[quote name='chosen1s']Now wasn't that nasty? This is what I struggle with Dem's - they can't debate with facts, and/or must distort truth to win arguments. Most people had a problem with the Dixie Chicks defaming the President TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY. That's just not right, and I wouldn't have supported it if it were said about Kerry, Clinton, or any other Democratic President (or potential President). Democrats have successfully labeled Republicans' outrage as being defensive and that is just a lie.[/quote]
Actually, it wasn't nasty at all - you're just looking for contention to prove your piousness, which is a very thin layer of clothing, I should point out. She took the name calling you started with and threw it in your face, yet somehow *you're* the righteous one? Sure thing, kid. Sure thing.
Back to hypocracy - do we have freedom of speech or not? Can the Dixie Chicks say whatever they want about Bush or not? You seem to think they can, but per your statements above I am not allowed to call them Unamerican. Regardless of whether I feel that way or not, that's so clearly hypocritical to me it blows my mind.
I think that your mind only selected out the claims you considered to be legitimate (that they spoke out while abroad, which seems to be some social norm with very few prior precedents to try and draw any legitimacy from), and ignored the foolishness that people did to express their distaste with them (calling them stupid, or saying Natalie's fat, or burning their CDs, while all forms of protest whether or not I like it, didn't do a very good job at conveying the cohesion you seem to think existed among people on the right in regards to the collective disdain for the Chicks. You cannot deny that, for a great number of people, "The Dixie Chicks don't like George Bush" was a sufficient explanation for their disdain; if you don't believe me, perhaps you would rather ask a random sample of Dixie Chicks haters about where they were when Natalie said they were ashamed of the president?
As for calling them unamerican, how can you call a person unamerican for practicing one of the very virtues this country was founded upon? Now, I know one might express freedom of speech in the following ways that would certainly make them unamerican: "I am not American"; "I hate America"; "Death to the Republic"; and so on, but the woman said "I just want you to know that we're ashamed of the president." That says nothing about America or American ideals. In order to do so, you'd have to believe that the course of action and ideological package that George Bush brings to the White House is the only possible iteration of ideals and actions that constitutes being "American." Not only is that not true (due to the logical impossibility of one finite "American" ideal in a democracy), but it's incorrect - ask a Goldwater conservative about the job Bush is doing. He is by no means a conservative, although, like Reagan, he loves to bump up spending and cut taxes. He shares little similarities with conservative predecessors other than a tax cut fetish. With that in mind, he is a unique character as president, and his perspective by no means shapes the domain of what is "American" and everything else is "unamerican." So that, to be short, shows that you are dead wrong about your claim. The woman said she was ashamed of her president, and you drew false generalizations as a result of her shame towards one person. If you want to get off the high-n-mighty horse of honest discourse in the form of avoiding lies and distorting truth (the latter in particular), then I'll take him back to the stables for you.
Look, I really think both sides have a lot to offer in Politics. I don't think the Dem's are always wrong and they want a lot of good for the country. But this nastiness is ridiculous - and then they accuse Republicans of having a double standard. It's very childish. God help us all.
:yawn: baseless attacks are not the exclusive domain of any political party. Take it somewhere else, because you're boring.