during
the
> campaign he called a reporter a "first class asshole".
I never had heard Adam Clymer's name before that. Adam Clymer voted for Bob
Dole, BTW. I don't think he voted for Bush jr.
Stan
Karl Fisher
> > glamour and believe that since fans love their music, they will love
> > their political views.
>
> And sometimes artists believe that their political views are worth standing
> up for - even if some among their audience disagree. Those are called
> "people with integrity".
>
> Something you wouldn't recognize if it bit you on the ass.
"People with integrity"? Are those people who criticize policies of
their home country when on foreign soil. Then try to explain
themselves. Then say it was all a big joke. Just an attempt at humor.
And finally say they are sorry for their statements?
Are these "people of integrity" the ones that call other folks names,
criticize the lyrical content of other artists(freedom of expression)
but then get angry when others criticize the content of their speech.
Are these "people of integrity" the ones that put letters on a t-shirt
but not having enough backbone to explain what it means. If she had so
much "intregity" why not clearly speak her mind? Maybe she is not near
as courageous as you give her credit for.
BTW. Please don't concern yourself with the condition of my ass.
Karl Fisher
Wylie, Texas
B. Nice
> "People with integrity"?
That's right.
> Are those people who criticize policies of
> their home country when on foreign soil.
What difference does it make what kind of dirt she was standing over?
Why is this any worse than had she said it right here in the U.S.?
> And finally say they are sorry for their statements?
Actually that part came next. They've never retracted their stance on the
war, however.
> Are these "people of integrity" the ones that call other folks names,
> criticize the lyrical content of other artists(freedom of expression)
> but then get angry when others criticize the content of their speech.
You'll have to go a bit further than that. Yes - these are people of
integrity.
> Are these "people of integrity" the ones that put letters on a t-shirt
> but not having enough backbone to explain what it means.
Most of you cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving rednecks can't read anyway,
so what's the difference?
> If she had so much "intregity" why not clearly speak her mind?
Death threats have a way of tempering your attitude. Just a bit.
So if Toby Keith had any integrity, don't you think he'd drop his career and
enlist?
-b
The Rooster
> Most of you cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving rednecks can't read anyway,
> so what's the difference?
Uh, they simply pretend to not be able to read. They "carefully hide all
evidence of having a clue.".
Stan
Enkil
> news:80e66368.03052...@posting.google.com...
> > "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > "People with integrity"?
>
> That's right.
>
> > Are those people who criticize policies of
> > their home country when on foreign soil.
>
> What difference does it make what kind of dirt she was standing over?
Try to get both of you brain cells firing at the same time for a
moment... one of the main problems people had was that Ditzy Twit
Natalie was pandering to a foreign audience on foreign soil. Her
non-apology made the location of her comments one of the focal points
of her mindset.
> Why is this any worse than had she said it right here in the U.S.?
>
> > And finally say they are sorry for their statements?
>
> Actually that part came next. They've never retracted their stance on the
> war, however.
>
> > Are these "people of integrity" the ones that call other folks names,
> > criticize the lyrical content of other artists(freedom of expression)
> > but then get angry when others criticize the content of their speech.
>
> You'll have to go a bit further than that. Yes - these are people of
> integrity.
No, they're people who pander to whatever emotion they are receiving
from the crowd that night. MN caught the rabidly anti-american
sentiments present, and mindlessly joined in.
> > Are these "people of integrity" the ones that put letters on a t-shirt
> > but not having enough backbone to explain what it means.
>
> Most of you cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving rednecks can't read anyway,
> so what's the difference?
LOL, do you even understand the monumental stupidity of making such a
statement in a text based messaging format ?
> > If she had so much "intregity" why not clearly speak her mind?
>
> Death threats have a way of tempering your attitude. Just a bit.
She has yet to provide a single police report detailing any of these
alleged death threats. If someone threatened myself or my family, the
first thing I would do would be to get the police involved. Natalie,
otoh, has yet to make a single report.
> So if Toby Keith had any integrity, don't you think he'd drop his career and
> enlist?
>
> -b
No, he's doing exactly what the Commandant of the US Marine Corps told
him to do. He is countering the vapid Ditzy Twit style liberal spin,
and letting the troops who are already trained know that the vast
majority of the US is behind them.
Nathan Rebney
> I wonder if anyone else noticed the shirt Natalie was wearing when the Chicks
> performed by satellite at the ACM awards the other night.
>
> In glittery letters, it read, "F.U.T.K."
> I LOVE it that Natalie and the Chicks aren't backing down and are still
> speaking their minds. Free speech rocks!
Could have been this shirt - http://www.iamnotamerican.com
Personally, I think it's funny.
B. Nice
"Enkil" <blu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:58e03e6b.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<549339bde7f50ac2aaec4ef4712a9599@TeraNews>...
> > What difference does it make what kind of dirt she was standing over?
>
> Try to get both of you brain cells firing at the same time for a
> moment...
Dur. Duh. Gee perfessor, I'll try real hard. Doy.
> one of the main problems people had was that Ditzy Twit
> Natalie was pandering to a foreign audience on foreign soil.
So what? Performers pander to audiences. This is what they do. You seem
to have no problem with cousin-fucking traitor flag waving bucktoothed
hillbilly performers pandering to their redneck audiences right here in the
U.S.
> > You'll have to go a bit further than that. Yes - these are people of
> > integrity.
>
> No, they're people who pander to whatever emotion they are receiving
> from the crowd that night.
How does that make the Dixie Chicks any better than the hypocrite redneck
performers who have capitalized on the reaction to the Dixie Chicks?
What the hell do you thing performers DO for a living, dude?
> > Most of you cousin-fucking traitor-flag waving rednecks can't read
anyway,
> > so what's the difference?
>
> LOL, do you even understand the monumental stupidity of making such a
> statement in a text based messaging format ?
No, I guess I don't. How about you explain it to me? Use your text reading
software, or an educated person to read the words to you slower this time,
then get back to me.
> > So if Toby Keith had any integrity, don't you think he'd drop his career
and
> > enlist?
> No, he's doing exactly what the Commandant of the US Marine Corps told
> him to do. He is countering the vapid Ditzy Twit style liberal spin,
> and letting the troops who are already trained know that the vast
> majority of the US is behind them.
So you admit that the U.S. government is behind the bashing and banning of
the Dixie Chicks, and that at least one c-w singer is taking his orders
directly from them?
Interesting.
-b
Liberals"'HATE'' America!".
"esad rednecks" <redne...@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:prkadv0riptcfj14q...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm sure no self respecting Canadian wants to associated with that
> asshole either.
ASSHOLE??? OH MY GOD!!! THAT IS SO INCREDIBLE!!! HOW DO YOU DO IT??? NOBODY
CAN TOUCH YOU MAN!!!! YOU"RE AMAZING!!!
Liberals"'HATE'' America!".
"esad rednecks" <redne...@biteme.com> wrote in message
> Here's a dime, go tell someone that cares.
OH MY GOD!!! DID YOU JUST MAKE THAT UP!!!! MAN, YOU SMOKED HIM DUDE!!! HOW
THE HELL DID YOU DO THAT????????? YOU'RE AMAZING!!!!