Bush Gets No Respect From Chicks' Maines

Here you can discuss any other artist including Sunny Jim, Todd Snider, Jerry Jeff Walker, Steve Goodman, James Taylor, Alan Jackson, Bob Marley, Kenny Chesney and others

Moderators: SMLCHNG, Saltx3

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

Jahfin wrote:
green1 wrote:
mermaidindisguise wrote:Was not a smart move on her part because of the way people are nowadays .... but it should have never gotten out of hand like it did.
What do you mean by "the way people are nowadays? And, what got out of hand?
I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.
God forbid an artist say that.... :lol:

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

Jahfin wrote:I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.
Thanks. And while I personally see these as over the top. Aren't they all an expression of other people's right to free speech? With the obvious exception that a threat on any person's life should be prosecuted. That is, in my opinion, something not covered by the first amendment.
The Dixie Chicks were not banned from the radio. The people in that area called the radio station sponsors and told them that if they support any radio station that plays the Dixie Chicks they would refuse to buy their products. The sponsors called the radio station and relayed the message. This is people speaking with their pocket books. As distasteful as you may find it, it is these people's right to free speech that you are now questioning.

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

green1 wrote:
Jahfin wrote:I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.
Thanks. And while I personally see these as over the top. Aren't they all an expression of other people's right to free speech? With the obvious exception that a threat on any person's life should be prosecuted. That is, in my opinion, something not covered by the first amendment.
The Dixie Chicks were not banned from the radio. The people in that area called the radio station sponsors and told them that if they support any radio station that plays the Dixie Chicks they would refuse to buy their products. The sponsors called the radio station and relayed the message. This is people speaking with their pocket books. As distasteful as you may find it, it is these people's right to free speech that you are now questioning.
I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.

Jahfin
Inactive User
Posts: 8084
Joined: October 6, 2003 5:38 pm

Post by Jahfin »

I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick thing was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their concerts. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
Last edited by Jahfin on May 24, 2006 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
D' oh......

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

RinglingRingling wrote:I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.
I couldn't disagree more. You said that the airwaves are public. That means that the public can decide what gets transmitted. What better example of public control of a public asset is there than this? This is precisely what I was speaking of when I said that there are consequnces that must be accepted. Consequences, repsonsibility, duty, whatever you want to call it, is the natural check and balance to any Freedom. Freedom without check is chaos.

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

green1 wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.
I couldn't disagree more. You said that the airwaves are public. That means that the public can decide what gets transmitted. What better example of public control of a public asset is there than this? This is precisely what I was speaking of when I said that there are consequnces that must be accepted. Consequences, repsonsibility, duty, whatever you want to call it, is the natural check and balance to any Freedom. Freedom without check is chaos.
but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?

In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
It was silly. But those people were exercising their rights. Now this radio station. Did it loose it's sponsorship? I would liek to know that. Because people will call in and suport something as much as they will oppose it. It is only when there is a huge disparity will between the two sides will the radio station change it's position to b ein line with the people who listen to them. If they act out alone, people will stop listening to that station. I am sure that there are other country stations to be heard in that town.

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?

In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?

Jahfin
Inactive User
Posts: 8084
Joined: October 6, 2003 5:38 pm

Post by Jahfin »

green1 wrote:
Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
It was silly. But those people were exercising their rights. Now this radio station. Did it loose it's sponsorship? I would liek to know that. Because people will call in and suport something as much as they will oppose it. It is only when there is a huge disparity will between the two sides will the radio station change it's position to b ein line with the people who listen to them. If they act out alone, people will stop listening to that station. I am sure that there are other country stations to be heard in that town.
I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before and at this point it's going around in circles.

I believe everyone of us (including entertainers) have the right to speak our minds, as well as accept the consequences of those actions (be they positive or negative). That said, even though it may be well within people's rights to do so, I never saw the point in burning Beatles and/or Dixie Chicks albums. It's not like it's going to silence the voice of oppostion. If anything, it empowers it.

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

Jahfin wrote:I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before and at this point it's going around in circles.

I believe everyone of us (including entertainers) have the right to speak our minds, as well as accept the consequences of those actions (be they positive or negative). That said, even though it may be well within people's rights to do so, I never saw the point in burning Beatles and/or Dixie Chicks albums. It's not like it's going to silence the voice of oppostion. If anything, it empowers it.
We have, and I think we are more in agreement then not. We still have and listen to our Dixie Chicks albums from before the last outburst. But we won't buy anymore. I agree that the burning is wrong. Any positive message that was trying to be conveyed is lost in the emotional destructiveness of the event itself.

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

green1 wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?

In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?
it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.

LIPH
Last Man Standing
Posts: 64548
Joined: April 24, 2001 8:00 pm
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: my next beer, as long as it's not Blandshark

Post by LIPH »

RinglingRingling wrote:
green1 wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?

In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?
it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.
They're not restricting any broadcasts. They told sponsors they wouldn't spend money on the sponsors products so they were exercising their free speech right through their wallets. The corporations caved because management had no balls and wouldn't stand up to them.
what I really mean . . . I wish you were here

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

RinglingRingling wrote:it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.
I don't see the government as evil. I see it as a bloated beaurocracy more interested in it's self fulfillment then the betterment of the country it is supposed to lead. For the sake of this argument let us say you are right. If the it really was a "narrow band of vocal people who are offended" than the majority of people not offended would be p*** off and call the sponsors demanding the opposite of what you rminority said. That is the equalizer. When everyone speaks and has a voice in the matter the will of the public is served best. Rather than the Dixie Chicks coming out with a song people don't like but are forced to listen to as they have no say in the porgramming of the radio stations. How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out. Is this censorship?

RinglingRingling
Last Man Standing
Posts: 53938
Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
Location: Where payphones all are ringing
Contact:

Post by RinglingRingling »

green1 wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.
I don't see the government as evil. I see it as a bloated beaurocracy more interested in it's self fulfillment then the betterment of the country it is supposed to lead. For the sake of this argument let us say you are right. If the it really was a "narrow band of vocal people who are offended" than the majority of people not offended would be p*** off and call the sponsors demanding the opposite of what you rminority said. That is the equalizer. When everyone speaks and has a voice in the matter the will of the public is served best. Rather than the Dixie Chicks coming out with a song people don't like but are forced to listen to as they have no say in the porgramming of the radio stations. How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out. Is this censorship?
match the red with the red.

and in this case, it has nothing to do with the release of a song people are forced to listen to.

LIPH
Last Man Standing
Posts: 64548
Joined: April 24, 2001 8:00 pm
Number of Concerts: 0
Favorite Boat Drink: my next beer, as long as it's not Blandshark

Post by LIPH »

green1 wrote:How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out.
Except for the times the record company pays the radio station to play its artists more often. :lol:
what I really mean . . . I wish you were here

sunseeker
Woman going crazy on Caroline street
Woman going crazy on Caroline street
Posts: 22050
Joined: April 18, 2002 8:00 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: one particular harbour
Number of Concerts: 15
Favorite Boat Drink: mojito
Location: underneath the weight of it all....

Post by sunseeker »

just for the record....Their new album s*cks.....reeaaaallly bad..... I just listened to it.......realllllly bad.....
There's this one particular harbor.....


Image

a1aara
Hoot!
Posts: 2777
Joined: April 27, 2004 1:04 pm
Number of Concerts: 75
Location: South of disorder

Post by a1aara »

Wino you know wrote:
a1aara wrote:
Wino you know wrote:
poolboy Bob wrote:In country music, "looks" is probably 75% of success. I can't recall any ugly woman who have had any success in the business. It seems to be look pretty, sing pretty and keep your mouth shut.
In ANY area of the entertainment industry, KEEP YOUR F'ING PIE HOLE SHUT!!!
I wish someone would stuff cotton in that b*tch's mouth.
Thanks for a great post, Bob.
Why are you entitled to an opinion and not her?
She IS entitled to her opinion.
But she needs to realize she's an (ugh) entertainer and nothing more.
What if I pulled a motorist over for speeding and said I'd throw away the ticket if he'd/she'd vote republican?
DO YOUR "JOB" AND LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT!!!!
People don't go to concerts to hear some cow whine about what an a-hold the President of the United States is.
Jeez, f'ing Louise!
What if President Bush called for a news conference, and, once the cameras were rolling started singing "Margaritaville?"

You may have a point about entertainers and politics. Entertainers like Rush Limbough and Bill O'Rielly should shut up as well. Talk about a cow.

green1
Hoot!
Posts: 2439
Joined: March 13, 2006 2:49 pm

Post by green1 »

a1aara wrote:You may have a point about entertainers and politics. Entertainers like Rush Limbough and Bill O'Rielly should shut up as well. Talk about a cow.
Right there with Al Franken, Alan Combs and James Carville. If you consider them entertainers. I don't, but rather politcal talking heads.

Wino you know
God's Own Drunk
Posts: 21466
Joined: February 5, 2002 7:00 pm
Favorite Buffett Song: Far Side of the World & Somewhere Over China
Number of Concerts: 105
Favorite Boat Drink: Beaujalais Villages French Burgundy
Location: Plowin' straight ahead, come what may

Post by Wino you know »

a1aara wrote:You may have a point about entertainers and politics. Entertainers like Rush Limbough and Bill O'Rielly should shut up as well. Talk about a cow.
Neither Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Rielly weigh over 180 pounds.
They BOTH did at one time, but they BOTH did something about it-can't say the same for her highness of the ditzi twits. But that's neither here nor there-
I EXPECT to hear political points of view from Rush and Bill O'Rielly. That's why I listen to them-and Alan Combes and James Carville, and the rest of them.
That's NOT why I go to concerts.
So AGAIN I say her highness Natalie should keep her political vitriol to herself and work on her singing.

Locked