Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Uninformed and uneducated people will always criticize polticians. That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. And it's a fact that many intelligent and informed people are embarrassed that Chimpy McDumbass is our president. Yes, and the majority of them find more mature ways to express their displeasure with him than verbally attacking him on foreign soil or referring to him as "Chimpy McDumbass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Uninformed and uneducated people will always criticize polticians. And it's a fact that many intelligent and informed people are embarrassed that Chimpy McDumbass is our president. I'm still surprised by the over reaction and sustained feelings towards a relatively tame statement that accuratley reflects a large segment of Americans. That is President Chimpy W. McDumbass to you sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 They definitely alienated their core audience. They went from being a top act to being a pariah among country fans and radio stations. Seems to me like the mainstream pop crowd is their core audience now. I don't know how the modern Nashville culture works or what the Dixie Chicks used to sound like, but I never considered country music made for top 40 radio as genuine country music. Apparently a lot of people do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. Yes, and the majority of them find more mature ways to express their displeasure with him than verbally attacking him on foreign soil or referring to him as "Chimpy McDumbass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Nobody is denying their right to speak out against the President, the War, or whatever else they want to comment on. They have a microphone and can say whatever they want. But the country is fairly equally divided between the left and the right, and if you are an entertainer who wants to dabble in political rhetoric, then you risk the consequences being alienation of half of your potential audience. Was their an over-reaction to the original chubby comments? By what standard could you ever say that the reaction was an over-reaction? It happened because of how people feel. Who are we to say that people should not feel the way that they do about tehse girls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I really dont know the answer to that question. They definitely alienated their core audience. They went from being a top act to being a pariah among country fans and radio stations. And quite frankly, not unlike our boy Irish, I dont think they will ever be accepted back into the fold. It is true that country music has jettisonned stars that didn't march to conservative ideals before. k.d. lang is a prime example. In fact, I can't really think of any country artist that is successful and has expressed a liberal view. I can't think of any other genre of music that has blackballed stars like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hey, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 I think their timing, rather than the comments themselves, were the thing that hurt them the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 In fact, I can't really think of any country artist that is successful and has expressed a liberal view. I think you probably know less about country music than me, and that is saying alot! Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, just to name a few old school names. There are alot of liberal country music folks. But your timing, style, and credibility are going to play into what you can get away with. Especially in the entertainment fields. But I would say that the majority of hard core country music fans are indeed conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Was their an over-reaction to the original chubby comments? By what standard could you ever say that the reaction was an over-reaction? It happened because of how people feel. Who are we to say that people should not feel the way that they do about tehse girls? To summarize: Chubby can say what she wants, I can say people over-reacted, people have the right to get mad at the Hollywood elite, and Swerski can get offended when I call Bush, Chimpy McDumbass. I'm not saying people shouldn't feel, say, or do certain things, it is however, an interesting point of discussion. I think people having record burning bonfires and still being upset 3-4 years after the fact, as to what I perceive as a relatively tame and accurate statement is an over-reaction. However, that is their perogative and it really doesn't matter to me. Imagine how happy the Chix are that it is still creating this much publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I think people having a 4 page thread and still being upset 3-4 years after the fact, as to what I perceive as a relatively tame and accurate statement is an over-reaction. :fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) and Swerski can get offended when I call Bush, Chimpy McDumbass. People like you are the reason that I left the Democratic Party years ago. People like you are the reason that Joe Lieberman had to run as an Independent in the last election. People like you are also the reason that John Edwards is no longer a legitimate Presidential candidate. Using juvenile, over-the-top rhetoric to attack the Bush Administration makes you and other liberals look immature and mentally-unstable. After listening to such rhetoric, moderates don't want to associate themselves with liberals or the Democratic Party in general. This is one reason why Bush is a two-term President and why Republicans dominated Congress for 12 years. If you're seriously interested in promoting change in Washington, I suggest that you change your approach. Imagine how happy the Chix are that it is still creating this much publicity. Didn't they lose a ton of money in ticket revenue a year or two ago after alienating their country base? Edited February 13, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 Didn't they lose a ton of money in ticket revenue a year or two ago after alienating their country base? There is no doubt that her comments were one of the biggest gaffs in music history. Except to the Grammy voters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Imagine how happy the Chix are that it is still creating this much publicity. Yep, I think you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I really dont know the answer to that question. They definitely alienated their core audience. They went from being a top act to being a pariah among country fans and radio stations. And quite frankly, not unlike our boy Irish, I dont think they will ever be accepted back into the fold. If they alienated their core audience, why do their albums keep being best sellers? Sounds like whatever they did... it's working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) You're defending Lieberman now? Ok, there goes your credibility. Joe is about Joe and Joe alone. He could give a crap about you or the people he claims to represent. Not necessarily defending him, but he tends to vote along the Dem party line. And the left-wing Dems who voted in the primary pretty much told him to take a hike last year because of his stance on Iraq... despite the fact that they were trying hard to gain a majority in Congress. These nuts felt that putting an un-electable, anti-war Ned Lamont on the ballot was more important than retaining a Democratic seat in the Senate. They're damn lucky that Joe came back. Edited February 13, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 If they alienated their core audience, why do their albums keep being best sellers? exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Not necessarily defending him, but he tends to vote along the Dem party line. And the left-wing Dems who voted in the primary pretty much told him to take a hike last year because of his stance on Iraq... despite the fact that they were trying hard to gain a majority in Congress. These nuts felt that putting an un-electable, anti-war Ned Lamont on the ballot was more important than retaining a Democratic seat in the Senate. They're damn lucky that Joe came back. Maybe the Dems felt that putting forward a candidate that actually represents their views was more important than winning the partisan war for power. What good is having your party in power if they don't govern the way you want them to? It's not a football game... it's government. You should root for successful government, not a particular team at any cost. For example... why would you vote for a Republican candidate if in 6 years of total control they increase the size of government, weaken national security, and fail to pass any legislation regarding abortion, gay marraige, or immigration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 For example... why would you vote for a Republican candidate if in 6 years of total control they increase the size of government, weaken national security, and fail to pass any legislation regarding abortion, gay marraige, or immigration? To take away power from the Dixie Chicks, liberal universities, and the Hollywood elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Maybe the Dems felt that putting forward a candidate that actually represents their views was more important than winning the partisan war for power. What good is having your party in power if they don't govern the way you want them to? It's not a football game... it's government. You should root for successful government, not a particular team at any cost. Last year was different. Republicans had controlled Congress for 12 straight years and the Dems were in a great position to take it back. It was IMPERATIVE that they get it back. And what did the Dems in CT do? They gave the boot to one of their most-electable Senators. They're lucky that Lieberman didn't switch parties and run as a Republican. While Lieberman is definitely a conservative Democrat, he does support his party on many issues and is wildly-popular in CT. He was enough of a "good party guy" to get the VP nomination in 2000. Ned Lamont won the primary because of his position on ONE issue: The Iraq War. That's it. How is that a good long-term strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 People like you are the reason that I left the Democratic Party years ago. People like you are the reason that Joe Lieberman had to run as an Independent in the last election. People like you are also the reason that John Edwards is no longer a legitimate Presidential candidate. Using juvenile, over-the-top rhetoric to attack the Bush Administration makes you and other liberals look immature and mentally-unstable. After listening to such rhetoric, moderates don't want to associate themselves with liberals or the Democratic Party in general. This is one reason why Bush is a two-term President and why Republicans dominated Congress for 12 years. If you're seriously interested in promoting change in Washington, I suggest that you change your approach. Why do you rountinely insist on making differences of opinion on football or politics a personal vendeta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 13, 2007 Author Share Posted February 13, 2007 If they alienated their core audience, why do their albums keep being best sellers? Sounds like whatever they did... it's working. Are you saying that Natalie Maines comments did not have an adverse effect the career of the Dixie Clits? Do you think they sell out more venues and sell more albums now than before she opened her piehole? Do you think their BMI and Ascap royalties are higher as a result of their gaff? I am just curious how you think this was a good career move... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Why do you rountinely insist on making differences of opinion on football or politics a personal vendeta? Are you calling him a jerk? I think you're calling him a jerk! Are you gonna take that Swerski? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 (edited) Why do you rountinely insist on making differences of opinion on football or politics a personal vendeta? Why do you routinely engage in personal attacks and then whine like a little girl when somebody calls you on it? Edited February 13, 2007 by Bill Swerski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I expect record companies to push their artists. I have not seen MSN promote another band or artist anything like they do the Dixie Chicks. Jimmy, wikipedia shows there official website website link as http://dixiechicks.msn.com Don't know what that means, but it's not a reach to guess that there is a financial interest in msn pimping them. I've learned enough about a band whose music I couldn't care less about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts