-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Dixie Chicks ashamed the Pres is from Texas... career coroner calling death self inflicted.
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
When my brother served as a Marine in Okinawa I didn't consider him a rapist, baby-killer, or tool in the imperial American war machine. When my other brother served as a Pershing missile crewman in Germany I didn't consider him a vehicle of Armageddon. I know plenty of people currently in the military . . . granted many are dentists and doctors . . . not grunts or SEALS.
I support the US military today . . . I support the US military the day the bombing starts . . . I support the US military the day the bombing ends.
I do NOT support Bush now or expect to support him in the future. This invasion is a gross misapplication of US military power. We are not doing it to liberate Iraqis. We are not doing it to stop Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs (even Bushies admit Saddam does not have a nuke program). We are doing this b/c we can and Bush is convinced it is right. He's made a very black and white assessment. 'Saddam is real bad . . . hence he must go . . . by MY terms.'
I make a similar assessment of facts . . . Saddam is real bad . . . hence he should go . . . by the best means necessary. What's the difference? I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and that peaceful disarmament may NOT be possible. Bush is not convincing in part b/c he can't articulate a consistent, cogent argument. Blair and Powell trouble me b/c they seemed convinced (even in the face of questionable intel') that invasion may be the ONLY way. I would give them (and Bush) the benefit of a doubt if they seemed willing to go through a deliberate process which included if not orchestrated by the UN.
I don't believe Bush's urgency is well-founded. Their compilation of evidence is largely based on material years old. Therefore, why not start this process in Jan 2002? We might very well be 8 months farther along.
Regardless, you can question whether MY perspective/motivations are clear to YOU but don't question my patriotism on the merits of YOUR perspective. If Bush was my child (impossible but hey we live in the age of misinformation) and he was commited to a course I fervently opposed . . . I would love him no less and certainly still care about his well-being . . . while telling him he was absolutely WRONG . . . from my perspective.
In the case of Bush, if his goal is sustainable peace and democracy . . . his course is wrong even from HIS perspective.
The people saying that she didn't have a right to say what she did are wrong. She did.
But, the days of the celebrity elite spouting their mouth off about presidents and policies without fear of career ending repercussions are over. It's not "blacklisting" either. It's the american consumer exercising his/her right of free speech using their wallet. $$$$ talks.
For some reason a lot of people seem to believe that celebrity's opinions are worth more than regular folks.
The celebrity's don't seem to understand that they're outnumbered and dependent on others good will for their livelyhood.
SilverThief
Diamond Member
Idiots. Good bye career. Its back to playing sh|t-hole honkey tonks for you brainless sluts.
😀
😀
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Disappointing . . . I typically expect more from you.
Bush, Rumsfeld, and our governments policies essentially speak for America by fiat. Fortunately, every American has the subsequent . . . and (in the past) rarely abridged right to speak for themselves.
Throughout the world people are not opposed to America. They are opposed to American foreign policy. It's just more convenient to say . . . anti-American than saying . . . anti-American foreign policy of the current Bush administration.
We call the UK an ally but if it was up to the British people his country would be opposed to American foreign policy. It's the same in Australia and Spain. Every elected and unelected head of state opposed to Bush's plan has the support of their population. Does that mean anti-Americanism is rampant in Canada, Cuba, or China. OK . . . maybe Canada is a bad example but I know the Cubans and Chinese just love Americans.
I think people should always think before they speak . . . and it ATOT think before they type. But when government officials speak it is presumed they are speaking for the country which is true and false. Bush has the legal authority to speak for America's foreign policy but he NEVER has the right to speak for my opinion of his policies, the UN, or any other topic.
So BBD, by all of your examples you make the point that people should be careful of what they say.
Thank you, for proving my point.
--------------------
So, etech, are you as critical of the Administration for their stupid comments as you are of the Dixie Chicks? I don't remember reading your outrage.
Thank you, for proving my point.
--------------------
So, etech, are you as critical of the Administration for their stupid comments as you are of the Dixie Chicks? I don't remember reading your outrage.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
Only thing I disagree with you on is that the anti American sentiment was well entrenched prior to Bush taking office, it's just more socially acceptable to verbalize it now...
@ least that's what my relatives in the State Dept have told me...
If by critical you mean saying that people should be careful of what they say, then yes.
Let's pick out one of BBD's examples where Pres. Bush used the term crusade. The term has two meaning now. One is the historical Crusades of which people that are living in the past and still dwelling on wars that happened a thousand years ago still consider relevant to what is happening today would take offense, especially if it is portrayed in that manner.
Another meaning of the word is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse." Now people have for their own reasons used the definition that they wanted to use for their own agendas.. Should the administration realized that people would distort the meaning of what he intended and use the definition of their own choosing and make references to events of a thousand years ago. Yes, they should have considered that possibility and used another word.
People will twist and distort for their agenda?s that should be obvious.
73stingray
Junior Member
I wish I could threaten to stop buying their CDs but I never buy country music anyway.:disgust:
Since when do these three women think they anything outside of the music business. I am embarrased for them.
Since when do these three women think they anything outside of the music business. I am embarrased for them.
SherEPunjab
Diamond Member
I'M A TEXAN. and i'll agre with this statement.
BBD- "I make a similar assessment of facts . . . Saddam is real bad . . . hence he should go . . . by the best means necessary. What's the difference? I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and that peaceful disarmament may NOT be possible. Bush is not convincing in part b/c he can't articulate a consistent, cogent argument. Blair and Powell trouble me b/c they seemed convinced (even in the face of questionable intel') that invasion may be the ONLY way. I would give them (and Bush) the benefit of a doubt if they seemed willing to go through a deliberate process which included if not orchestrated by the UN.
I don't believe Bush's urgency is well-founded. Their compilation of evidence is largely based on material years old. Therefore, why not start this process in Jan 2002? We might very well be 8 months farther along."
Did you read this or just write it? Now read it again and tell me how long we wait until you would decide a "peaceful disarmament may NOT be possible"? The u.n. has had years and nothing has been done. Only now has sadam made any move. Has it occured that G.W. may just be threatening enough to make sadam capitulate? or do we just wait like we did in '33, until sadam comes to real power as in '39 and then catch it all as in '41. Maybe G.W. has tunnel vision, but maybe, just maybe, it's necessary!
I don't believe Bush's urgency is well-founded. Their compilation of evidence is largely based on material years old. Therefore, why not start this process in Jan 2002? We might very well be 8 months farther along."
Did you read this or just write it? Now read it again and tell me how long we wait until you would decide a "peaceful disarmament may NOT be possible"? The u.n. has had years and nothing has been done. Only now has sadam made any move. Has it occured that G.W. may just be threatening enough to make sadam capitulate? or do we just wait like we did in '33, until sadam comes to real power as in '39 and then catch it all as in '41. Maybe G.W. has tunnel vision, but maybe, just maybe, it's necessary!
GroundZero
Diamond Member
hell i'm ashamed the asshole is from the usa!
etech:
If by critical you mean saying that people should be careful of what they say, then yes.
Let's pick out one of BBD's examples where Pres. Bush used the term crusade. The term has two meaning now. One is the historical Crusades of which people that are living in the past and still dwelling on wars that happened a thousand years ago still consider relevant to what is happening today would take offense, especially if it is portrayed in that manner.
Another meaning of the word is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse." Now people have for their own reasons used the definition that they wanted to use for their own agendas.. Should the administration realized that people would distort the meaning of what he intended and use the definition of their own choosing and make references to events of a thousand years ago. Yes, they should have considered that possibility and used another word.
People will twist and distort for their agenda?s that should be obvious.
---------------------------
I certainly agree. The point here, I think, is that you have to be pretty dense not to realize before hand that just such an interpretation was inevitable. People engaged in the affairs of state should be careful of what they say. The question I have is what to do with those who are not. Regime change comes to mind. Look at the reaction to the Dixie Chicks and they are nobodies. I just want to bring attention to the fact that when we let our sacred cows loose in a China shop, we don't seem to notice the broken dishes, but when it's somebody elses cow, wow.
.
If by critical you mean saying that people should be careful of what they say, then yes.
Let's pick out one of BBD's examples where Pres. Bush used the term crusade. The term has two meaning now. One is the historical Crusades of which people that are living in the past and still dwelling on wars that happened a thousand years ago still consider relevant to what is happening today would take offense, especially if it is portrayed in that manner.
Another meaning of the word is "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse." Now people have for their own reasons used the definition that they wanted to use for their own agendas.. Should the administration realized that people would distort the meaning of what he intended and use the definition of their own choosing and make references to events of a thousand years ago. Yes, they should have considered that possibility and used another word.
People will twist and distort for their agenda?s that should be obvious.
---------------------------
I certainly agree. The point here, I think, is that you have to be pretty dense not to realize before hand that just such an interpretation was inevitable. People engaged in the affairs of state should be careful of what they say. The question I have is what to do with those who are not. Regime change comes to mind. Look at the reaction to the Dixie Chicks and they are nobodies. I just want to bring attention to the fact that when we let our sacred cows loose in a China shop, we don't seem to notice the broken dishes, but when it's somebody elses cow, wow.
.
MinorityReport
Senior member
Quiet the opposite
The Dixie Chicks are here to stay , it is BUSh who will be smelling his nasty defeat 2004.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Hey they murdered Stevie Nicks's song at the Grammy's, what's the big deal about them murdering their Careers. It's not like one Country Band doesn't sound like the other. The Record Companies would just need to go to the Ozarks or the Texas Pan Handle and find some inbred waitresses who could kind of sing in harmony if they wanted to find a replacement for them. I'm sure the Dixie Chicks inbred fan base wouldn't mind.
MinorityReport
Senior member
Ouuch !
That will be a momentus end to this thread 😀
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
