The Dixie Chicks were right.

[Sobbastchianno]

Personally, I agree with the Dixie Chicks (and I DO live in Texas).

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq perse (wrong as I think that was/is), but it does have to do with the economy. Yes, it IS the economy stupid. When Clinton was in office, we had a projected TEN years of SURPLUS. Now, in just two and a half years in office, we are in projected TEN years of DEFICITS. How much did any of you see of that multi billion dollar tax cut? I thik we got $300 each tax payer. The actual percentage taken out of my check has actually INCREASED, and here is the lovely part, as you will see below, my salary has actually decreased by $20,000 (laid off and then got a new job, explained below).

I remember telling people that if Bush got in office, the economy would go directly down the toilet, and it has. As soon as it looked as though Bush had a credible chance of winning, the economy started taking a nosedive, a big one. My own salary has dropped $20,000 per year, and I am actually doing more work for the smaller salary, and I am a MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, sorry Mike) with seven years experience and a Bachelor's degree. I have seriously considered becoming an auto mechanic or a OTR Trucker because they make more money.

Now that we are NOT finding WMD in Iraq (I did say, "per se"), there are lots of questions being asked, and rightfully so. Of course, they are now trying to sell us on the idea that we were really there to liberate the Iraqi people. Granted, Sadam was a nasty little fellow who didn't play well with others, but so is Castro. When do we overthrow Cuba? Hell, it's even closer to our border than Iraq. I don't think it ought to be the province of the United States to decide which regime/government may or may not stay in power. Besides, we have many weapons of mass distructions. Who is going to invade us to make sure we don't use them?

I am from a long line of people who don't necessarily tow any party line, and I have to tell you, the way the American people were sold on this, hook, line, and sinker is absolutely appauling! It was Al Queda who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 disaster, not Sadam. We did go to Afghanistan, to pretty much no avail. We had NO BUSINESS in Iraq.

You go Dixie Chicks. I now own EVERY CD you ever produced.

[Sobbastchianno]

Just as a PS: I do very much support our troops. They are following orders and doing a fantastic job. I just don't think our President was right in sending them over there. I also hope for the safe return of each and every one of them that are still alive.

[Beowulf]

Of course, the fact that it takes around 4 years for economic effects to occur means nothing to you...

[Howedar]

Thats nonsense. Some events can have immediate and sudden economic impact. Policy changes can take a long time to affect the economy, but that doesn't mean they always have to.

[Beowulf]

You'd have to have a pretty major change in policy to cause a sudden shift in the economy...

[Sobbastchianno]

I would consider a change in Presidencies (especially this one) a MAJOR change in policy. I find it interesting that people have accused Democrats of tax and spend, and maybe to an extent that is true, but we, as a whole, usually prosper under democratic presidents (possible exception of Carter), yet when a Republican is in office, only a certain few seem to prosper, while the other 97% end up in my boat, or worse, no boat at all.


I am going to differ with you Beowulf about economic policy taking four years to effect change. It didn't take Clinton that long to steer us out of the recession he inherited from the first Bush, and it didn't take but 2.5 years for the second Bush to put us right back where his daddy had us. I don't care what your economics professor tells you, it takes much less time than that. Just look at the volatility of the market. Economic policy and news can effect INSTANTLY.

[Howedar]

You'd have to have a pretty major change in policy to cause a sudden shift in the economy...

Well, just look at how long it took to go from bull to bear about two years ago. That was a sudden shift in the economy. Delay has nothing to do with it: the fact is that policy can change enough to cause a sudden shift.

[Perinquus]

What you have also missed is the fact that every major war we have ever fought has caused the government to engage in deficit spending. Every major war. It actually costs to defend the country - gasp! The war on terrorism (SURPRISE!) has caused us once again to engage in deficit spending to finance it (and to this add the cost of rebuilding the military from the shell that Clinton left it), and you are somehow surprised. Those who do not learn from history...

[Sea Skimmer]

I am going to differ with you Beowulf about economic policy taking four years to effect change. It didn't take Clinton that long to steer us out of the recession he inherited from the first Bush, and it didn't take but 2.5 years for the second Bush to put us right back where his daddy had us. I don't care what your economics professor tells you, it takes much less time than that. Just look at the volatility of the market. Economic policy and news can effect INSTANTLY.

Your full of bullshit, the nations economic downturn began UNDER Clinton not Bush.

[theski]

The Tech bubble burst long before Bush 43 took office..

Facts before fiction....

[Joe]

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq perse (wrong as I think that was/is), but it does have to do with the economy. Yes, it IS the economy stupid. When Clinton was in office, we had a projected TEN years of SURPLUS. Now, in just two and a half years in office, we are in projected TEN years of DEFICITS. How much did any of you see of that multi billion dollar tax cut? I thik we got $300 each tax payer. The actual percentage taken out of my check has actually INCREASED, and here is the lovely part, as you will see below, my salary has actually decreased by $20,000 (laid off and then got a new job, explained below).

Sure, imaginary budget surpluses. In any case, the current deficit is only around 4% of GDP, compared with the record 6%. It is not as high as the deficits run during the Clinton administration either, though I'm sure you had not problem with those.

Oh, and all these nasty business practices that have surfaced during the Bush administration? Were going on happily for years during the Clinton administration.

I remember telling people that if Bush got in office, the economy would go directly down the toilet, and it has. As soon as it looked as though Bush had a credible chance of winning, the economy started taking a nosedive, a big one. My own salary has dropped $20,000 per year, and I am actually doing more work for the smaller salary, and I am a MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, sorry Mike) with seven years experience and a Bachelor's degree. I have seriously considered becoming an auto mechanic or a OTR Trucker because they make more money.

Can you use anything other than post hoc reasoning to explain how the economy is solely Bush's responsibility?

Now that we are NOT finding WMD in Iraq (I did say, "per se"), there are lots of questions being asked, and rightfully so. Of course, they are now trying to sell us on the idea that we were really there to liberate the Iraqi people. Granted, Sadam was a nasty little fellow who didn't play well with others, but so is Castro. When do we overthrow Cuba? Hell, it's even closer to our border than Iraq.

Invading Cuba? Haha, the UN would love that, they give Castro cheering ovations whenever he comes in and gives speeches. Cuba will destroy itself, but the best thing we can do is lift the embargo.

I don't think it ought to be the province of the United States to decide which regime/government may or may not stay in power. Besides, we have many weapons of mass distructions. Who is going to invade us to make sure we don't use them?

Neither do I, but Iraq is a necessary step in the war against terrorism. And it seems to be working, too, we've managed to put the fear of God into both Syria and Saudi Arabia and they're cleaning up their bullshit now.

[Joe]

I am going to differ with you Beowulf about economic policy taking four years to effect change. It didn't take Clinton that long to steer us out of the recession he inherited from the first Bush, and it didn't take but 2.5 years for the second Bush to put us right back where his daddy had us. I don't care what your economics professor tells you, it takes much less time than that. Just look at the volatility of the market. Economic policy and news can effect INSTANTLY.

No, fiscal policy, the only tool that the President has any degree of control over for economic uses, is mostly useless for readjusting the economy and has been proven to be so. Monetary policy, on the other hand, is useful, but the President has no control over it (that's the Fed's domain).

[Soontir C'boath]

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq perse (wrong as I think that was/is), but it does have to do with the economy. Yes, it IS the economy stupid. When Clinton was in office, we had a projected TEN years of SURPLUS. Now, in just two and a half years in office, we are in projected TEN years of DEFICITS..

Just like to point....these ARE projections. They do not solely mean they will happen in the future. The future is always uncertain.~Jason

[TheFeniX]

1. The Dixie Chicks are uneducated in just about every aspect of lif besides hitting that high E, and have no business (nor any other celebrity) commenting on politics (unless you're Jesse Ventura). Actually, I take that back: feel free to comment, but understand that you are not more knowledgable in politics than the acting commander in cheif who holds college degrees (which many celebs do not), and has access to information that would get you killed if you knew.

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

2. The twin towers may not have started the economic downturn, but it sure as Hell didn't help. Or is that Bush's fault too?

[Iceberg]

1. The Dixie Chicks are uneducated in just about every aspect of lif besides hitting that high E, and have no business (nor any other celebrity) commenting on politics (unless you're Jesse Ventura). Actually, I take that back: feel free to comment, but understand that you are not more knowledgable in politics than the acting commander in cheif who holds college degrees (which many celebs do not), and has access to information that would get you killed if you knew.

This president has allowed our real enemy to slip away while concentrating on a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how well-justified Hussein's removal was, Osama bin Laden, America's true enemy, is now safe from American justice, and has rebuilt much of the network of terror that the United States Army spent so much effort to destroy in an autumn of war in 2001, and he will return to visit terror on us again. That is a record which we should be ashamed of.

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

So what was "stupid" about their comments? Other than that they expressed anger with an administration increasingly out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, an administration which we are finding out more every day has lied to and manipulated the American public, with the primary purpose of creating a war with a paper tiger? Why is it stupid to express opposition to a sitting American President? Why were not the countless and eventually proven baseless scandals flung at President Clinton regarded as "stupid" and given the derision they so properly deserved?

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

If you hate them for it, then you are a lover of tyranny. Why are we not allowed to dissent from the President's views without being hated? Why is dissent being quashed? A tyrant fears and hates dissent, a leader of free people does not. The right of open dissent, the Loyal Opposition, is invaluable to a free people, but terrifying to tyrants. Conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular have done a great deal to discourage and denigrate any dissent from the Republican party line, claiming that any criticism of Bush or the current government is "bitterness over 2000," or outright treasonous. This is not a symptom of a healthy democratic system.

2. The twin towers may not have started the economic downturn, but it sure as Hell didn't help. Or is that Bush's fault too?

The Bush Administration may have been able to prevent or at least may have had some warning if they had paid attention to intelligence inherited from the Clinton Administration and more damningly given to them by foreign governments less than a month before the attacks.

If the present trend of suddenly disclosed improprieties continues, the Bush (II) Administration may go down in history as the dirtiest since the Grant Administration.

[Stravo]

1. The Dixie Chicks are uneducated in just about every aspect of lif besides hitting that high E, and have no business (nor any other celebrity) commenting on politics (unless you're Jesse Ventura). Actually, I take that back: feel free to comment, but understand that you are not more knowledgable in politics than the acting commander in cheif who holds college degrees (which many celebs do not), and has access to information that would get you killed if you knew.

This president has allowed our real enemy to slip away while concentrating on a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how well-justified Hussein's removal was, Osama bin Laden, America's true enemy, is now safe from American justice, and has rebuilt much of the network of terror that the United States Army spent so much effort to destroy in an autumn of war in 2001, and he will return to visit terror on us again. That is a record which we should be ashamed of.

Really?! Can you cite to this new rebuilt structure and not just some vague comments from some talking heads? So far I don't see anything from Al-Qeada other than some resistnce in Northern Afghanistan where they were based out of for years. I would have been surprised if we didn't see resistance up there.

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

So what was "stupid" about their comments? Other than that they expressed anger with an administration increasingly out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, an administration which we are finding out more every day has lied to and manipulated the American public, with the primary purpose of creating a war with a paper tiger? Why is it stupid to express opposition to a sitting American President? Why were not the countless and eventually proven baseless scandals flung at President Clinton regarded as "stupid" and given the derision they so properly deserved?.

Because the fans that turned their backs on them were perfectly justified in doing so. Why is free speech limited to disenters? If your fanbase are redneck patriots and you spout things against the president in a foreign country (convennient eh? I wonder if they would have been so "brave" in a concert in Texas.) you WILL get called on it. True bravery would have been them saying what they said and accepting the backlash for what it was - their fans exercising THEIR free speech.

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

If you hate them for it, then you are a lover of tyranny. Why are we not allowed to dissent from the President's views without being hated? Why is dissent being quashed? A tyrant fears and hates dissent, a leader of free people does not. The right of open dissent, the Loyal Opposition, is invaluable to a free people, but terrifying to tyrants. Conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular have done a great deal to discourage and denigrate any dissent from the Republican party line, claiming that any criticism of Bush or the current government is "bitterness over 2000," or outright treasonous. This is not a symptom of a healthy democratic system..

Really, so Clinton as a democratoc leader did not fear the dissent that rose up over the Lowinsky scandal? That is such a load of shit and you know it. The Gestapo is not banging on doors of politcial enemies and dragging them away into the night. Perhaps you did not see the thousands marching in the streets protesting the war, in one instyance trying to block supplies going to our troops, but were these protests squashed, were they denied their right to speak out? NO.

2. The twin towers may not have started the economic downturn, but it sure as Hell didn't help. Or is that Bush's fault too?

The Bush Administration may have been able to prevent or at least may have had some warning if they had paid attention to intelligence inherited from the Clinton Administration and more damningly given to them by foreign governments less than a month before the attacks.

If the present trend of suddenly disclosed improprieties continues, the Bush (II) Administration may go down in history as the dirtiest since the Grant Administration.

No, I think the Clinton Administartion with its pardon selling, influence peddling, WhiteHouse sleepovers, Buddhists temples, perjury has this one beat and in the end, good old Bubba has been sanctioned by the Congress for his actions. Bush has a long way to go to match that cesspool.

[Iceberg]

1. The Dixie Chicks are uneducated in just about every aspect of lif besides hitting that high E, and have no business (nor any other celebrity) commenting on politics (unless you're Jesse Ventura). Actually, I take that back: feel free to comment, but understand that you are not more knowledgable in politics than the acting commander in cheif who holds college degrees (which many celebs do not), and has access to information that would get you killed if you knew.

This president has allowed our real enemy to slip away while concentrating on a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Regardless of how well-justified Hussein's removal was, Osama bin Laden, America's true enemy, is now safe from American justice, and has rebuilt much of the network of terror that the United States Army spent so much effort to destroy in an autumn of war in 2001, and he will return to visit terror on us again. That is a record which we should be ashamed of.

Really?! Can you cite to this new rebuilt structure and not just some vague comments from some talking heads? So far I don't see anything from Al-Qeada other than some resistnce in Northern Afghanistan where they were based out of for years. I would have been surprised if we didn't see resistance up there.

Official warns of 'multiple' Al Qaeda attacks
Al Qaeda plotted new US attacks

We have a source on the (alleged) left (even though CNN has frequently proven itself an ardent cheerleader for the Bush Administration) and one on the right which both concur that Al Qaeda continues to exist and plot against the United States, and probably will return to attack future Administrations.

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

So what was "stupid" about their comments? Other than that they expressed anger with an administration increasingly out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, an administration which we are finding out more every day has lied to and manipulated the American public, with the primary purpose of creating a war with a paper tiger? Why is it stupid to express opposition to a sitting American President? Why were not the countless and eventually proven baseless scandals flung at President Clinton regarded as "stupid" and given the derision they so properly deserved?.

Because the fans that turned their backs on them were perfectly justified in doing so. Why is free speech limited to disenters?

Red herring. You did not answer why their comments were "stupid," only parroted the common (and funny) line about how free speech is not limited to dissenters. Nobody is questioning that free speech is available to supporters of the government line.

If your fanbase are redneck patriots and you spout things against the president in a foreign country (convennient eh? I wonder if they would have been so "brave" in a concert in Texas.) you WILL get called on it. True bravery would have been them saying what they said and accepting the backlash for what it was - their fans exercising THEIR free speech.

Considering that the backlash then may have involved being beaten or murdered?

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

If you hate them for it, then you are a lover of tyranny. Why are we not allowed to dissent from the President's views without being hated? Why is dissent being quashed? A tyrant fears and hates dissent, a leader of free people does not. The right of open dissent, the Loyal Opposition, is invaluable to a free people, but terrifying to tyrants. Conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular have done a great deal to discourage and denigrate any dissent from the Republican party line, claiming that any criticism of Bush or the current government is "bitterness over 2000," or outright treasonous. This is not a symptom of a healthy democratic system..

Really, so Clinton as a democratoc leader did not fear the dissent that rose up over the Lowinsky scandal?

Last I checked, Clinton did not enact laws which encouraged citizens to report on neighbors who may have expressed "treasonous" sentiments over his affair. Free and sometimes rancorous dissent over Clinton's extramarital (but consensual and therefore legal) affair with Monica Lewinsky was common fodder for conversation, the nightly news and Leno jokes.

That is such a load of shit and you know it. The Gestapo is not banging on doors of politcial enemies and dragging them away into the night. Perhaps you did not see the thousands marching in the streets protesting the war,

Yes I did. I especially saw the weirdos, freaks and commies that the newscasters consistently picked out of the crowd to try to show the protests in the worst light possible and by contraposition drum up support for the war.

in one instance trying to block supplies going to our troops, but were these protests squashed, were they denied their right to speak out? NO.

Again, you utilize a red herring. Suppression of dissent via channeled hatred and media bias is as much a tool of tyranny as suppression of dissent via law. Or do you believe that the newspapers in Britain in the 1770s gave a fair and honest accounting of the Revolutionary War?

2. The twin towers may not have started the economic downturn, but it sure as Hell didn't help. Or is that Bush's fault too?

The Bush Administration may have been able to prevent or at least may have had some warning if they had paid attention to intelligence inherited from the Clinton Administration and more damningly given to them by foreign governments less than a month before the attacks.

If the present trend of suddenly disclosed improprieties continues, the Bush (II) Administration may go down in history as the dirtiest since the Grant Administration.

No, I think the Clinton Administartion with its pardon selling,

No Republican president has ever given out a pardon to somebody who didn't deserve it (Ford, Reagan, GHWB).

influence peddling,

That's never happened before, either (Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, GWB)

WhiteHouse sleepovers,

Presidential favors are nothing new with the Clinton Administration, boy, and if you think they are, you are fooling yourself mightily. Look at the number of cabinet positions GWB sold to old buddies and political/business cronies.

Buddhists temples,

So?

perjury has this one beat and in the end, good old Bubba has been sanctioned by the Congress for his actions. Bush has a long way to go to match that cesspool.

He was "sanctioned" by a blatantly partisan vote of Congress, and his "impeachable" crime wasn't even perjury, since he answered truthfully under the definition of "sex" which was explicitly accepted by the court in which he was called to give testimony. The sham of an impeachment hearing was the culmination of eight years of attempts to pin scandal after scandal on Clinton with no evidence and not a single connection. Clinton's only proven "crime" (not a crime, as nobody was ever able to prove that the Lewinsky affair was anything but consensual and therefore legal) was having bad taste in mistresses.

None of the so-called "-gate" scandals (blatant attempts to link manufactured scandals to the very real and dangerous Watergate break-in scandal of 1972) ever bore fruit or any form of prosecution (except for the absolutely ludicrous Blowjobgate). It is said that the truth stands on its own, only lies require constant support, and the number of books published since the end of the Clinton Administration detailing as fact allegations which never stood up to the light of legal investigation gives much support to that old saying.

[Vympel]

Really?! Can you cite to this new rebuilt structure and not just some vague comments from some talking heads? So far I don't see anything from Al-Qeada other than some resistnce in Northern Afghanistan where they were based out of for years. I would have been surprised if we didn't see resistance up there.

Just a nitpick, Northern Afghanistan is where the Northern Alliance was based, which fought against the Taliban throughout the 1990s. Al-Qaeda was based everywhere else, but not up there. Speculation is that they remain on the porous border with Pakistan, but I have yet to see any solid evidence that Al-Qaeda has any significant 'forces' left in Afghanistan anyway- they don't need to operate out of there, there's plenty of other places.

Regarding rebuilt structure, I think he refers to the Al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and one other place I don't remember. Not an attack on American soil, but enough for commentators/talking heads to rightly point out that the talk of 'the tide has turned against terror' was premature.

Because the fans that turned their backs on them were perfectly justified in doing so.

Maybe so, but that's not the question Iceberg asked- he asked why it was stupid.

Why is free speech limited to disenters? If your fanbase are redneck patriots and you spout things against the president in a foreign country (convennient eh? I wonder if they would have been so "brave" in a concert in Texas.) you WILL get called on it. True bravery would have been them saying what they said and accepting the backlash for what it was - their fans exercising THEIR free speech.

I never really got into the entire Dixie Chicks fiasco- how did they react to the boycott/whining?

Really, so Clinton as a democratoc leader did not fear the dissent that rose up over the Lowinsky scandal?

What dissent? The entire country was sick of the whole absurd circus and much ado about nothing that it was- not to mention the world, which just scratched it's head at the whole fiasco. The President got a blowjob and lied about it. Whoopee. Earth-shattering stuff. He would've been better served by simply saying "yeah, she blew me, kiss my ass" but oh well.

That is such a load of shit and you know it. The Gestapo is not banging on doors of politcial enemies and dragging them away into the night. Perhaps you did not see the thousands marching in the streets protesting the war, in one instyance trying to block supplies going to our troops, but were these protests squashed, were they denied their right to speak out? NO.

They weren't denied their right to speak out, but they *were* denounced as traitors.

No, I think the Clinton Administartion with its pardon selling, influence peddling, WhiteHouse sleepovers, Buddhists temples, perjury has this one beat and in the end, good old Bubba has been sanctioned by the Congress for his actions. Bush has a long way to go to match that cesspool.

*shrug* I wouldn't know. Clinton was the victim of a massive political witch hunt and they couldn't turn anything up besides that he, a married man, had an affair.

[Iceberg]

If I'd been Clinton, I would have been banging Winona Ryder, not getting some intern to suck my dick.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I feel the need to chime in on this one. I get tired of people on the left or right acting as if the entire economy is the result of the president.


1. The projected suprlus' where all smoke and mirrors. The Republicans embraced them as much as Democrats.

2. The economy turned south while Clinton was in office. There was nothing he could have done to prevent it. And Bush can't make it better. The best either could do would be to alleviate some of the hurt.

3. The booming economy especially those last two years was a house cards. Also, an overheated economy can actually be very bad. Housing prices doubled in 4 years where I live all due to stock options, speculation, and runaway salaries for upper management.

[Stravo]

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

So what was "stupid" about their comments? Other than that they expressed anger with an administration increasingly out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, an administration which we are finding out more every day has lied to and manipulated the American public, with the primary purpose of creating a war with a paper tiger? Why is it stupid to express opposition to a sitting American President? Why were not the countless and eventually proven baseless scandals flung at President Clinton regarded as "stupid" and given the derision they so properly deserved?.

Because the fans that turned their backs on them were perfectly justified in doing so. Why is free speech limited to disenters?

Red herring. You did not answer why their comments were "stupid," only parroted the common (and funny) line about how free speech is not limited to dissenters. Nobody is questioning that free speech is available to supporters of the government line..

Their comments were stupid because they genuinely thought that their fans, mostly patriotic rednecks would somehow support them when they're off criticising their president in a foreign country at the eve of war. They thought that they were somehow immune from backlash because they were exercising their free speech without having the braincells between all of them to figure out that it goes both ways.

Then they were cynical enough to cash in on it by posing nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly with slogans painted over their bodies.

If your fanbase are redneck patriots and you spout things against the president in a foreign country (convennient eh? I wonder if they would have been so "brave" in a concert in Texas.) you WILL get called on it. True bravery would have been them saying what they said and accepting the backlash for what it was - their fans exercising THEIR free speech.

Considering that the backlash then may have involved being beaten or murdered?.

Do you have ANY proof of such a baseless claim other than playing to this warped view that we are being oppressed?

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

If you hate them for it, then you are a lover of tyranny. Why are we not allowed to dissent from the President's views without being hated? Why is dissent being quashed? A tyrant fears and hates dissent, a leader of free people does not. The right of open dissent, the Loyal Opposition, is invaluable to a free people, but terrifying to tyrants. Conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular have done a great deal to discourage and denigrate any dissent from the Republican party line, claiming that any criticism of Bush or the current government is "bitterness over 2000," or outright treasonous. This is not a symptom of a healthy democratic system..

Really, so Clinton as a democratoc leader did not fear the dissent that rose up over the Lowinsky scandal?

Last I checked, Clinton did not enact laws which encouraged citizens to report on neighbors who may have expressed "treasonous" sentiments over his affair. Free and sometimes rancorous dissent over Clinton's extramarital (but consensual and therefore legal) affair with Monica Lewinsky was common fodder for conversation, the nightly news and Leno jokes..

OH, and WHERE is the law discussing impriosning people for "treasonous"
sentiments that Bush has enacted, unless you equate crashing planes into buildings and setting off pipe bombs in a crowded mall as "treasonous" The purpose of the patriot act is to find terrorists. No matter how much the Left squawks there are no politcal prisoners being dragged off into the night.

That is such a load of shit and you know it. The Gestapo is not banging on doors of politcial enemies and dragging them away into the night. Perhaps you did not see the thousands marching in the streets protesting the war,

Yes I did. I especially saw the weirdos, freaks and commies that the newscasters consistently picked out of the crowd to try to show the protests in the worst light possible and by contraposition drum up support for the war..[/quote]

Bush controls the media, Bush controls the mob, Bush controls the WORLD...mhuahuahahhah......give me a fucking break. The media has their own agendas and biases don't go painting Bush with that broad brush stroke, and I've seen some of those protests here in NYC with me own eyes....quite a few freaks and communists there I can tell ya and who organized the vast majority of these protests....Rabidly anti-American communist organizations that when portesters were confronted with this fact quickly shied away from any association with them.

in one instance trying to block supplies going to our troops, but were these protests squashed, were they denied their right to speak out? NO.

Again, you utilize a red herring. Suppression of dissent via channeled hatred and media bias is as much a tool of tyranny as suppression of dissent via law. Or do you believe that the newspapers in Britain in the 1770s gave a fair and honest accounting of the Revolutionary War?.

Bush controls the media again?! My god with such control he could force us to keep him in office indefinately....wait...but he doesn't. That's one hell of a tyrnanny when you have to be elected every four years.
PROVE that Bush has ANY control over the media, especially with the curent furor being raised about the troops in Iraq wanting to come home and the lack of WMD. Boy those tools of Tyranny are starting to look mighty puny and inneffective.

2. The twin towers may not have started the economic downturn, but it sure as Hell didn't help. Or is that Bush's fault too?

The Bush Administration may have been able to prevent or at least may have had some warning if they had paid attention to intelligence inherited from the Clinton Administration and more damningly given to them by foreign governments less than a month before the attacks.

If the present trend of suddenly disclosed improprieties continues, the Bush (II) Administration may go down in history as the dirtiest since the Grant Administration.

No, I think the Clinton Administartion with its pardon selling,

No Republican president has ever given out a pardon to somebody who didn't deserve it (Ford, Reagan, GHWB).

influence peddling,

That's never happened before, either (Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, GWB)

WhiteHouse sleepovers,

Presidential favors are nothing new with the Clinton Administration, boy, and if you think they are, you are fooling yourself mightily. Look at the number of cabinet positions GWB sold to old buddies and political/business cronies.,

Buddhists temples,
So?,

perjury has this one beat and in the end, good old Bubba has been sanctioned by the Congress for his actions. Bush has a long way to go to match that cesspool.

He was "sanctioned" by a blatantly partisan vote of Congress, and his "impeachable" crime wasn't even perjury, since he answered truthfully under the definition of "sex" which was explicitly accepted by the court in which he was called to give testimony. The sham of an impeachment hearing was the culmination of eight years of attempts to pin scandal after scandal on Clinton with no evidence and not a single connection. Clinton's only proven "crime" (not a crime, as nobody was ever able to prove that the Lewinsky affair was anything but consensual and therefore legal) was having bad taste in mistresses.

None of the so-called "-gate" scandals (blatant attempts to link manufactured scandals to the very real and dangerous Watergate break-in scandal of 1972) ever bore fruit or any form of prosecution (except for the absolutely ludicrous Blowjobgate). It is said that the truth stands on its own, only lies require constant support, and the number of books published since the end of the Clinton Administration detailing as fact allegations which never stood up to the light of legal investigation gives much support to that old saying.

In essence, he's only done what other presidents have done....I notice Bush seems to be unique then in your world view of his own shortcomings. Funny that...the way you give Bubba a break because well you know EVERY president has perjured himself and all that but Bush is just fucking EVIL.

Edit: CHRIST this is a pain in the ass with all the quote coding. If its OK by you Iceberg I will start snipping some of our debate in my next reply.

[Durandal]

I feel the need to chime in on this one. I get tired of people on the left or right acting as if the entire economy is the result of the president.

It is true that the president has very little power to affect the economy; the chairman of the federal reserve is the guy who does that by manipulating interest rates.

1. The projected suprlus' where all smoke and mirrors. The Republicans embraced them as much as Democrats.

More so, I'd argue. Al Gore wasn't already deciding how the money was going to be spend; Bush was, even though if the projections were right, the money would never be seen unless he was a two-term president (which there wasn't the virtual guarantee of at the time, unlike now).

2. The economy turned south while Clinton was in office. There was nothing he could have done to prevent it. And Bush can't make it better. The best either could do would be to alleviate some of the hurt.

And Bush hasn't even done that. He's exacerbated the situation by flinging us to war on Iraq and then using our resources to rebuild the government. And he did all this without presenting a single, solid plan for the cost in both time and money of the reconstruction. All he said was that we'd stay there for as long as it takes and presumably spend as much money as it takes.

[Iceberg]

Their comments were stupid because they genuinely thought that their fans, mostly patriotic rednecks would somehow support them when they're off criticising their president in a foreign country at the eve of war. They thought that they were somehow immune from backlash because they were exercising their free speech without having the braincells between all of them to figure out that it goes both ways.

So you're an expert on how people think now? You're still using the same red herring instead of dealing with the issue. The issue is that you claim that what they said was "stupid," when it was not. The "backlash" is inconsequential to the actual remarks.

Then they were cynical enough to cash in on it by posing nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly with slogans painted over their bodies.

And? Conservative commentators were cynical enough to cash in on it by painting them as E-VILLE LIBBURLS!!!1!1!!

Considering that the backlash then may have involved being beaten or murdered?.

Do you have ANY proof of such a baseless claim other than playing to this warped view that we are being oppressed?

Touche.

Really, so Clinton as a democratoc leader did not fear the dissent that rose up over the Lowinsky scandal?

Last I checked, Clinton did not enact laws which encouraged citizens to report on neighbors who may have expressed "treasonous" sentiments over his affair. Free and sometimes rancorous dissent over Clinton's extramarital (but consensual and therefore legal) affair with Monica Lewinsky was common fodder for conversation, the nightly news and Leno jokes..

OH, and WHERE is the law discussing impriosning people for "treasonous"
sentiments that Bush has enacted, unless you equate crashing planes into buildings and setting off pipe bombs in a crowded mall as "treasonous" The purpose of the patriot act is to find terrorists. No matter how much the Left squawks there are no politcal prisoners being dragged off into the night.[/quote]
What reason is there for registering library patron records, if not to keep tabs on what people are reading? That in and of itself is chilling - the government has no right to know what I'm reading, regardless of whether I'm reading The Silmarillion or The Anarchist's Cookbook.

Yes I did. I especially saw the weirdos, freaks and commies that the newscasters consistently picked out of the crowd to try to show the protests in the worst light possible and by contraposition drum up support for the war..

Bush controls the media, Bush controls the mob, Bush controls the WORLD...mhuahuahahhah......give me a fucking break.

Do you deny that when the protests were going on, the media sought to spin them to look like treason and subversion rather than Americans exercising their right to free assembly for the redress of wrongs? The media was very strongly in the Bush camp up until the lies that the government told in the pursuit of war with Iraq started coming out.

The media has their own agendas and biases don't go painting Bush with that broad brush stroke, and I've seen some of those protests here in NYC with me own eyes....quite a few freaks and communists there I can tell ya and who organized the vast majority of these protests....Rabidly anti-American communist organizations that when portesters were confronted with this fact quickly shied away from any association with them.

Proof? If it's the "vast majority," that proof should be pretty easy to come by.

Again, you utilize a red herring. Suppression of dissent via channeled hatred and media bias is as much a tool of tyranny as suppression of dissent via law. Or do you believe that the newspapers in Britain in the 1770s gave a fair and honest accounting of the Revolutionary War?.

Bush controls the media again?! My god with such control he could force us to keep him in office indefinately....wait...but he doesn't. That's one hell of a tyrnanny when you have to be elected every four years.

Communist and fascist regimes typically have elections on a regular basis, the difference is that their elections either have no opposition party or one that is weakened and infiltrated by the Establishment so much that there is no way the opposition could seize real power. Saying that Bush has to face reelection is poor evidence that he is not a tyrant. We know that George W. Bush is aggressively secretive and that the conservative element in American society spends a great amount of time, energy and money in demonizing liberal viewpoints and marginalizing persons who espouse them.

PROVE that Bush has ANY control over the media, especially with the curent furor being raised about the troops in Iraq wanting to come home and the lack of WMD. Boy those tools of Tyranny are starting to look mighty puny and inneffective.

Where were you six months ago!? The media turning away from Bush is only happening because they've just found out that he lied to them, and if the average person hates being lied to, the media - whose credibility rests entirely on their ability to report the facts accurately - hate being lied to more.

In essence, he's only done what other presidents have done....

Actually, he's done significantly LESS than other presidents have done. His moral failings were, in fact, common to many other presidents, but they did not, in an objective light, adversely affect his ability to run the country - what did adversely affect him was the constant scandalmongering directed at him by a well-funded media circus that had no objective other than to remove him from the office of President. Unfortunately, we will never know what the Clinton Administration could have been, because it was so frequently interrupted in the real business of governance.

I notice Bush seems to be unique then in your world view of his own shortcomings.

Starting a war on false premises is rather serious, yes. More serious still if your own intelligence analysts TELL YOU that they believe that the intelligence you're basing your case on is faulty and you go ahead with it anyway.

Clinton's moral failings are common to many presidents - Bush's have much in common with presidents like Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover and Ulysses S. Grant.

Funny that...the way you give Bubba a break because well you know EVERY president has perjured himself

Were you not reading? By the definition of "sex" that the court explicitly accepted - explicitly REJECTING the common-sense definition of "sex" while doing so - CLINTON DID NOT LIE ON THE STAND. The court defined sex as being male-female genital-genital intercourse in that hearing, and Clinton answered correctly that by the court's definition he did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. It does not matter that he had sex with her by a common-sense definition; the LEGAL definition which was used excluded oral and anal sex. If the court defines that sex does not include oral intercourse, then it is the truth that they didn't have sex, even though she buffed his peter.

The impeachment proceeded on false premises because Clinton did not lie on the stand, per the court's definition of sex.

and all that but Bush is just fucking EVIL.

I think that lying to the country to get into a war that most people would vehemently oppose if they knew all the facts is just a BIT more evil than lying to the country that you got a fucking blowjob, okay??

BTW, I'm this pissed because, God help me, I actually believed him. I actually believed Bush that the Iraqis had WMDs and that it was a sufficiently egregious violation to require a war to remove Saddam Hussein. God damn me for a fool.

Edit: CHRIST this is a pain in the ass with all the quote coding. If its OK by you Iceberg I will start snipping some of our debate in my next reply.

As long as you don't rearrange stuff. Also, you may find it convenient to use the "preview" button to make sure all your formatting is set up right (I do).

[TheFeniX]

I live in Texas too, and I think it'd be much better if celebrities kept their stupid comments to themselves. I still find it funny about their attitude on the "lash-back" they got from that.

So what was "stupid" about their comments? Other than that they expressed anger with an administration increasingly out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, an administration which we are finding out more every day has lied to and manipulated the American public, with the primary purpose of creating a war with a paper tiger? Why is it stupid to express opposition to a sitting American President? Why were not the countless and eventually proven baseless scandals flung at President Clinton regarded as "stupid" and given the derision they so properly deserved?

Because they did it purely for a foreign nation, probably trying to "Score some points." Who knows what she was thinking. Then Maines decides she doesn't have the balls to take the repercussions of her actions, and withdraws it.

Link

She realized after the fact what her comment cost her.
I don't believe that people's reactions were all that sane to it, but I don't believe that celebrities should get so involved in politics when there are so many people out there that will take their comments at face value. Why should I take the word of a high school drop out, over the word of a more intelligent debator? Celebrities continually use their popularity to push issues they find important. When it's "Save the Whales," I generally don't care. But to stick their necks out in an already heavily controversial issue while trying even to fathom the reality themselves, isn't a good idea.

To sum up my overly-long post on this: The Dixie Chicks comments were "stupid (I could have picked another word, but I'll stick with this)" because they should have understood what was going to happen with their fans. Had they actually stuck with the comment, I would have let it slide.

"We're not allowed to voice our opinions." Actually, they are allowed too, and I'm allowed to hate them for it.

If you hate them for it, then you are a lover of tyranny. Why are we not allowed to dissent from the President's views without being hated? Why is dissent being quashed?

You took that completely out of context. What if she had said "We support the KKK, racial purity is best" or "Gays will burn in Hell."

Am I allowed to hate them then? The comment they made as a group offended me as a Texan. Their comment angered a lot of people who don't believe that anyone should be ashamed that Bush is a Texan. I don't hate the Dixie Chicks personally, I used the comment for effect. But I do believe they should spend more time singing, and less time making comments, only to retract them later.

As for the rest, Stravo beat me to anything else I was going to say, and he seems to be doing a good job. I'll let him take it.

[Stravo]

So you're an expert on how people think now? You're still using the same red herring instead of dealing with the issue. The issue is that you claim that what they said was "stupid," when it was not. The "backlash" is inconsequential to the actual remarks..

I apologize I did not realize that what we were talking about were the remarks. While I don't approve of what they said or did, particualrly where it was done, but they have the absolute right to say it. It was stupid in the sense of what they said considering their fanbase but not the content of it. I was under the impression that the reaction of the fans was what was stupid. My bad.

Then they were cynical enough to cash in on it by posing nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly with slogans painted over their bodies.

And? Conservative commentators were cynical enough to cash in on it by painting them as E-VILLE LIBBURLS!!!1!1!!.

It's a vicsious cycle on both sides, such as Clinton's attempt to silence Limbaugh with an equal air time bill for public radio which thankkully did not pass.

What reason is there for registering library patron records, if not to keep tabs on what people are reading? That in and of itself is chilling - the government has no right to know what I'm reading, regardless of whether I'm reading The Silmarillion or The Anarchist's Cookbook.

It IS the government's business to be aware of any threats to the public's well being and if someone is taking out a slew of books on nuclear physics and the like then I think the FBI should have a clue. Besides, this is something that I'm sure is already done under the table anyway, they just want to make it legal now. As to what I read, I could give a shit less what the government knows that I'm reading from a public library. The Librarian knows what you're reading so what's the big deal? The government has neither the ability nor the will to carry out some form of sweep campaign based on what people are reading and the public would not stand for such an act. This is more liberal hand wringing and spinning out some Orwellian nightmare from a government that cannot purchase hammers that cost less than $250.

Again, you utilize a red herring. Suppression of dissent via channeled hatred and media bias is as much a tool of tyranny as suppression of dissent via law. Or do you believe that the newspapers in Britain in the 1770s gave a fair and honest accounting of the Revolutionary War?.

Bush controls the media again?! My god with such control he could force us to keep him in office indefinately....wait...but he doesn't. That's one hell of a tyrnanny when you have to be elected every four years.

Communist and fascist regimes typically have elections on a regular basis, the difference is that their elections either have no opposition party or one that is weakened and infiltrated by the Establishment so much that there is no way the opposition could seize real power. Saying that Bush has to face reelection is poor evidence that he is not a tyrant. We know that George W. Bush is aggressively secretive and that the conservative element in American society spends a great amount of time, energy and money in demonizing liberal viewpoints and marginalizing persons who espouse them..

Oh, and the liberals I assume are angelic and victims of the mighty right wing conspiracy. When is the left going to wake up and see that there is NO vast right wing conspiracy or do they need to be slapped in the face as Hillary Clinton was after she spent weeks on TV and Radio attacking the right for concocting these "lies" abiout her man.

If anyone is to be blamed for the demonization of the left's views they should look to their own like the Al Sharpton's of the democratic party.

PROVE that Bush has ANY control over the media, especially with the curent furor being raised about the troops in Iraq wanting to come home and the lack of WMD. Boy those tools of Tyranny are starting to look mighty puny and inneffective.

Where were you six months ago!? The media turning away from Bush is only happening because they've just found out that he lied to them, and if the average person hates being lied to, the media - whose credibility rests entirely on their ability to report the facts accurately - hate being lied to more..

So now he lost control of the media? What an inept tyrant. How about he NEVER had control over the media. The media swings teh way of the majority and if you don;t believe that the majority was pro war then you weren't watching the polls, newsreports, town meetings and protests (as in low turnout)

In essence, he's only done what other presidents have done....

Actually, he's done significantly LESS than other presidents have done. His moral failings were, in fact, common to many other presidents, but they did not, in an objective light, adversely affect his ability to run the country - what did adversely affect him was the constant scandalmongering directed at him by a well-funded media circus that had no objective other than to remove him from the office of President. Unfortunately, we will never know what the Clinton Administration could have been, because it was so frequently interrupted in the real business of governance..

Oh, that's rich. He had EIGHT FUCKING YEARS to do something. Maybe if he wasn't doing some of the things he did there would be NO RUMORS to create the media circus you're complaining about. Will can also look at his pathetic handling of Al-Qaeda. A few cruise missiles lobbed at a training camp in revenge for deaths of American soldiers is a pathetic response and invited sharks to start circling. Pulling out of Somlaia after suffering a few casualties, an action that has been DIRECTLY LINKED to Al-Qaeda stepping up activities against the US. Ossamma stated that when he saw that the US pulled out after suffering marginal casualties he knew that they were a paper tiger. Thank you Bubba.

I notice Bush seems to be unique then in your world view of his own shortcomings.

Starting a war on false premises is rather serious, yes. More serious still if your own intelligence analysts TELL YOU that they believe that the intelligence you're basing your case on is faulty and you go ahead with it anyway...

Hold on. There is NO PROOF of that yet. The CIA chief has come forward and claimed full responsibility for the forged report being included in the State of teh Union address so where are you coming from with intentionally falsified reports???

BTW, I'm this pissed because, God help me, I actually believed him. I actually believed Bush that the Iraqis had WMDs and that it was a sufficiently egregious violation to require a war to remove Saddam Hussein. God damn me for a fool..

Let's get one thing striaght, I too believed him and still do. If there are no WMD then this whole thing has been a sham and those poor souls policing the streest of Baghdad, being shot and killed everyday should never have been there and I would hold him ultimately repsonsible for that horrendous act.

But I find it interesting to note that the Give peace a chance crowd's mantra about the inspections was "However long it takes." With Bush it's "Find them NOW."