james t kirk

Your comparison is absurd because:

1. It implies that the Dixie Chicks and Osama Bin Ladden are one in the same.

2. It implies that Dixie Chicks by voicing their concern to Bush's actions are somehow aiding terrorists.

3. It implies that the Dixie Chicks are akin to terrorists.

4. It is inflamitory, e.g. "a message at the bottom of the screen proudly proclaiming "Pepsi: Gives you the burst of energy needed to kill thousands of Americans!".

5. It is ludicrous to compare the two.

6. It evokes the tragedy of 911 in a way that meant to stir up emotions

7. Pepsi would never do such a thing.

8. The war on Iraq is quite different than the events of 911.

9. It is disrespectful to the victims of 911


For all of those reasons, and the very fact that it is idiotic, i maintain your comparison is absurd.

I never liked the Dixie Chicks' music (I hate ALL country music), but I am impressed with their bravado.

Liquor Dealer is absolutly correct when he says that their album sales have fallen off the charts.

I have no doubt that this will affect their bottom line for quite some time. I have no doubt that they have had their ears boxed by the record company weasels also.

Will they recover?

Probably over time, but i am sure that they have alienated quite a few fans who will never come back since their music appeals to the more conservative elements in the music business.

But here's a thought for you who spew the right wing rhetoric...

Artists, for the most part, tend to be more aware and sensitive to the emotions that suround us in life. They write their poetry, their music as a result of this gift or talent that they have. Be that love, or war, or hate, or the human condition. I truly believe this. They write the songs that we listen to and the best songs, for the most part, are those that have an emotional impact on us.

As such, the statements made by the Dixie Chicks do not suprise me, nor other artists for that matter. The tend to be a left leaning lot because it's in their genetic make up. They feel for humanity perhaps more than the rest of us.

As far as Springstein goes, Bruce has never been a tow the line kind of guy. His fans though won't boycott his music. Of that I am sure.

For those of you who think "Born in the USA" is a jingoistic anthem, you'd better listen to the lyrics.

stan the man

i would like to direct you to

The road to war was paved with lies
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&threadid=3628

__________________
long live the hud

sixate

I'd hardly call musicians and actors artists. They are entertainers. Real artists don't get paid like actors and musicians.

What you said is all fine and dandy, but why do the entertainers feel as though they aren't open for a bashing by others just as they do to the presdident? Don't you see what fucking hypocrites they are?

Cynthetiq

That's right.. by that same token then Trent Lott should still be in office, Sinead O'Connor would have had more albums... but because people don't like what you had to say...

It's quite american. People don't just vote with their ballots but with their eyeballs and wallets.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

frenik

I'll respond point by point.
1. Perhaps you didn't understand, if you re-read the example I gave I compared the Dixie Chicks to Pepsi, not bin Laden.
2. Wrong. In my example, Pepsi wasn't aiding terrorists, although maybe I should have said that it was an actor portraying Osama bin Laden and not the actual guy. The point of the comparison wasn't the message itself, just the controversial nature of it.
3. Again, I compared the Dixie Chicks to Pepsi, not to bin Laden.
4. This is the controversial statement. Controversial statements tend to be inflammatory.
5. See #3.
6. Again, the point of the example wasn't the message, but the controversy a statement would stir in a certain group of Americans.
7. The "Say" at the very beginning of the example indicates that this is a hypothetical situation. I know that no corporation would put this type of message out there, because they know they would lose a lot of business, which was the point of the example.
8. Again, you're looking too specifically at the example. Examples are generally meant to be taken in a broader manner. Pepsi is a symbol of a corporation. Their message was a symbol of a controversial message.
9. Again, the specific message is not an important part of the example, and the fact that it refers to 9/11 in a roundabout way does not invalidate the entire example.

I'll put the example in simpler terms.

_corporation_ puts a message out in a foreign country that is meant to pander to that country. It is a message that the country they are advertising in would like, but a group of Americans do not like. That group of Americans begin a boycott of _corporation_.

You can insert either "the Dixie Chicks" or "Pepsi" in the _corporation_ slot and it works. The overall point is that if a business says something a portion of their consumers don't like, they can expect to lose business. And yes, the music industry is a business.

So again, I fail to see how it's an invalid example.

__________________
I don't know what's worse, that I dreamed about putting my ex-girlfriend in a woodchipper, or that I woke up with an erection. - jim norton