Dixie Chicks Pose Nude

[Ted C]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... 8&ncid=707

The Dixie Chicks, Emily Robison, left, Natalie Maines, center, and Martie Maguire, are featured in this undated handout of the cover of the May 2, 2003, issue of Entertainment Weekly.

Related Story

If I didn't hate country music, I'd buy their album.

[Kelly Antilles]

You know, Natalie just recently had a kid. I would have thought she would have been a bit.... bustier.

[Darth Gojira]

And this is political how?

[Stormbringer]

That's got to be one of the stranger protests I've ever seen. Weird.

[Knife]

"At that moment, on the eve of war, I had a lot of questions that I felt were unanswered," Maines said. "I think the way I said it was disrespectful. The wording I used, the way I said it, that was disrespectful. I feel regret for, you know, the choice of words. Am I sorry that I asked questions and that I don't just follow? No."

Don't you just love it when after people apologies, they sneak in one last quip. Honestly though, those who dislike the Dixie Chicks will probably not change their minds anytime soon and those who like the Dixie Chicks will probably not change their minds anytime soon so the whole afair is moot.

[Nathan F]

Don't you just love it when after people apologies, they sneak in one last quip. Honestly though, those who dislike the Dixie Chicks will probably not change their minds anytime soon and those who like the Dixie Chicks will probably not change their minds anytime soon so the whole afair is moot.

I was a big fan of the Dixie Chicks before this little incident. Heck, my sister had two CDs of them (which I stole every now and then...). But, they have to go open their big mouths on stage in England. If you are going to badmouth the President, then at least do it in the US and not abroad and while on stage. I hate it when celebrities of any sort use their stage time to try to foist off their political views...

Honestly, wouldn't hurt my feelings if they never have a succesful album again...

[paladin]

After looking at their nude cover, I could only wonder if they do girl on girl action!

[Joe]

Posing nude - what a great way to win back the affections of your largely Christian audience! Whoever advises the Dixie Chicks on marketing needs to be fired right fucking now.

[Glocksman]

Posing nude - what a great way to win back the affections of your largely Christian audience!

Not so much Christian, but politically conservative and supportive of GWB.

I wonder if the Dixie Chicks are going to switch from 'country' (more like pop with a Southern accent than real country) to 'alternative', and this is their way of presenting themselves to a new audience?

[Joe]

This band baffles me; they wait till they're safely out of the country to badmouth the President, claim to be sorry when it becomes clear they made a stupid fucking mistake, and now erase any doubt that the apology was a fake with this cover. Dipshits.

[Darth Wong]

This band baffles me; they wait till they're safely out of the country to badmouth the President, claim to be sorry when it becomes clear they made a stupid fucking mistake, and now erase any doubt that the apology was a fake with this cover. Dipshits.

No end of hate for the Dixie Chicks, eh? What's the big deal about badmouthing Shrubby anyway? Millions of Americans do it, and it doesn't make them traitors.

[Alex Moon]

This band baffles me; they wait till they're safely out of the country to badmouth the President, claim to be sorry when it becomes clear they made a stupid fucking mistake, and now erase any doubt that the apology was a fake with this cover. Dipshits.

No end of hate for the Dixie Chicks, eh? What's the big deal about badmouthing Shrubby anyway? Millions of Americans do it, and it doesn't make them traitors.

From what I've read, it's mostly that they went overseas to badmouth Bush. It's the whole, "Politics stops at the waters edge." or something.*shrug*

[Joe]

This band baffles me; they wait till they're safely out of the country to badmouth the President, claim to be sorry when it becomes clear they made a stupid fucking mistake, and now erase any doubt that the apology was a fake with this cover. Dipshits.

No end of hate for the Dixie Chicks, eh? What's the big deal about badmouthing Shrubby anyway? Millions of Americans do it, and it doesn't make them traitors.

I couldn't care less either way. I'm just criticizing them for making some seriously stupid business decisions.

[Stravo]

This band baffles me; they wait till they're safely out of the country to badmouth the President, claim to be sorry when it becomes clear they made a stupid fucking mistake, and now erase any doubt that the apology was a fake with this cover. Dipshits.

No end of hate for the Dixie Chicks, eh? What's the big deal about badmouthing Shrubby anyway? Millions of Americans do it, and it doesn't make them traitors.

The same freedom that allows them to say negative things about Bush allows their fan base to NOT buy their records because they do not agree with what they say. A fitting punishment I think. The power of capitalism reigns in these idiot celebs who have no clue what they're spouting because it just happens to sound good.

[Utsanomiko]

I am indifferent.

Well, other than the fact I never liked their music in the first place. And the only song they did that I didn't think sucked or sounded like a mule being fisted was just a cover of someone else's song. And it still sounded off.

[Ignorant twit]

Let's be honest the entertainment industry is a glorified popularity contest. If you are less popular then you feel the sting.

When the people who like you have an opinion and hold to it dearly and you speak out contrary to it you are either:
1. Brave
2. Stupid

I'd be more inclined to think bravery if they had done so at home rather than playing abroad. So I just sit back and laugh as they flush money down the toilet.

[Nathan F]

No end of hate for the Dixie Chicks, eh? What's the big deal about badmouthing Shrubby anyway? Millions of Americans do it, and it doesn't make them traitors.

Ah, yes, but they don't go to England, sell a couple thousand tickets, get up on stage, and start ranting about Bush, realize they screwed up bigtime, so they come back and try to make nice nice.

As has been stated, if they were gonna do it, they should have done it here, and not there.

[Nathan F]

The same freedom that allows them to say negative things about Bush allows their fan base to NOT buy their records because they do not agree with what they say. A fitting punishment I think. The power of capitalism reigns in these idiot celebs who have no clue what they're spouting because it just happens to sound good.

Hear hear!

[Darth Wong]

The same freedom that allows them to say negative things about Bush allows their fan base to NOT buy their records because they do not agree with what they say. A fitting punishment I think. The power of capitalism reigns in these idiot celebs who have no clue what they're spouting because it just happens to sound good.

And what does that have to do with the fact that people are wildly overreacting? Why does every comment on the idiotic behaviour of people like that get hijacked into a defense of civil rights? Did I say that they should be legally prevented from overreacting?

[Stravo]

The same freedom that allows them to say negative things about Bush allows their fan base to NOT buy their records because they do not agree with what they say. A fitting punishment I think. The power of capitalism reigns in these idiot celebs who have no clue what they're spouting because it just happens to sound good.

And what does that have to do with the fact that people are wildly overreacting? Why does every comment on the idiotic behaviour of people like that get hijacked into a defense of civil rights? Did I say that they should be legally prevented from overreacting?

It's not a hijack. People not buying Dixie Chick CDs is overreacting?? If people don't agree with what a celebrity or artist says usually speaks with their pocketbook. I was just pointing out that the Dixie Chick's position and reaction to it is a fine example of how freedom of speech allows both sides to do as they please. I don't see it as an overreaction, it is a rational response to a viewpoint not sahred by many of their fanbase.

[Darth Wong]

It's not a hijack. People not buying Dixie Chick CDs is overreacting?? If people don't agree with what a celebrity or artist says usually speaks with their pocketbook.

And that's all it takes? They say they're ashamed of George Bush and people hate them? I could understand if it turned out that one of them was a pedophile or something, but if people are morally repulsed by a performer for not liking George Bush, they ARE overreacting.

[Stravo]

It's not a hijack. People not buying Dixie Chick CDs is overreacting?? If people don't agree with what a celebrity or artist says usually speaks with their pocketbook.

And that's all it takes? They say they're ashamed of George Bush and people hate them? I could understand if it turned out that one of them was a pedophile or something, but if people are morally repulsed by a performer for not liking George Bush, they ARE overreacting.

I just don't agree. You can spend your money ANY WAY you want to. If you don't want to buy an album because the artist recorded it in France...thats your decision. If someone charged the stage and attacked one of them, THAT'S overreacting. But how you spend your money is totally different. You can't say that its overreacting to NOT spend money on a CD, because you don't HAVE to buy their CD. You do HAVE to not physically assault or stalk them. See the difference?

[Darth Wong]

I just don't agree. You can spend your money ANY WAY you want to. If you don't want to buy an album because the artist recorded it in France...thats your decision. If someone charged the stage and attacked one of them, THAT'S overreacting. But how you spend your money is totally different. You can't say that its overreacting to NOT spend money on a CD, because you don't HAVE to buy their CD. You do HAVE to not physically assault or stalk them. See the difference?

Yes. You are still trying to change the subject to the limits of what you can and can't do, as opposed to the character issue of how low your threshold of vindictiveness is.

[Stravo]

I just don't agree. You can spend your money ANY WAY you want to. If you don't want to buy an album because the artist recorded it in France...thats your decision. If someone charged the stage and attacked one of them, THAT'S overreacting. But how you spend your money is totally different. You can't say that its overreacting to NOT spend money on a CD, because you don't HAVE to buy their CD. You do HAVE to not physically assault or stalk them. See the difference?

Yes. You are still trying to change the subject to the limits of what you can and can't do, as opposed to the character issue of how low your threshold of vindictiveness is.

Isn't it equally vindictive to go to a foreign nation and attack a president near a time of war? I don't see the backlash from their fanbase as vindictive. I'm sure there are SW fans that pretend the SE doesn't exist because Greedo shot first thus do not buy and will not buy the SE DVDs or Videos. Do we call that being vindictive or making a clear choice on how to spend your hard earned money?

In other words we have absolutely no need to support someone that has a view opposed to us monetarily and by doing so you are exercising your own free speech choice and not being vindictive.

[Beowulf]

And that's all it takes? They say they're ashamed of George Bush and people hate them? I could understand if it turned out that one of them was a pedophile or something, but if people are morally repulsed by a performer for not liking George Bush, they ARE overreacting.

So it's not with in reason to not buy stuff that you don't like?