Statement, "ashamed of George W.Bush". Whao... since that statement over 2,800 americans have died, over $300 Billion dollars spent on Iraq's "change" and Rumsfeld been eliminated. The administration with help from the press tried to distract the issue with the D.C.'s opinion shaking there finger at such free speech. Well who should be ashamed now? All those who boo hoo the Dixie Chicks for not supporting there "W" god, feel good to be used in a suberversion political tactic? Probably didn't know who they were before and ever bought there albums so don't use that lame excuse.
2006-11-30 04:39:12 · 4 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Their villification was meant to be an example, like the cancellation of Bill Maher's nightly ABC show. The main purpose was to stiffle dissent.
2006-11-30 04:43:41 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll go over this one more time as you apparently missed the other 16 questions about this.
The current administration did nothing to these fool entertainers. They opened their mouths on safe ground, in Britain 3 years ago. Their fans did not like this. If you are unaware, their fan base is made up of mostly conservative minded people. They stopped buying their music. The response from the President was this:
"[T]he Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I ... don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..."
Hardly a harsh statement. The fact remains that the little one made her remarks in Britain, rather than say...Houston or Memphis where the result might have been instantaneous. They have reappeared now because of the release of their movie.
Their actions were at best, making a statement based on ones opinion and at worst, akin to shooting off ones foot. They spoke and their fans replied by not buying their music. Simple as that.
A political tactic of distraction? No, they are pimping their movie.
2006-11-30 13:01:43 · answer #2 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Deflection is the sincerest form of flattery.
Why do you think Dubya only speaks in front of pre-screened, pre-chosen audiences, some of whom have had to sign a "loyalty oath" before being admitted? God forbid he should have to actually HEAR a dissenting opinion! Or worse, be expected to answer an unscripted question!!! MELT DOWN TIME.
That "free speech" thing is all well and good - as long as whoever is speaking is only saying the "right" things.
2006-11-30 12:52:23 · answer #3 · answered by happy heathen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And the future for Repiblicans does not look too bright in the near future.
Though blind followers of Bush boo hoo'd, the rest of the whole world has been with the Dixie Chicks.
2006-11-30 12:53:49 · answer #4 · answered by ramshi 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋