Blogcritics Comments on The Dixie Chicks' deep political thought

Comment by CH

Sun, 14 May 2006 22:06:49 EDT

I don't have time to read all these comments, but wow are there alot of them. Many opposing and some for Miss Dixie. Many people say "why are people so pissed about someone dissing Mr. W Bush? and everyone got away with dissing Mr. Clinton?' Because Mr. Clinton got a little too carried away in office, he couldn't wait to get out of his chair to get a little wang tang at home.. so he got some in office.. he made the white house look like a porn house. That's why. Mr. Bush is trying to save and protect this Country.. I'm proud to have voted for him and not had our country gone down hill with kerry. The reason people were so uproared about this comment is because in her intentions to be opposed to war she bashed one person who leads this country. One person that holds what I consider to have the most responsibilities and stress.. I think he's done what was right. I have many friends that are still in Iraq and I talk to them sometimes. I've had friends who died in this war. So don't try to come up with a comment saying that I don't know whats going on.

Comment by Joe

Sat, 2 Aug 2003 02:53:59 EDT

Have you considered getting a blog?

Comment by Don

Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:58:15 EDT

"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - George Bush, 10/8/02 "This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."- George Bush, 9/28/02 "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." - George Bush, National Radio Address, 9/14/02 "Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." - George Bush, speech to U.N., 9/12/02 "The intelligence community also had high confidence in the judgment that, and I quote, 'Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material,' end quote." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 7/23/03 Umm... comments, anyone? (I got dibs on "Where did they get the drugs?")

Comment by Don

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 23:12:01 EDT

You still have not challenged any of the lies I've pointed out, and keep trying to pretend that Clinton being bad automatically makes Bush good. It was a lie and he knew it was a lie. Call it "spin" if you want, but it's still a lie. If "liar" doesn't fit him well, how come you don't dispute his long history of lying? Clinton is irrelevant. He's no longer in office and barred from running again. So stick with the present.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:58:28 EDT

You good Democrat commies are really fixated on trying to tag that word "liar" on Dubya, when it really doesn't fit him well. Do you think that somehow this will excuse the real felony lies of the previous POTUS? This deficit thing makes a good example of where you lose out. That's not particularly LYING, but just spinning away as politicians do. When you start on that he's "lying" about the deficit, you lose me. Whereas if you came at it as simply saying that he's running through money like it was water, you'd have a perfectly legitimate point. Jebus H Criminy, but Dubya and these Republicans are so anxious to prove their "compassion" that they're spending money faster than Clinton and the Democrats in congress ever did. You get so anxious to personally villify Bush with your politics of personal destruction that you lose out on being able to make perfectly legitimate political criticism.

Comment by Don

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:53:10 EDT

Another lie: Bush just tried to explain the deficit projections by saying that he was spending enough to win the war. Where's the lie? The projections do not include the cost of the war. Lie after lie after lie from the "trustworthy" usurper.

Comment by Don

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:56:41 EDT

read this

Comment by don

Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:33:52 EDT

Sorry, the text came from Eric Alterman at Altercation on MSNBC.com 00000000000000000000000000000000000 And that came from my cat.

Comment by Don

Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:57:55 EDT

"totally baseless charge that Bush lied us into a war"? This would have been the appropriate text for the state of the union: "Saddam Hussein has no nuclear-weapons program. He has destroyed most of his weapons of mass destruction. He has no ties with al-Qaida, nor, insofar as we can determine, with any other major terrorist group, and even the CIA can't pin anything on him for at least a decade. He's a bad guy, to be sure, but one of many in the world, and we've used his badness when we thought it convenient. Hell, Don Rumsfeld even paid him a visit as Ronald Reagan's private emissary and didn't find time to mention it. " Now, if he didn't lie, how come not one, and I do mean NOT ONE, of his prewar assertions is true? Is he just a mouthpiece for someone else?

Comment by Don

Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:29:09 EDT

Speaking of pathological, why do you keep bringing up Clinton? He's not the issue, and pretending that him being bad makes Bush good is a less than a convincing argument.

Comment by Don

Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:25:04 EDT

Once again, Al, you refuse to adress the issue. I used the DUI and Flight physical as examples of a long history of lies. You have picked one that you can dismiss as unimportant and pretend that that's the end of the discussion. You are absolutely right about lies and moral behavior. We've all done things of which we are less than proud. I'm not aware of any politician who hasn't proven to have skeletons in his/her closet. The point remains, though, that Bush is not trustworthy. He is demonstrably fast and loose with the truth and refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions.

Comment by Don

Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:24:01 EDT

Comment by Natalie

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:49:30 EDT

I don't understand that either. Clinton's blowjob lie was disgusting. Shrub's lie/mistake/crack-fueled delusion (it's a joke, GOPers!) is infinitely worse.

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:34:19 EDT

Natalie, back up in #131 you suggest admitting that Bush has lied. Well, sometime in life, yes. We're all liars. I've lied, I'd bet you've lied- for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. However, that's not really the point. There's a HUGE difference between Bush not being forthcoming about that stupid DUI versus Clinton lying under oath in front of a federal grand jury, much less the totally baseless charges that Bush was "lying us into a war." As politicians go, Bush appears to be an exceptionally honest and sincere guy. This is very much unlike Bill Clinton, to whom the name "pathological liar" might reasonably fit- as it would with Richard Nixon, certainly. Again, I did not vote for Bush, and don't intend to next year. Nonetheless, I'll give him points for trying to stay pretty close to the straight and narrow. He's probably the most honest president of my lifetime. Maybe you can give me some insight into what is wrong with these other people who have such ridiculous pathological hatred of the president. Why can't they say that Dubya is a good and well-intentioned person sincerely trying to protect the country- even if they think he's wrongheaded in how he's approaching the problem?

Comment by Don

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:53:41 EDT

I appreciate that. I know that I sometimes cross the line as I am passionate about politics and government. But what do you mean "alternatives or information"? An alternative is anybody but Bush. McCain would have been a good choice and we wouldn't have had the Florida debacle. I believe that he would've won outright. Information? Sorry, thought that's what I was providing. Once I figure out how to put hyperlinks in here, I'd be happy to direct you to evidence on which I've based my assertions. But since no one has actually challenged any of them (not one of the identified lies in my "ad nauseum" posts), I figure that they pretty much know that the assertions have been proven. As for "Ad hominim" attacks, I've certainly tried to stick with assertions that are factually based - the opposite of an "ad hominim" argument. Al's most recent post was completely ad hominim. He dismissed my assertions and attacked me instead. I'll admit (as above) I've made some comments that were less than gracious, but the focus of my posts has been Bush's lies, not personal attacks on other posters. I contend that I believe everything that I've said about Bush is true and there is evidence to support (or prove) my assertions. Again, not "ad hominum". Thanks Natalie! You are right. Clinton lied. He also did other incredibly stupid things. However, I have trouble understanding how lying about a blow job is a horrible crime, while lying us into a war is "a little of nothing".

Comment by Joe

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:22:18 EDT

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting. I'm trying to invoke Clinton without invoking Clinton, ok? It's like the people that demonized Clinton, at a certain point, passed the threshold of having a healthy dislike into a rabid hatred. You tend to lose credibility once you reach that point, which, it seems to me, is where Don is at. I was merely stating my opinion, not fact. I've noticed some folks have difficulty discerning between the two.

Comment by Natalie

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:00:03 EDT

Perhaps he keeps going on ad nauseum because he has proven that Shrub lies and some people would rather insult him than admit the truth: Yes, Dubya has lied. Democrats (I am not one, but know plenty of them) certainly admit that Slick Willie lied. Just admit it, and perhaps Don will have no more need to, as you put it, spew.

Comment by Joe

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:47:20 EDT

Don - In case you hadn't noticed, people have been dogging Bush for 2+ years with little effect. Until you're willing to provide some useful alternatives or information, spewing about Bush is, at best, merely ad hominem attack(not broadly considered the highest form of discourse), at worst, reminiscent of a nutjob muttering to himself in the street.

Comment by Don

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:27:42 EDT

oh, yeah. The DUI thing? He lied in '99, not 30 years ago. And he lied about his military career in '99, too. I was pointing out the lies, not the acts. You know, the lies that he hasn't told? You know, the lies that you won't address? The fact that you tried to dismiss that actions rather than address the lies suggests that you're having a problem refuting them. (Suposedly didn't take? It's a matter of public record, Al. Military documents and everything.) You'll have to do a lot better than that. As for Clinton? The issue here is Bush. Focus! Bush.

Comment by Don

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:11:06 EDT

Clinton who? Aren't we talking about Bush? What happened to: However, I haven't seen even ONE clear cut lie from the Bush White House. You still haven't addressed the lies. We're not talking about Clinton. We're talking about Bush. Remember? He hasn't told any lies? How come you won't adress that? How come you won't tell me which threats he has protected us from? Oh, yes... Remember 9/11? The outgoing Clinton administration turned over an intelligence report that Bin Lauden was seeking to use passenger planes as weapons. That's something that we weren't protected from. Attacking Clinton doesn't excuse Bush. Are you a fan of moral relativism? When you told your mom "he did it first!", did it work for you?

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:33:37 EDT

Seriously. President Bush has the actual serious responsibility of protecting us from evil bastards trying to kill us. Yet you are so pathologically devoted to cheap hatred that you have nothing better to focus on than some half-assed argument over some physical he supposedly didn't take 30 years ago, or him being loathe to admit to that very marginal DUI. You'd overlook all Clinton's real felonies, but condemn Bush over a little of nothing. Take some of this nonsense up with your shrink, but you can leave me out of it.

Comment by Don

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:14:15 EDT

Um... Al? Are you out of your cave? Here's another. Seems young Lt. Bush failed to get a flight physical. Failed for some time, actually. This resulted in getting him grounded. (He claims that tax revenue is really "our money". I'd like a refund of the million plus that taxpayers spent on training the young slacker.) Now, he has given several stories about why he didn't get one. Initially, he said that he couldn't get from Alabama to Texas to see his personal physician. This is a lie. A flight physical must be administered by a military doctor. When this was pointed out, he said that he didn't have access to a qualified military physician. Now let's see... He was a pilot. He was in an aviation unit. All pilots must get annual flight physicals. Now how would one get this physical (assuming you believe that an aviation unit didn't have it's own flight surgeon.) Hmm... they are pilots. They have jet airplanes. No one in the unit could fly if they couldn't get physicals. Are you getting my drift? This also was a lie. Well, Al? Is it sticking? 'Cause that WMD shit isn't. He is a serial liar. He is a pathological liar. And an embarassment.

Comment by Don

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:16:39 EDT

As for throwing the word "lies" and making it stick, maybe I'll try it. It sure worked for WMD's. And if they had "absolute proof" of their existance and they "know where they are", how come they can't find any? Could it be because they lied? How about Rumsfelds claim they hadn't relied any any new intelligence to make their case? They cited ongoing weapons programs. They said they knew where production facilities were. Rumsfeld said that they believed that the Iraqi's had reconstituted nuclear weapons. Now there's a lie in there somewhere. Current information has to be based on current intelligence. But they didn't rely on any current intelligence. So where'd the current information come from?

Comment by Don

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:06:35 EDT

I'm back! How about Bush's claim (during the campaign) that he had never been arrested? When documents showing that he'd been arrested for drunken driving were released, his excuse was that he was trying to protect his family. Evidently lying about your past is a republican family value.

Comment by Don

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:46:37 EDT

Thanks, Doc! I just assumed that when even O'Reilly admits it, pretty much everyone would. Here's another one: Bush told the Polish media that we had found the WMD. (He just forgot to tell us.) And another: Bush said that he had not enaged in insider stock trading while on the board of Harken Energy, as he didn't know that a restatement of earnings was pending. (He was only an auditor for the Board of Directors - why would he know?) Late last year, he released a memo from corporate coucil warning board members that if they sold stock while the restatement was pending, they could trigger an insider trading investigation. The memo should have been turned over to the SEC 12 years earlier. I have to go to work, but I could go on all day.