• 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 booed!

Y

Yax

Platinum Member
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...
You might want some hip waders if you're going to flog that horse. It's getting pretty ripe by now.

 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...

They have freedom of speech and its my freedom to boo her if I dont agree with her, thats what free speech is all about.
 
well everyone knows that what you say or do reflects on you for the rest of your life so they shouldnt of said anything. but yeah that is dumb
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...

What does their singing ability have to do with them being nominated for academy awards? 😉
 
It's funny, when a artists voice thei opinion they are not supposed to feel reprecussions from it? People allowed them to excercise their freedom of speech, but in return the public excerised it's freedom of speech by expressing their disapproval of what the Ditsy Twits said by not buying records, voting against them.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. You can say what you want, but that does not mean I have to like it, or associate with you, or support what you say, I just have to support your right to say it.
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
 
Originally posted by: arod
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...

They have freedom of speech and its my freedom to boo her if I dont agree with her, thats what free speech is all about.
Click to expand...


Boo all you want, but they shouldn't have lost their nomination just because people don't agree with their political opinions.
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: arod
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...

They have freedom of speech and its my freedom to boo her if I dont agree with her, thats what free speech is all about.
Click to expand...


Boo all you want, but they shouldn't have lost their nomination just because people don't agree with their political opinions.
Click to expand...

It is up to the voters (fans) to determine it and if they don't like a band for any particular reason then more power to them becuase they are expressing how they feel, which is what they are there for
 
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
Click to expand...


That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
Click to expand...


That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
Click to expand...

They aren't black..pretty obvious difference

 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
Click to expand...


That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
Click to expand...


If people don't like you because of the colour of your skin, that is their perogative and is perfectly legal. However, if the social reprecussion for you being black involves racist treatment toward you in the form of violence, harassment, or denial of employment on those grounds, then it is illegal and becomes a legal matter, not a social one. That is the difference.
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
Click to expand...


That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
Click to expand...


I personally have no problem with their views nor with their expression of them. Considering their audience, it wasnt the brightest move on their part. Where you argument breaks down though is that they can use discretion in where they speak, but you cannot choose when and where to be black.
 
Originally posted by: Kemosabe1447
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link

Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?

I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...


Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
Click to expand...


That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
Click to expand...

They aren't black..pretty obvious difference
Click to expand...


If you can see that, why can't you see that political views and singing are different as well?
 
Who cares? Despite their popularity dropping with the rednecks and hicks, they still had the top album in the country.
 
hehehe...welcome to the world of backlash, paying for mistakes, you know...the sort of thing parents always warn you about.
 
Originally posted by: Gage8
ok...i've been out of it for a while. What did the dixie chicks do or say or whatever? I watched that last night and I thought it was a joke because they did it through the best male vocalist???

BTW...if no one answers that's ok because i don't even listen to country music.
Click to expand...

They said that they were embarassed that GW was from Texas.
 
LOL. Country music is a joke. Making money on 9/11 left and right, and then they boo Dixie Chicks for pissing on their parade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top