Tell us, Cons, was Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks right in her criticism of Bush Jr.?

Answer this question

  • Tell us, Cons, was Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks right in her criticism of Bush Jr.?


Answer #1 | 20/12 2013 05:58
I like current stuff. Who's your favorite Beatle?
Answer #2 | 20/12 2013 06:01
No. So why did the Left defend her right to say what she said but not defend Phil's right for what he said?! Oh and you forget that those exact same people who criticized her put their next single number one for a record breaking 8 weeks! Seems like there is a huge double standard and a lot of hypocrisy on the Left! The stations who took their record out of rotation were with in their rights just as what AE did is within their rights!
Answer #3 | 20/12 2013 06:00
She was correct. Cons should have been open to her views instead of shutting her out. She was one of many heroes that the warmongers would not listen to, she had a lot of guts and we all should have listened to her. I did, she was one of my heroes at the time, along with Scott Ritter, Hanx Blix, Natalie Plame and Joe Wilson, and others, for their patriotic efforts in saving us from going into an unnecessary war. It could have saved 3 trillion dollars and over 120,000 lives. Thumbs down on that? What planet am I on? How are we going to avoid making the same mistake again when you idiots do not even know that it was wrong?
Answer #4 | 20/12 2013 06:00
Here's the difference in the two situations: With the Dixie Chicks, it was their fans who dumped them. They did it because they felt the Dixie Chicks disrespected their country. With Phil Robertson, it was a few very vocal people who are not his fans who bullied a network into the suspension.
Answer #5 | 20/12 2013 05:59
ACTUAL Conservatives were never upset by that remark. Only neocons and other warmongers were. The link below will explain the difference.
Answer #6 | 20/12 2013 06:00
She THOUGHT she was...See what happens when: Your brain is "formed" by the Democrat press
Answer #7 | 20/12 2013 06:01
I remember I didn't think that was right either. Her comment was not hateful, and she didn't deserve the backlash she received. This is why folks like Bill O'Reilly refer to the "complaint industry," instead of discriminating between political affiliations.
Answer #8 | 20/12 2013 06:02
GYT explained the chief difference. C&W fans themselves called into stations to complain. Previous fans of their work tossed it all in the bin. A&E caved in a knee-jerk response to screaming intolerant liberals , who likely never even watch the channel.
Answer #9 | 21/12 2013 03:47
When entetainers use the stage to push their political agenda, they willingly subject themselves to the consequences. She got what she deserved. I feel the same way about Barack Obama. Discussing that in this forum with you is one thing, but doing it in an entertainment venew is just plain wrong, and disrespectful.
Answer #10 | 20/12 2013 06:20
K8 said it for me.
Answer #11 | 20/12 2013 06:07
They have the right to speak their minds but what got them in trouble was they used their concerts in a foreign country to critisize the president.
Answer #12 | 20/12 2013 06:04
So an entertainer criticizes politics and that's ok? But a Christian speaks about his PERSONAL beliefs and it's not? It isn't even the same situation...who asked the Dixie Chics their political opinions? Phil Roberts WAS asked.
Answer #13 | 20/12 2013 06:06
Were the Chicks right... no... but they had the right to say it. But no one owes them an apology for the criticism that fell on them afterwards. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. When celebrities decide to inject themselves into political discourse, they run the risk of alienating at least some of their fans. That's what happened to them, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Possible answer

Login to your account
Create new account