Dixie Chicks - A Soldiers Remarks

[John Corn]

Name: LT Layne McDowell


Comment:

An open letter to the Dixie Chicks: Earlier this week, while performing in London, you stated that you were ashamed that our President is from your home state. I wonder if you realized how many Americans would be listening. This American was listening. This Texan is ashamed that you come from my state. I serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. Specifically, I fly F-14 Tomcats off carriers around the world, executing the missions that preserve the very freedom you claim to exercise. I have proudly fought for my country in the skies over Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan without regret.

Though I may disagree wholeheartedly with your comments, I will defend to the death your right to say them, in America. But for you to travel to a foreign land and publicly criticize our Commander in Chief is cowardice behavior. Would you have so willingly made those comments while performing for a patriotic, flag-waving crowd of Texans in Lubbock? I would imagine not. How dare you pocket profits off songs about soldiers, their deaths and patriotism while criticizing their Commander in Chief abroad, even while they prepare to give their lives to ensure your own freedom of speech. Please ask yourself, what have you done to deserve that sacrifice? Do not try to justify your comments by claiming that you made them only
because you care about innocent lives. Never once in our history have we committed troops to war for the purpose of taking innocent lives. We do it to protect innocent lives, even yours. If the world leaders of the late 1930's had the vision and courage of our present Commander in Chief, perhaps the evil men who caused the death of millions in WWII would have never had the opportunity to harm a soul. The potential loss of millions of lives in the future at the hands of today's evil men necessitate action. In a separate correspondence, I am returning to you each and every Dixie Chicks CD and cassette that I have ever purchased.

Never again will I allow my funds to support your behavior. All you have done is to add your name to a growing list of American "Celebrities" who have failed to realize that they have obtained their successes on the backs of the American blue-collar workers such as our servicemen and women. To Natalie Maines: This Texan, this American, will continue to risk his life to guarantee your freedoms. What will you do to deserve it?

[George_F]

That doesn't even sound real, and even if it is, what's with these open letters from soldiers, former generals, legislators and the like 'telling it like it is'? These letters are really cliched and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[platinum]

I thought it was a great letter. I agree with what he said.

[James_F]

I like how someone fighting for freedom wants to take away someone elses. :rolleyes:

[Steve Mehs]

Great letter! In the past two weeks, I've made a point when ever the Dixie Chickens are on the radio (when I listen to country) or on CMT or GAC, I turn the station/channel right away.

[Rick_EE]

Originally posted by James_F
I like how someone fighting for freedom wants to take away someone elses. :rolleyes:

What freedom is he trying to take away? 

[James_F]

Would you have so willingly made those comments while performing for a patriotic, flag-waving crowd of Texans in Lubbock? I would imagine not. How dare you pocket profits off songs about soldiers, their deaths and patriotism while criticizing their Commander in Chief abroad, even while they prepare to give their lives to ensure your own freedom of speech. Please ask yourself, what have you done to deserve that sacrifice? Do not try to justify your comments by claiming that you made them only
because you care about innocent lives. Intimidation is just the same. Sure he says she has the right to say that, but he is threatening her in this letter. Typical of the mood today. Sure we believe in the right of free speech, but damn if you can use it.

[Richard King]

Sure we believe in the right of free speech, but damn if you can use it.
She has the right to say whatever she wants to say, just as the letter writer has the same rights to respond to her blatherings. You (and most of the left) seem to think that it is fine for anyone to say whatever they want that is against this administration and the war, but don't let anyone dare respond or we are "taking away their rights". Who's rights are being attacked HERE? I am not in any way a country music fan, but at this point I wish I were so that I could do an intentional boycott of their music and concerts. It just happens that I have enough good taste that I boycott them anyway. :D

[Rick_EE]

He is threatening to take away her right to be a rich country star?
That is all the Lubbock comment signifies.

[James_F]

Threats are just as bad. I'll leave it at that. I am actually surprised that channel he "wrote" to is not a ClearChannel station?

[Rick_EE]

:confused: :shrug:

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by James_F
Threats are just as bad. I'll leave it at that. I am actually surprised that channel he "wrote" to is not a ClearChannel station?

He in no way, shape or form threatened her. At all. I read the letter through word by word. Twice. Not a single threat.

He was admonishing her that while she has a right to say it, what she said was morally questionable.

All things not forbidden are NOT compulsory. You may have a right to say something. That does not mean that you should.

If this had been the opposite during the Clinton years and a conservative rocker said this on stage, the media would have started a feeding frenzy and every college campus in the US would have protest marches against the rocker. It isn't for nothing the mere mention of the name "Ted Nugent" in a positive tone is guaranteed to create instant enemies on most campuses.

There is a definite double standard on speech it seems. While the left grudgingly acknowledges the right's freedom of speech only after they dredge up every inane defense of their PC censorship from subliminal racism to passive violation of civil rights without a single logical chain of reasoning behind those defenses, anything the left says is not only automatically protected under the same US Constitution that most of them would never fight to protect with any meaningful risk to themselves, what they say is somehow more moral, saintly, and indeed godlike simply because they dare to say it.

Ignoring the speech of the right is considered a right. Ignoring the speech of the left is considered passive censorship.

[James_F]

Don't try and put words in my mouth. No where do I say he doesn't have the right to write the letter.

[markh]

I just hope you guys remember it's unpatriotic to criticize the President when we have a Democrat in office, probably in 2004.:)

Waydwolf, if a singer had said something similar about Clinton, coservatives would have run out and bought up all the CDs they could have found. I just laugh when I think of Nugent.

I gotta go get my new Dixie Chicks CD now. :)

[RichW]

The fact that a big deal is being made of this has two negative effects on our country.

1. It gives even more publicity to the Dixie Chicks. According to many talent agents and PR people, there is no such thing as negative publicity. I don't think that the comeents will hurt their income at all. After all, look at Jane Fonda.

2. As Markh indicates, it is now very fashionable to make derrogatory remarks about whomever is president. Jay Leno makes cracks about GWB's lack of intelligence and past drug/alcohol usage almost every night. This polarizes our society, and both "sides" should share that blame and shame. Anti-Clinton remarks are still abundant, even on this forum, and Mr. Clinton has been out of office for over two years.

However, time wounds all heels. In 1980, Jimmy Carter was considered a failure. In 1984 Ronald Reagan was considered a hero. Twenty years later the tide has turned.

[Steve Mehs]

She has the right to say whatever she wants to say, just as the letter writer has the same rights to respond to her blatherings

Kind of reminds me of the Eminem situation. A bunch of PC groups protest Mr. Mathers right to free speach.

am not in any way a country music fan, but at this point I wish I were so that I could do an intentional boycott of their music and concerts. It just happens that I have enough good taste that I boycott them anyway.

Country isn't all that bad. :) You might like Toby Keith's Angry American or Aaron Tippin's Where The Stars & Stripes and the Eagle Fly. I've downloaded a bunch of patriotic country tunes that have came out in the past 1 1/2 years and made a mix CD that I (try to) listen to every day now.

[Richard King]

According to many talent agents and PR people, there is no such thing as negative publicitySo long as they spell the name right. :D

[Bogy]

So it's a big deal for a singing group to make derogatory comments about the president while overseas. It also used to be an unwritten rule that congress doesn't criticize the president while he is on foreign soil. But conservative Republicans didn't consider that to be a rule they wanted to observe any more during the Clinton administration. It wasn't just entertainers making comments, it was elected Senators and Representatives who were getting their photo ops, without any concern for the good of the country or the presidency.

The only thing the Dixie Chicks did wrong was to apologize. Take a stand and stick to it. They can support all the troops they want, it doesn't change the fact that W's administration has severely damaged our relationship with most of the world.

[Jack White]

Originally posted by John Corn
Name: LT Layne McDowell


Comment:

An open letter to the Dixie Chicks: Earlier this week, while performing in London, you stated that you were ashamed that our President is from your home state. I wonder if you realized how many Americans would be listening. This American was listening. This Texan is ashamed that you come from my state. I serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. Specifically, I fly F-14 Tomcats off carriers around the world, executing the missions that preserve the very freedom you claim to exercise. I have proudly fought for my country in the skies over Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan without regret.

Though I may disagree wholeheartedly with your comments, I will defend to the death your right to say them, in America. But for you to travel to a foreign land and publicly criticize our Commander in Chief is cowardice behavior. Would you have so willingly made those comments while performing for a patriotic, flag-waving crowd of Texans in Lubbock? I would imagine not. How dare you pocket profits off songs about soldiers, their deaths and patriotism while criticizing their Commander in Chief abroad, even while they prepare to give their lives to ensure your own freedom of speech. Please ask yourself, what have you done to deserve that sacrifice? Do not try to justify your comments by claiming that you made them only
because you care about innocent lives. Never once in our history have we committed troops to war for the purpose of taking innocent lives. We do it to protect innocent lives, even yours. If the world leaders of the late 1930's had the vision and courage of our present Commander in Chief, perhaps the evil men who caused the death of millions in WWII would have never had the opportunity to harm a soul. The potential loss of millions of lives in the future at the hands of today's evil men necessitate action. In a separate correspondence, I am returning to you each and every Dixie Chicks CD and cassette that I have ever purchased.

Never again will I allow my funds to support your behavior. All you have done is to add your name to a growing list of American "Celebrities" who have failed to realize that they have obtained their successes on the backs of the American blue-collar workers such as our servicemen and women. To Natalie Maines: This Texan, this American, will continue to risk his life to guarantee your freedoms. What will you do to deserve it?

Very few people in the world buy most of this propoganda.
Most people know that there's a HUGE difference between protection of American's freedoms and Protecting (the ability to buy CHEAP oil, Protecting Israel, and Protecting Kuwait).
If the Soviet Union had invaded us, then MANY of these anti-war people woud have fought against the Soviet Union to protect our country.
Most anti-war people do believe that war is sometimes needed, but NOT THIS WAR for cheap gasoline.
This guy also has NO IDEA what he's talking about.
MOST OF the sucess of Movie Stars, Rock Stars, etc COMES FROM MONEY FROM NON-Americans overseas.
Look at how much MORE MONEY Titanic made from OVERSEAS from NON-American people watching it than it did from Americans watching it.
People like this guy need to realize that there's a WHOLE WORLD out there and that even if ALL Americans boycott many of these famous actors, rock stars, etc, they'll STILL MAKE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars because most of their money comes from overseas.

[Mike123abc]

Well they pretty much insulted the President via the state of Texas. Even unpopular presidents tend to be well liked in their home state. If it had been simple anti war/anti Bush comments she would have been simply ignored as one of the many in Hollywood that could not spell Iraq much less find it on a globe (Just like people ignore Jack White's one liners).

But, when she insults the President via his home state all the people in the state get very mad and speak up.

[The Tophinator]

Everyone in the US has a right to free speech. They also have a right to make a complete ASS out of themselves. When they do, those that strongly disagree have every right to call them on it and shun them for it. No rights were withheld. It’s just the consequences of offending the same people that you depend on for your livelihood.

[Richard King]

I was just kidding, honest. :D
http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=212895

[KenB]

Originally posted by Bogy
So it's a big deal for a singing group to make derogatory comments about the president while overseas. It also used to be an unwritten rule that congress doesn't criticize the president while he is on foreign soil. But conservative Republicans didn't consider that to be a rule they wanted to observe any more during the Clinton administration. It wasn't just entertainers making comments, it was elected Senators and Representatives who were getting their photo ops, without any concern for the good of the country or the presidency.

The only thing the Dixie Chicks did wrong was to apologize. Take a stand and stick to it. They can support all the troops they want, it doesn't change the fact that W's administration has severely damaged our relationship with most of the world.

Wow you are quite the liar or hypocrite. I've been here for a little while and haven't made many posts, but I have read enough of yours to know that you claim to be something your not, how can a person claim to be a man of god but all you do is spew hatred against the Republicans and conservatives. It is impossible to be a minister and be a liberal, how do you justify your party's hatred for anything godly or non secular, blatant disregard for religious freedoms.

As for the Dixie Chicks the government gives you freedom of speech, the consumer can take it away, and it is well within our rights to do so.

[James_F]

Wow talk about spewing hatred.... :rolleyes:

You obviouosly have not read anything because you'd see that Bogy stands for religious freedom more than anyone I know.

Personal attacks only show what an idiot you are. If this is the kind of posting you'll be doing, do us all a favor and keep your trap shut!

[RJS1111111]

Originally posted by James_F
Wow talk about spewing hatred.... :rolleyes:

You obviouosly have not read anything because you'd see that Bogy stands for religious freedom more than anyone I know.

Personal attacks only show what an idiot you are. If this is the kind of posting you'll be doing, do us all a favor and keep your trap shut!

Um, James, the rest of us tolerate your ravings on a regular basis. You could start things off on the right foot by taking your own above advice occasionally. Just a thought. :D

[James_F]

Please, I don't attack anyone on this board personally. Where have I ever done this? :confused: I rant and rave, but I never attack anyone personally. I will call someone on something they posted, but I never say that they are a hypocrite, but here you have someone calling Bogy a liar. Very poor form. You can critizice Bogy's views, but this is nothing but a personal attack.

[Nick]

KenB thinks "...the government gives you freedom of speech..."

<aarrgh!>

Ken, if you really believe it's the "government" that gives you freedom of speech, you might want to check out the Bill of Rights.

BTW, welcome! :)

[Bogy]

Originally posted by KenB
Wow you are quite the liar or hypocrite. I've been here for a little while and haven't made many posts, but I have read enough of yours to know that you claim to be something your not, how can a person claim to be a man of god but all you do is spew hatred against the Republicans and conservatives. It is impossible to be a minister and be a liberal, how do you justify your party's hatred for anything godly or non secular, blatant disregard for religious freedoms.

As for the Dixie Chicks the government gives you freedom of speech, the consumer can take it away, and it is well within our rights to do so.
So, I can't be a Man of God unless I am a conservative, a Republican, and support the war. It seems that you personally are disregarding my religious freedom to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ when they contradict those of the world. As far as "spewing hatred" I don't think I can agree with you. I do spew disillusionment, frustration, and possibly a touch of bitterness. Why? Because I have no party. I used to be a Republican, until they moved way to the right of where I as a Christian, a follower of Christ, could stand. There is no party that completely reflects what I believe, so I find myself voting for individuals who best do that no matter what party they belong to. I prefer to vote for individuals who often stray from the "party line," and even criticize their own party when they think it's wrong. And I will also continue to criticize those who have been chosen to lead us. That has been the role of Men of God, otherwise often known as prophets, through the ages. I guess Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Micah, John the Baptist, and even Jesus were also accused of "spewing hate," so I must be doing the right thing. Thanks. :angel: :lol:

[toenail]

The Dixie Chicks are entertainers. Entertainers "sell" themselves. Some people (especially younger ones) tend to "buy" the whole package. This tends to evolve into irrational hero worship. Hence you have people fawning over every word of Julia Roberts or, in the old days, John Lennon, etc. Of course, those entertainers' opinions may not have any more basis in fact than yours or mine. So, if we are beyond the mindless worship stage, and an entertainer says something that we disapprove of, how should we react? I don't think it's inappropriate to decide, among a number of choices, to boycott them. After all, some people will feel much less "entertained" when they listen to the music of someone they've grown to detest, than they did previously. Liberals do the boycott thing all the time. Can anyone say Dr. Laura???? Or lately, Savage???? That's their choice. It's not un-American. It's not a "threat."

Would I choose to do it? It all depends. For example, despite my advanced age, I like alternative rock. My favorite group is Midnight Oil. They're an Australian band. They are way out on the left. They are "environmental wackos." They are anti-American, anti-corporations, in favor of returning tons of land to aboriginals, and on and on. They've always been that way. Am I going to boycott them? No. I buy their music, I went to see them, I even met their lead singer and spokesman, Peter Garrett. Why do I continue to listen to them? I LIKE THEIR MUSIC!! And even though I consider myself to be a conservative, I like a number of their messages. They give me balance.

So, would I ever consider boycotting them? Sure. If they go too far, then I would not feel it was "moral" to give them money. For example, Pearl Jam went too far. Did the Dixie Chicks? Maybe. But I don't listen to them anyway, so I haven't had to face the issue with them. But the bottom line is that boycotting is a time-honored American (and probably universal) tradition, practiced by the left, right, and middle. May it continue when appropriate.

[RichW]

Boycotts generally don't work unless there is an overwhleming support for the boycott. Even then it might take years for the boycott to produce results. Look at South Africa, or even Iraq itself.

The religious right-wingers called for a boycott of all things Disney a few years ago because they decided to give equal benefits to gay partners. The result of the boycott was that Disney profits soared during that period.

As an aside, I thank KenB for the statement "It is impossible to be a minister and be a liberal". I haven't had much to chortle about since Roger disappeared from this board..

[RJS1111111]

Originally posted by RichW
...As an aside, I thank KenB for the statement "It is impossible to be a minister and be a liberal". I haven't had much to chortle about since Roger disappeared from this board..

Yeah... We miss you, Roger/Rage!!! (Well, not everybody, I suppose.)

[James_F]

You all say that, but you know you don't want him back.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-05-08/images/shoephone.jpg

[Timco]

Originally posted by waydwolf
He was admonishing her that while she has a right to say it, what she said was morally questionable.

I guess only Republicans and conservatives get to decide what is moral. Not sure which commandment she broke...