Somehow this always gets back to the Chicks.

 

If people choose to boycott anything she does, then that is their right. But here is the difference, she was ASKED a question that she answered honestly. There is not as much out cry as a lot of people share those same beliefs.

 

The Chicks "offered" their political views. I don't pay for someones CD so I can hear their political views. People boycotted them as their right, because they did not share the Chicks views.

 

The Chicks were more like Obismal running around the world apologizing for America.

 

Quit going back to the poor Chicks. I have not listened to them or purchased their music since that incident, MY RIGHT.

So you're OK with the personal attacks that have been heaped on her?

 

No. I didn't say that. I said I'm OK with people expressing their dissenting opinions - regardless if I agree with them or not.

While that may the problem you have with it, my opinion is that the people that are upset are upset because of the fact that the person being "attacked" shares the same belief as they do. My guess is that they were blasting the Chicks when they expressed their opinion because they felt like they were being attacked - just like they feel like they are being attacked now for sharing Miss CA's view.

 

Somehow this always gets back to the Chicks.

 

If people choose to boycott anything she does, then that is their right. But here is the difference, she was ASKED a question that she answered honestly. There is not as much out cry as a lot of people share those same beliefs.

 

The Chicks "offered" their political views. I don't pay for someones CD so I can hear their political views. People boycotted them as their right, because they did not share the Chicks views.

 

The Chicks were more like Obismal running around the world apologizing for America.

 

Quit going back to the poor Chicks. I have not listened to them or purchased their music since that incident, MY RIGHT.

 

Exhibit A.

No. I didn't say that. I said I'm OK with people expressing their dissenting opinions - regardless if I agree with them or not.

 

So even if their dissenting opinion is a personal attack and intended to be hurtful you're OK with that?

 

Then I guess you're OK with Fred Phelps and his band of loons expressing their "dissenting opinions" at funerals?

My problem is not so much the expression of disagreement, but by the vile retribution. The threats to strip her of her crown came long before any illusory arguments about breach of contract. The release of the information about her breast enhancement was nothing more than puerile revenge, and a gross violation of HIPPA. The "leaking" of the photographs was similarly so. Any argument that her opponents have not tried to slander her in retaliation is baseless.

 

Expressing of opinion is one thing, but guerilla retaliation tactics is completely another.

My problem is not so much the expression of disagreement, but by the vile retribution. The threats to strip her of her crown came long before any illusory arguments about breach of contract. The release of the information about her breast enhancement was nothing more than puerile revenge, and a gross violation of HIPPA. The "leaking" of the photographs was similarly so. Any argument that her opponents have not tried to slander her in retaliation is baseless.

 

Expressing of opinion is one thing, but guerilla retaliation tactics is completely another.

I agree with this in principal.

 

But I find the complete irony with her stance on the photo's being released quite hilarious.

So even if their dissenting opinion is a personal attack and intended to be hurtful you're OK with that?

 

Then I guess you're OK with Fred Phelps and his band of loons expressing their "dissenting opinions" at funerals?

 

Did you miss the "No" at the beginning of my post when you asked that question previously?

I don't get "exhibit A". I am not to smart. I do know that the difference in situations here draw NO comparisons with the Chicks and Ms Cali.

 

So if you think it is the same, here is the solution..

 

Ms. Cali - Do not move in with or near same sex people.

 

Chicks - Do not live somewhere that your leader is such a loser.

 

I don't get your tie to the chicks, but again, this is in NO way a similar situation.

 

Mr. Exhibit A - I don't listen to or watch Bette Midler, George Clooney, NWA,...the list goes on. Do these views and actions unfairly attack these people that I disagree with?

I don't get "exhibit A". I am not to smart. I do know that the difference in situations here draw NO comparisons with the Chicks and Ms Cali.

 

So if you think it is the same, here is the solution..

 

Ms. Cali - Do not move in with or near same sex people.

 

Chicks - Do not live somewhere that your leader is such a loser.

 

I don't get your tie to the chicks, but again, this is in NO way a similar situation.

 

Mr. Exhibit A - I don't listen to or watch Bette Midler, George Clooney, NWA,...the list goes on. Do these views and actions unfairly attack these people that I disagree with?

 

My "Exhibit A" comment was to show that my belief that people criticize those who they disagree with but , on the other hand, support those being criticized who happen to agree with them is applicable. You support Ms CA because you agree with her statements and you defend her right to say them. However, you completely disagree with the Chicks and rationalize why its different when they express their opinion.

 

Its human nature.

Since you seem to have this all anylized let me set the record straight for you.

 

I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with people who rationally disagree with Prejean. I think that people like Perez Hilton are slimey jerk for making it as personal as they have. I also have no problem with people who rationally disagree with the Dixie Chicks. But if there was some loudmouthed jerk who attacked them personally I would feel exactly the same as I do about Perez Hilton.

I agree with this in principal.

 

But I find the complete irony with her stance on the photo's being released quite hilarious.

 

I guess I don't understand. What is the irony?

I guess I don't understand. What is the irony?

She finds issues with people being concerned with her private (using that term very loosely since she allowed a photographer to take the photos) life. Which is exactly what she was doing when she condemned homosexual marriage.

 

Hopefully she learns a lesson that it's best to not be concerned with others and to worry about yourself.

She finds issues with people being concerned with her private (using that term very loosely since she allowed a photographer to take the photos) life. Which is exactly what she was doing when she condemned homosexual marriage.

 

Hopefully she learns a lesson that it's best to not be concerned with others and to worry about yourself.

 

Former, you're a smart guy. I will allow you to figure out the gaping hole in that statement. Its not even remotely comparable.

 

Incidentally, her exact response was something along the lines of "I can't speak for others, but as for me, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Is that condemnation? Didn't she do exactly what you support, which is give her personal opinion without implicating others?

Former, you're a smart guy. I will allow you to figure out the gaping hole in that statement. Its not even remotely comparable.

 

Incidentally, her exact response was something along the lines of "I can't speak for others, but as for me, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Is that condemnation? Didn't she do exactly what you support, which is give her personal opinion without implicating others?

I think it is totally comparable. She wanted to take those pictures just as homosexuals want to be in an open union. I guess the irony lies in the fact that she now knows what it's like for people to condemn her actions. Not only does she get zero sympathy from me, I actually laugh at her. And I'm sorry, but I don't see the gaping hole, maybe I'm just obtuse in this instance.

 

I have zero issues with what she said. In the original thread I applauded her for saying what she believed.

I just thread through all of the posts in this thread...pretty good arguement. Is it true that the newer photos were photo shopped? I read that on here, but also heard it elsewhere and no one really addressed if that was fact or not on here.

 

Quit going back to the poor Chicks. I have not listened to them or purchased their music since that incident, MY RIGHT.

 

Neither have I, but I didn't like them much before that either. Just gives me a reason to switch radio stations now.