1
   

Dixie Chicks withdraw apology to Bush

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 07:20 am
I thought we were discussing their guts...
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 07:42 am
McGentrix wrote:
I thought we were discussing their guts...



Mark this day down. Mcg scores with a witticism.

BTW after the latest publicity, I bought Wide Open Spaces to support them. I wound up loving that CD and now, they and Maná are my favorite groups and I have three of their CDs. All the buzz over the boycott is a publicist's dream. Especially when the people being talked about have real talent. I would love to see them when they come to Oakland in September.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 08:12 am
VNN, " Those girls are beauties as anyone with eyes can see." It takes one to know one pal.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:13 pm
Thanks, Blue Flame!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jul, 2006 11:45 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Natalie Maines is the ex-"fat one."

Tico(she's the one in the middle)Maya


Tico(still the misleading one)Maya, your blatant disregard for facts and your relish for tangents is truly a thing of wonder. Why aren't you stridently defending the lady's right to exercise her freedom of speech, especially, ESPECIALLY when she is SOOOO right on.


Once again, the Mirror headline springs to mind;

"How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb".
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 04:18 am
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Natalie Maines is the ex-"fat one."

Tico(she's the one in the middle)Maya


Tico(still the misleading one)Maya, your blatant disregard for facts and your relish for tangents is truly a thing of wonder. Why aren't you stridently defending the lady's right to exercise her freedom of speech, especially, ESPECIALLY when she is SOOOO right on.


Once again, the Mirror headline springs to mind;

"How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb".


Nobody has said she didnt have the right to exercise her freedom of speech.
That does not mean that there arent consequences for her because of what she said.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 04:29 am
Quote:
Nobody has said she didnt have the right to exercise her freedom of speech.
That does not mean that there arent consequences for her because of what she said.


Including death threats from people who are threatened by anyone actually exercising their freedom of speech if they stray from the official authoritarian line.


Joe(Way to go, patriots.)Nation
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 12:13 pm
mysteryman wrote:


Nobody has said she didnt have the right to exercise her freedom of speech.
That does not mean that there arent consequences for her because of what she said.


Another bot sent out with marching orders.

Quote:


Not Ready to Make Nice - Dixie Chicks

"It's a sad sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge that they'd write me a letter sayin' that I better shut up and sing or my life will be over"



I don't recall seeing any of these "robot convenience defenders of free speech" decrying this type of behavior. Even here, MM shows his true colors. He no more believes in freedom of speech than he believes in the tooth fairy.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 12:24 pm
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Natalie Maines is the ex-"fat one."

Tico(she's the one in the middle)Maya


Tico(still the misleading one)Maya, your blatant disregard for facts and your relish for tangents is truly a thing of wonder.


What facts am I disregarding? On the contrary, all I've done is point out that Maines is the Dixie Chick who's belt size used to be a lot bigger. As I recall there was some question about which one used to be fat, and I was just trying to be helpful.

Quote:
Why aren't you stridently defending the lady's right to exercise her freedom of speech, especially, ESPECIALLY when she is SOOOO right on.


Please point out where I have said anything that would lead you to believe I am anything but strident in my belief that she as the right to exercise her freedom of speech. She has as much right to say what she wants, and to gain as much weight as she wants, or to lose as much weight as she wants, as I do to not buy her albums.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 12:36 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


What facts am I disregarding?



This has got to be the funniest thing that I've ever read. It has been pointed out, time and again, just how blatantly you disregard facts. What you are is a blatant purveyor of deception.

The bumper sticker might well have read;

TICOMAYA, BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 12:56 pm
Umm, She had a baby last year as did the other two gals, so I guess if you dislike pregnant women you might call her "fat." Or "Fat for 9 months or so."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 01:35 pm
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:


What facts am I disregarding?



This has got to be the funniest thing that I've ever read. It has been pointed out, time and again, just how blatantly you disregard facts. What you are is a blatant purveyor of deception.

The bumper sticker might well have read;

TICOMAYA, BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM


I am pointing out right now, to you, that it appears you are incapable of enunciating the facts you claim I was disregarding, and that you opted instead to make a general slur against me, which has proven to be your first resort at this site, and the primary reason I usually choose to not feed the troll when you post.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 01:39 pm
Vietnamnurse wrote:
Umm, She had a baby last year as did the other two gals, so I guess if you dislike pregnant women you might call her "fat." Or "Fat for 9 months or so."


You will note that I did not refer to the other two gals as "ex-'fat'", so you might conclude that my observation is unrelated to the fact of her pregnancy.

Do you prefer the term "big-boned"? What about "pudgy"? "Pug-faced"?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 01:47 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


I am pointing out right now, to you, that it appears you are incapable of enunciating the facts you claim I was disregarding, and that you opted instead to make a general slur against me, which has proven to be your first resort at this site, and the primary reason I usually choose to not feed the troll when you post.


The truth cannot be a slur, Tico. Whether it's the pointed disception or the sneaky tangents of this thread you disparage yourself with this blind devotion to liars and murderers.

It wouldn't be so bad even if there was some middle ground for you.

But there's just no facing the truth for you. Blind devotion is not patriotism. Turning a blind eye to America's wrongs is precisely the same as those who turned a blind eye to the Nazis' wrongs.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 01:54 pm
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:


I am pointing out right now, to you, that it appears you are incapable of enunciating the facts you claim I was disregarding, and that you opted instead to make a general slur against me, which has proven to be your first resort at this site, and the primary reason I usually choose to not feed the troll when you post.


The truth cannot be a slur, Tico. Whether it's the pointed disception or the sneaky tangents of this thread you disparage yourself with this blind devotion to liars and murderers.

It wouldn't be so bad even if there was some middle ground for you.

But there's just no facing the truth for you. Blind devotion is not patriotism. Turning a blind eye to America's wrongs is precisely the same as those who turned a blind eye to the Nazis' wrongs.


And still you have no "facts" to present.

You waltz into this thread with the obvious intent to attack me, level a charge against me that I'm disregarding facts, but you have nothing to back it up, and you have the gall to call me a "purveyor of deception."

You're nothing but a troll.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 01:59 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


You're nothing but a troll.


Well, I seemed to have hooked one humongous bottom feeder, Tico. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 02:02 pm
JTT wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:


You're nothing but a troll.


Well, I seemed to have hooked one humongous bottom feeder, Tico. Smile


http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/821/150pxdonotfeedtrollsvgpo4.png
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 03:07 pm
This is what right wing nuts do. This is what they partake of, sometimes thru tangential diversions, sometimes blatantly. If you're not part of a solution seeking to stop the lying, then you're part of the problem.

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 03:14 pm
JTT wrote:
This is what right wing nuts do. This is what they partake of, sometimes thru tangential diversions, sometimes blatantly. If you're not part of a solution seeking to stop the lying, then you're part of the problem.

Quote:

Rightwingnuts are en-force in doing whatever they can in dishing out the disinformation and denial. And here's a classic example how stupid some of these wingnuts are even in Congress:

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/DeGette.jpghttp://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/Melissa-Hart-PA.jpg

Quote:
Hart: I thank the gentleman from Ohio for alloting me time to speak in favor of sustaining the President's veto. It's been a year since this House passed the Castle-Degette bill. In that year, science-not Hollywood-has helped us to debunk the myth of a promise for embryonic stem cell research. Hollywood supports it. Science created fraudulent experiments. Before last year's vote, they made arguments supporting embryonic stem cell research. They were coming fast and furious from our colleagues. During the debate in the Senate, the same arguments came. They cited Dr. Wong Wuk Suk of South Korea and his research. Supporters of his research said that he had cloned a human embryo; that he had found a way to produce embryonic stem cell lines that could be done routinely and efficiently. What happened later?

All of his research was debunked. The ethics of his research were called into question. It was revealed that his publications were faked, his experiments were unsuccessful, and the treatment of their egg donors as ethically grossly appalling. Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject embryonic stem cell research as the science is not there. Since it is successful in treating patients using adult stem cells, and cord blood stem cells which we agreed to fund and the President signed and I believe we should support that and I yield back.

DeGetter: Of course the gentle-lady from Pennsylvania refers to the South Korea experiment which was not embryonic stem cell research rather it was somatic cell nuclear transfer, not at issue today…

No wonder Congress can't get anything done, as they push back time by debating gays, flags, and GOP junk science.

Unbelievably pathetic.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 03:27 pm
More of the same BS. Did these people all learn to shovel this "Right smack in the middle of the heartland" under Tico's tutelage? Smile

Quote:


The truth envelope please.[/[/size]

[quote]

But a look at U.S. Census data (Table 647) shows that not only is the income gap still widening, but African-Americans are faring worse under Bush than they were under President Clinton.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 12:27:29