BF2S Forums Beccy Cole...awesome video

Excellent...

When any of your celebrities speak out against the war you criticise them for speaking where it isn't their place, yet you think this is just fine

Not that I think it's wrong, but then I don't think there's anything wrong with celebrities expressing political views.

Yeah.  That must have been it, they were terrified and cleverly managed to dodge the backlash .

Bubbalo wrote:

Yeah.  That must have been it, they were terrified and cleverly managed to dodge the backlash

I honestly believe if they had voiced their political views at a venue in the US the backlash would have been less severe. Sure, they may have had people walk out of the concert and what not. Maybe even lost some record sales to boot. But I think the main thing that hurt them was the fact that they made the remarks on foreign soil.



  edit : Said my peace, sorry for the thread hijack.

Last edited by Canin (2007-02-10 20:08:29)

Bubbalo does have a good point here.  It's easy to support the establishment, but speaking out against the government generally provides more room for a backlash.

I don't care for the music of the Dixie Chicks or of this particular woman either, but to each his/her own.

TeamZephyr wrote:

The Australian troops in Iraq ARE NOT diggers.

There's debate about the use of the term, yes.

There are some who feel that the term "digger" is a proper term for any Australian soldier, and some who feel that it is more specific (i.e. veteran, WWI/WWII only, or even only a member of the Gallipoli assault).

Turquoise wrote:

Bubbalo does have a good point here.  It's easy to support the establishment, but speaking out against the government generally provides more room for a backlash.

I don't care for the music of the Dixie Chicks or of this particular woman either, but to each his/her own.

How about sing when you are being paid to sing, not spew your poltical rhetoric.

These celebrities are filthy rich, live in a dream world totally alien to the rest of the world, has no concept of what the real world is like. Oh, except if they fly into Africa on their private jet, step onto a red carpet at the airport and then go cry with a starving child for the cameras. Then back on their jet so they can make cocktails at a fancy London hotspot.

They have no problems telling us what we are supposed to do and think, yet have know idea what problems are. Here is a novel approach, how about you celebrities, instead of wearing a 1.5 million dollar necklace for your red carpet event, telling us all about how we need to dig up land mines in Bum Fuck Egypt, or to have our pets spade or neutered, donate that money to something worth while? Instead of buying drugs and ODing in your hotel room, how about doing some good with it? I worked for a company that catered to the whims of these people and their private jet needs. The stories I could tell you.

Since when does being an actor or a singer give you special political knowledge that is not available to the rest of the world? They can't even keep a marriage together more than 2 years, and want to tell us how to run a country? Thanks, Jessica Simpson, we will take it from here.

Last edited by lowing (2007-02-11 04:17:06)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bubbalo does have a good point here.  It's easy to support the establishment, but speaking out against the government generally provides more room for a backlash.

I don't care for the music of the Dixie Chicks or of this particular woman either, but to each his/her own.

How about sing when you are being paid to sing, not spew your poltical rhetoric.

These celebrities are filthy rich, live in a dream world totally alien to the rest of the world, has no concept of what the real world is like. Oh, except if they fly into Africa on their private jet, step onto a red carpet at the airport and then go cry with a starving child for the cameras. Then back on their jet so they can make cocktails at a fancy London hotspot.

They have no problems telling us what we are supposed to do and think, yet have know idea what problems are. Here is a novel approach, how about you celebrities, instead of wearing a 1.5 million dollar necklace for your red carpet event, telling us all about how we need to dig up land mines in Bum Fuck Egypt, or to have our pets spade or neutered, donate that money to something worth while? Instead of buying drugs and ODing in your hotel room, how about doing some good with it? I worked for a company that catered to the whims of these people and their private jet needs. The stories I could tell you.

Since when does being an actor or a singer give you special political knowledge that is not available to the rest of the world? They can't even keep a marriage together more than 2 years, and want to tell us how to run a country? Thanks, Jessica Simpson, we will take it from here.

I'll put it this way...  Most of what you posted could easily apply to politicians.

At this point, I don't think most Congressmen are any more familiar with the plight of the poor or of the Third World than the average celebrity.  In fact, I'd argue some celebrities probably know more about things like poverty than a lot of politicians, because they actually take the time out to speak with people in troubled areas.

For example, Bono (from U2) might come off as a hypocritical blowhard sometimes, but he's actually gone to the U.N. and lobbied for aid in Darfur.  He spends a lot of time traveling and talking with officials in the region and in the international community.  I dare say he probably knows more about African poverty than Senator Ted Stevens -- the man who apparently once thought the internet was a bunch of tubes.

Not all celebrities are equal, and neither are politicians.

Now, the Dixie Chicks don't strike me as intellectual giants, but it does seem hypocritical for people to support Beccy Cole but blast the Dixie Chicks for doing the same thing: voicing their opinions.

If you want to completely separate entertainment from politics, be my guest, but I think you'll find that some of the best music had political motivations.  Think about how many great songs were created in the 60s and 70s about political issues.  Take, for example, the ideological dialogue between Neil Young's "Southern Man" and Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama."  Both are great songs, but neither would exist without political overtones.

To me, politics and entertainment have always been intertwined.  My suggestion: deal with it, and enjoy some of the better stuff it creates.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-14 18:57:23)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bubbalo does have a good point here.  It's easy to support the establishment, but speaking out against the government generally provides more room for a backlash.

I don't care for the music of the Dixie Chicks or of this particular woman either, but to each his/her own.

How about sing when you are being paid to sing, not spew your poltical rhetoric.

These celebrities are filthy rich, live in a dream world totally alien to the rest of the world, has no concept of what the real world is like. Oh, except if they fly into Africa on their private jet, step onto a red carpet at the airport and then go cry with a starving child for the cameras. Then back on their jet so they can make cocktails at a fancy London hotspot.

They have no problems telling us what we are supposed to do and think, yet have know idea what problems are. Here is a novel approach, how about you celebrities, instead of wearing a 1.5 million dollar necklace for your red carpet event, telling us all about how we need to dig up land mines in Bum Fuck Egypt, or to have our pets spade or neutered, donate that money to something worth while? Instead of buying drugs and ODing in your hotel room, how about doing some good with it? I worked for a company that catered to the whims of these people and their private jet needs. The stories I could tell you.

Since when does being an actor or a singer give you special political knowledge that is not available to the rest of the world? They can't even keep a marriage together more than 2 years, and want to tell us how to run a country? Thanks, Jessica Simpson, we will take it from here.

I'll put it this way...  Most of what you posted could easily apply to politicians.

At this point, I don't think most Congressmen are any more familiar with the plight of the poor or of the Third World than the average celebrity.  In fact, I'd argue some celebrities probably know more about things like poverty than a lot of politicians, because they actually take the time out to speak with people in troubled areas.

For example, Bono (from U2) might come off as a hypocritical blowhard sometimes, but he's actually gone to the U.N. and lobbied for aid in Darfur.  He spends a lot of time traveling and talking with officials in the region and in the international community.  I dare say he probably knows more about African poverty than Senator Ted Stevens -- the man who apparently once thought the internet was a bunch of tubes.

Not all celebrities are equal, and neither are politicians.

Now, the Dixie Chicks don't strike me as intellectual giants, but it does seem hypocritical for people to support Beccy Cole but blast the Dixie Chicks for doing the same thing: voicing their opinions.

If you want to completely separate entertainment from politics, be my guest, but I think you'll find that some of the best music had political motivations.  Think about how many great songs were created in the 60s and 70s about political issues.  Take, for example, the ideological dialogue between Neil Young's "Southern Man" and Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama."  Both are great songs, but neither would exist without political overtones.

To me, politics and entertainment have always been intertwined.  My suggestion: deal with it, and enjoy some of the better stuff it creates.

Yer right, however those political songs were not forced on a captive audiance, they were heard by people who wanted to listen to them.

I di not discriminate against anti vs. pro war or anything else, I say if you are paid to sing, or act, do JUST that. It is unfair to FORCE feed your opinion on an audiance that did not pay to hear your ill-informed opinion on anything.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'll put it this way...  Most of what you posted could easily apply to politicians.

At this point, I don't think most Congressmen are any more familiar with the plight of the poor or of the Third World than the average celebrity.  In fact, I'd argue some celebrities probably know more about things like poverty than a lot of politicians, because they actually take the time out to speak with people in troubled areas.

For example, Bono (from U2) might come off as a hypocritical blowhard sometimes, but he's actually gone to the U.N. and lobbied for aid in Darfur.  He spends a lot of time traveling and talking with officials in the region and in the international community.  I dare say he probably knows more about African poverty than Senator Ted Stevens -- the man who apparently once thought the internet was a bunch of tubes.

Not all celebrities are equal, and neither are politicians.

Now, the Dixie Chicks don't strike me as intellectual giants, but it does seem hypocritical for people to support Beccy Cole but blast the Dixie Chicks for doing the same thing: voicing their opinions.

If you want to completely separate entertainment from politics, be my guest, but I think you'll find that some of the best music had political motivations.  Think about how many great songs were created in the 60s and 70s about political issues.  Take, for example, the ideological dialogue between Neil Young's "Southern Man" and Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama."  Both are great songs, but neither would exist without political overtones.

To me, politics and entertainment have always been intertwined.  My suggestion: deal with it, and enjoy some of the better stuff it creates.

Yer right, however those political songs were not forced on a captive audiance, they were heard by people who wanted to listen to them.

I di not discriminate against anti vs. pro war or anything else, I say if you are paid to sing, or act, do JUST that. It is unfair to FORCE feed your opinion on an audiance that did not pay to hear your ill-informed opinion on anything.

To clarify, are you suggesting that entertainers shouldn't rant politically unless it's in a single on the radio or MTV?

I guess what I'm getting at is that a captive audience is somewhat vaguely defined.  I can see what you mean if you pay for a ticket to a concert for an artist that has never been political about things in the past.  However, if you buy a ticket for say...  a Bruce Springsteen concert, then you can expect him to say at least a few political things while on stage.  If you bought a ticket to a Dixie Chicks concert and were offended by their politics during the show, then I guess you weren't listening to what they've been saying over the last few years.

In short, with some entertainers, politics are par for the course, and no one attending their shows should be offended by political content -- they should know beforehand what they are getting into.

In the case of artists with no previous political controversies, I can see what you mean though.

I think it is humorous that when the Dixie Chicks won their 3 grammies the other night they made a comment as to the "freedom of speech" aspects of the awards they recieved that night. As if they were redeemed. Seems to me they forgot about the "freedom of speech" spoken by the millions of EX-fans of theirs who refused to buy their albums. I wonder which "freedom of speech" was exercised to greater effect.

They still will suffer lost fan base and ticket sales.