Rob, sorry but the Dixie Chicks had DEATH THREATS sent to them for their one sentence. That does not fall under freedom of speech. Don’t worry by the way, the Dixie Chicks are back stronger than ever esp. with their Grammy win. So those “marginally talented” singers are doing just fine. Hope you’re enjoying political wilderness.

“Marriage” should be a religious arrangement.

It already is and has been thus for thousands of years. More so marriage, the bonding of a man with a women, is a necessary societal mores intended to anchor a family giving parential consistency for the rearing of children.

What does affirming real marriage have to do with the Dixie Chicks dissing President Bush overseas?

Have I mentioned that I think she is an attractive Young Lady??

Gene,

Your talent for understatement is noted, Sir.

There’s a marked distinction between the two situations:

DIXIE CHICKS – they essentially stepped outside their vocations as singing entertainment and assumed the role of Leftist activists. The did not stop to consider that most Country music fans are pro-military, pro-Americans. Bush, as C-in-C, was taking the fight to the enemy. We were kicking ass and taking names, even if the Left loathed and despised these facts and completely misrepresented the reasons for our involvement and the successes we were having.

The Dixie Chicks should have known that they were potentially stepping on a political landmine, considering the demographics of their audience. They didn’t.

They voluntarily alienated their audience and paid the price. No governmental action from either the Dixie Chicks nor the embargoing listeners.

The Dixie Chicks voluntarily thrust themselves in a direction that their fans neither expected nor wanted.

CARRIE PREJEAN – color me naive, but I thought the exhibition and judging of extremely beautiful women was a STRAIGHT thing — why is a homosexual judging Heterosexual women??? Perez Hilton, a rabid homosexual operative, somehow finagled his way into a position judging Heterosexual women.

Carrie was as meek as she could be, but still held to the very polite assertion that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Hilton DELIBERATELY ASKED a loaded question, and when he did not get the answer he wanted, threw a flaming, hissing and spitting tantrum — and made damn sure that he torpedoed her chances at the crown.

Homosexual activists continued on their hateful vendetta and sought to strip her of her crown by engaging in the politics of personal destruction, digging up her past and alleging it was the basis for their actions, when in fact it was clear to all that this was Homo Payback.

This clearly illustrates that the homosexuals who whine and plead for tolerance are the most intolerant little Nazis of the modern age.

Homosexuals don’t want tolerance — they want all opposition destroyed. They want religion destroyed. They want Middle American morals destroyed. They mean to have conventional marriage destroyed.

Carrie Prejean was set up as an example to others — if you don’t toe the homosexual party line — you will be destroyed. It is naked intimidation and vindictiveness.

A fine example that Leftists and homosexuals can never be entrusted with any sort of authority. They will always abuse it and wield it as a cudgel against any dissent whatso ever.

Have I mentioned that I think she is an attractive Young Lady??

the Dixie Chicks are back stronger than ever

I hate to interrupt your fantasy with hard, cold facts, but do you have any idea how many recordings they’ve sold in the last year compared with the height of their popularity?

Or does “stronger than ever” refer to a personal hygiene problem?

Here’s the difference, Rob: None of the crap the lefties are pulling on Carrie has anything to do with arguing with what she said, which would be a consequence of free speech. Instead, they are attacking her for saying it, which is an attempt to intimidate her from using her free speech rights to state her opinion in defending real marriage. Instead of making an affirmative argument for redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, they are taking shots at the messenger.
Big difference.
Then, there is the homo terrorism that went on in CA to try to overturn the will of the people….

If you scream your leftie hatred in the public square, I can refute what you say; that’s freedom against freedom. If I try to make you stop saying it, instead of making a counter argument, then I’m depriving you of your Constitutional right of free speech.
Get the difference?

I get that you don’t understand the Constitution. Let’s review:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how the first line says “Congress shall make no law…” Violagion of the free speech provision of the first amendment requires government action. If you want to be a strict constructionist it would be only Congress that could infringe on the first amendment, but nobody holds that anymore.

The Dixie Chicks had talent…..what does Prejean have except fake ones?

So the left’s reaction to Prejean is based on what then…she’s too pretty or something?

Are you just playing dumb? They are violently and hatefully unhappy that she spoke for real marriage. Thought that was obvious. They just hate anyone who doesn’t toe their party line. Notice they never make an affirmative argument for the change they want to impose on us.

So? It doesn’t make it a constitutional issue.

Wrong again! The homo activists are trying to deprive her of her Constitutional right to free speech; they’re not making any valid argument against what she said; they’re trying to keep her from saying it by intimidation and smear.
If you scream your leftie hatred in the public square, I can refute what you say; that’s freedom against freedom. If I try to make you stop saying it, instead of making a counter argument, then I’m depriving you of your Constitutional right of free speech.
Get the difference?
You lefties are just so used to getting your way with violence, you just don’t notice what you’re doing anymore.

The government needs to get out of the marrying business.

This is the most idiotic argument that is used in this type of debate. So does that mean that there should be no laws against a man marrying his 13 year-old, autistic daughter? How about a woman marrying her bedridden octogenarian father? Groups of 5 or more people?

Are you trying to argue that the government has no business drawing a morally-based line on what types of relationships it will give legal recognition to? Clearly there is SOME call for government to refuse to endorse certain types of relationships. Where that line is, not whether there should be a line or not, is the debate.

Anyone who takes such an absolutist, simplistic stand on a controversial issue doesn’t really understand the issue. It’s controversial because there isn’t a clear answer. Navtechie, I appreciate your comments about government involvement inciting civil unrest. I quite agree with that point, actually. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t tough issues that require governments to take stands on.

And for the record, before any of you get any ideas about saying I’m equating gay relationships with pedophilia or incest, don’t, because I’m not. The obvious immorality of those types of relationships merely demonstrate my point that some kind of morally-based delineation needs to be legislated. I recognize that gay marriage is in a gray area, and that there are legitimate, respectable arguments to be made for both sides. Once again, that’s why there’s such heated controversy on this issue.

The government needs to get out of the marrying business.

“Marriage” should be a religious arrangement.

Continuous lengthy cohabitation should, absent a contract to the contrary, be a default contract laying out certain rights as would a common-law marriage. Apart from that, the government should have nothing to say.

The controversy over gay marriage should be a lesson to everyone who wants the government to do more in society. With every disagreement there comes a reason for political unrest.

The more government interference you have in a civil society, the less civilized and the less peaceful the society becomes.

As for the first amendment: If you really want to dither about semantics: Congress cannot make laws hindering your free speach, but state legislatures sure can….

Thanks Will,

Oh yes, and this:

How did a fruit get to judge a beauty pageant?

I have a personal anecdote which mercifully had remained hidden in the deep recesses of my mind until this very moment!

Back in the mid-1990′s I had occasion to run into two guys whom I later learned were actually a homo couple (and yes — BOY was I EVER naive! )

There were clues which only later dawned on me as being clues — for instance, their place was decorated not like any guy’s place I had ever been to, but exquisitely decorated, complete with corner-shelf knick-knacks and fragrant plants.

The second clue was that there was a program on TV involving a contest of guys dressed up like Marylin Monroe and other classic female stars. I think another was Judy Garland.

These guys went absolutely giddy when one of the contestants came out and did a very good imitation on stage of how Marilyn minced, grinned and smooched for the camera.

I was not really paying attention and was more mystified than anything else. (Huhhh? )

Later I learned that for many homosexuals, they have a real problem with gender identity.

It’s all that woman-trapped-in-a-man’s-body crap (as opposed to the more aspirational a-woman-trapped-in-my-bedroom thingy)

Could it be a case of VAGINA ENVY????

That does not fall under freedom of speech. Don’t worry by the way, the Dixie Chicks are back stronger than ever esp. with their Grammy win. So those “marginally talented” singers are doing just fine. Hope you’re enjoying political wilderness.

What are you worrying about then? If they are better than ever!!!! then they don’t need you defending them.

http://www.dixiechicks.com/06_ontour.asp

Here’s their 2006 tour schedule! Make sure you go see them!

http://www.frontpagepublicity.com/dixiechicks/

Here’s their latest press release. I’ll give you the highlights!

Not Found

The requested URL /dixiechicks/ was not found on this server.

Your right Micheal! They’re kicking ass!

Character. Moral bravery. Integrity.

Zig,

Its noy much of a surprise that Hannitized didn’t recognize these character traits.

Again, Rob, the “criticism”(a euphemism for intimidation) has been about her saying it, not about the content of what she said.

No, I’m pretty sure it’s because she’s opposed to gay marriage.

Here’s the difference, Rob: None of the crap the lefties are pulling on Carrie has anything to do with arguing with what she said, which would be a consequence of free speech.

So the left’s reaction to Prejean is based on what then…she’s too pretty or something?