sullster

And exactly how does the opinion I expressed, curtail the freedom of expression in this board? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your statement.

I always find it curious that some free-thinkers are threatened by an idea, feely expressed, which advocates the idea that people should use discression when saying what they want. That I say, that the Dixie Chicks should shut up while they perform their crappy songs on stage in London, is not a threat to free speech or free thinking. I would want anyone or any group destroyed who advocated that the D Chicks could not say what they did on stage.

Your criticism doesn't add up. It actually comes out negative.

Beetle

I'm also against going to war with Iraq, but don't think the Dixie Chicks did anything to help the cause. I think there'd be a lot less reaction against the Dixie Chicks had the singer simply said that she was against the war, rather than using an incendiary word like "ashamed" in her statement.

Communication isn't just making a statement, it's getting others to actually hear what it is that you're saying. When the anti-war activists make remarks and signs proclaiming that they are ashamed of the United States, or think the president is dumber than a post, average Americans stop listening and start getting angry. It undercuts whatever influence the antiwar movement has, because the rest of the nation can write them off as "anti-american" and pay no further attention to them.

Gurdur

Since you draw yet another two conclusions in your next paragraphs, you contradict yourself.
uh huh. You just didn't like Dixie Chcicks' opinions, or the fact they expressed them. You're against their freedom to state their opinions simply because you didn't like their opinions, and you also got nasty and personal about it.

Nonsense, and rather hypocritical.
You stated first they shouldn't have stated their opinions, then you stated they would get their asses kicked for it, and you were glad, now you're trying to backtrack and pretencd you don't actually mean the nasty implications of what you said.

Henry-Finland

Beetle

You are right in that the word "ashamed" was not very well chosen.
I just react very hard on certain things: Freedom of (wo)man and patriotism. With patriotism I mean all forms of defending (the boarders) of my country.
_____________________________________

I rant here just to make myself clear to everyone:

I am against nationalism in all its forms. I do not think that Texas or USA or Belgium is a better place. I do not think Finland is a better place.

But Your and mine country/countries are the best places for us! It is our motherlands.

I do not think English or French, Finnish or Swedish is the best language in the world.
But there is the best language in the world, and that is our mother-language.

I hope everyone understand.

One thing I still would like to say about this war. An Iraqian soldier that has never done anything wrong... Not such a thing that Saddam and his criminals has done.
If he is fighting for his country, he is a patriot, and should be respected as such.

Henry
(A Finnish citizen, with Swedish as mother tongue, living in Russia [for the 6th year]).

Kamchatka

The Dixie Chicks have the right to say anything they want about the president of the United States or anyone else for that matter.

That right does not guarantee exemption from the consequences of what they say.

A radio station choosing not to play their songs in no way reflects political blacklisting. It is a business decision.

An individual choosing not to purchase one of their cd's or even organizing a movement to boycott their cd's is just exercising the same freedom as the D'Chicks enjoy.

If celebrities choose to attempt to influence political and social circumstances by expressing their opinions publicly, they face the same scrutiny for those opinions as any other public figure does.

It comes with the territory.