Note to women:No matter how bad you mess up you can always get naked.

[Merlin]

Dixie Chicks Pose Nude to Answer Critics (http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=antiwar_movement)

Dixie Chicks Pose Nude to Answer Critics
(Reuters) - The Dixie Chicks appear nude on the cover of a weekly showbiz magazine in a defiant answer to a backlash over their opposition to the war in Iraq. Thursday's New York Post newspaper carried a reproduction of the Entertainment Weekly magazine picture in which the Grammy-award winning women wore only contradictory slogans painted on their bodies, including "Opinionated," "Traitors," "Saddam's Angels," "Dixie Sluts," and "Proud Americans." "It's not about the nakedness," the Post quotes band member Martie Maguire as saying. "It's about clothes getting in the way of labels."

Do you want to know more? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030424/music_nm/music_dixiechicks_dc_8)


http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030423/capt.1051133564.dixie_chicks_ny123.jpg

--------------------------------------------------

Nothing quite like nudity to rebuild a tarnished image. :hihi:

[zenbooty]

I thought this was great, but the statement, "It's about clothes getting in the way of labels," sounds really, uh, out there. What's that statement even mean? And what's it got to do with the Dixie Chick situation.

Nice bods, anyway :D . Now if only they's do a threesome for Hustler...

[whitak24]

Originally posted by zenbooty
the statement, "It's about clothes getting in the way of labels," sounds really, uh, out there. What's that statement even mean? And what's it got to do with the Dixie Chick situation.
when i read the article on yahoo this morning, i thought the same thing. oh well....it's obvious that she isn't the most articulate person in the world, at least when she's speaking live :hihi:

they are pretty hot though :naughty:

[nickel]

eh, they are just trying something radical to save face.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by nickelback
eh, they are just trying something radical to save face. Hmm, save face by giving up everything else? I like it!

[nickel]

they are trying to get ppl to forgive/forget about what they've said and focus on their wordy nakedness

[topane]

Originally posted by nickelback
eh, they are just trying something radical to save face. Save face? They're not exactly suffering. (http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/country.jsp)

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by nickelback
eh, they are just trying something radical to save face.

I agree. Although, I too like nekkid, it still won't make me forget that they are dumb biotches.

[Grimm]

Brava! Brava to the brave women who say what they think about the president and the war. This whole Big Brother crap has got to go. People are being ostracized for having an oppinion that is different from "Our Fearless Leader". This is how you make a statement for real political views.
Thank you for exercizing your free speech, it makes it safer for me to exercize my right to free speech.

BTW I support the war in Iraq.

[Sir_Froggy]

man when I read the thread title, I thought this would be a joke thread, but I guess not.

and :stupid:

[nickel]

Originally posted by chosenfool
is it my eyes or are their skins lightly oiled? it has that silky smooth look to them...

it's called airbrushed, re-touched, or something like that

[revil]

i don't know why they are getting undress. they are probably the ugliest people i have ever seen... excluding nija.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by Grimm
Brava! Brava to the brave women who say what they think about the president and the war. This whole Big Brother crap has got to go. People are being ostracized for having an oppinion that is different from "Our Fearless Leader". This is how you make a statement for real political views.
Thank you for exercizing your free speech, it makes it safer for me to exercize my right to free speech.


Damn Grimm you've been nailing it lately. And I would like to nail each of the Dixie Chicks, no matter how ugly they may seem! :naughty:

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by Grimm
Brava! Brava to the brave women who say what they think about the president and the war. This whole Big Brother crap has got to go. People are being ostracized for having an oppinion that is different from "Our Fearless Leader". This is how you make a statement for real political views.
Thank you for exercizing your free speech, it makes it safer for me to exercize my right to free speech.

BTW I support the war in Iraq.

Free speech is a good thing and people can say whatever they want no matter how stupid. BUT if you say something be prepared to face the consequences. Just as they have the right of free speech I have the right to boycott their crap IF I don't like what they say.

And by the way I don't think they are brave I think they are trying to use sex (i.e their nudity) to couteract the effects of what they said.

[nickel]

Originally posted by guiseppewv


Free speech is a good thing and people can say whatever they want no matter how stupid. BUT if you say something be prepared to face the consequences. Just as they have the right of free speech I have the right to boycott their crap IF I don't like what they say.

And by the way I don't think they are brave I think they are trying to use sex (i.e their nudity) to couteract the effects of what they said.

Damn guiseppewv you've been nailing it lately. :thumbup:

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Grimm
Brava! Brava to the brave women who say what they think about the president and the war. This whole Big Brother crap has got to go. People are being ostracized for having an oppinion that is different from "Our Fearless Leader". This is how you make a statement for real political views.
Thank you for exercizing your free speech, it makes it safer for me to exercize my right to free speech.

BTW I support the war in Iraq.


i disagree. this has nothing to do with "big brother." has the government said one thing to the dixie chicks? i'm not aware of it if they have. this has to do with them pissing off their client base by saying they're ashamed of our president, in a foreign country, during a time of war. that's bs. and nobody's telling them they can't say what they said. they are just going to have to face the consequential decrease or increase of support that comes with using their stardom to make a statement.

it ticks me off that people like the dixie chicks, tim robbins, etc., are whining about their first amendment rights being trampled on because people don't want to listen to them. the first amendment says that the GOVERNMENT won't impede your right to free speech. it doesn't say that i have to continually listen to your sh$t, buy your records, or watch your movies if you tick me off with your ranting and publicity whoring. i can boycott anyone i want. that's not an imposition on anyone's free speech.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd



i disagree. this has nothing to do with "big brother." has the government said one thing to the dixie chicks? i'm not aware of it if they have. this has to do with them pissing off their client base by saying they're ashamed of our president, in a foreign country, during a time of war. that's bs. and nobody's telling them they can't say what they said. they are just going to have to face the consequential decrease or increase of support that comes with using their stardom to make a statement.

it ticks me off that people like the dixie chicks, tim robbins, etc., are whining about their first amendment rights being trampled on because people don't want to listen to them. the first amendment says that the GOVERNMENT won't impede your right to free speech. it doesn't say that i have to continually listen to your sh$t, buy your records, or watch your movies if you tick me off with your ranting and publicity whoring. i can boycott anyone i want. that's not an imposition on anyone's free speech.

Bingo!!!!!:D Good post. :thumbup:

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by nickelback


Damn guiseppewv you've been nailing it lately. :thumbup:

Thanks!!!:cool: :D

[nickel]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd



i disagree. this has nothing to do with "big brother." has the government said one thing to the dixie chicks? i'm not aware of it if they have. this has to do with them pissing off their client base by saying they're ashamed of our president, in a foreign country, during a time of war. that's bs. and nobody's telling them they can't say what they said. they are just going to have to face the consequential decrease or increase of support that comes with using their stardom to make a statement.

it ticks me off that people like the dixie chicks, tim robbins, etc., are whining about their first amendment rights being trampled on because people don't want to listen to them. the first amendment says that the GOVERNMENT won't impede your right to free speech. it doesn't say that i have to continually listen to your sh$t, buy your records, or watch your movies if you tick me off with your ranting and publicity whoring. i can boycott anyone i want. that's not an imposition on anyone's free speech.

damn, you guys are so good!

[eSDee]

So you all are in agreement then that they can say what they want, right? So get over it.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco
So you all are in agreement then that they can say what they want, right? So get over it. I think we all agree that they may continue to prance about nude, and should start making their videos in the nude, too (preferably hardcore videos :D )

[Joshua]

I say they should all get nekkid and let George W. have his way with them (even in the "bad" place!) then I'll forgive them for bashing the U.S. on foreign soil.

[Merlin]

I think that it is great that celebs feel the need to be critical of things, particularly the government, but get very indignant when people are critical of them.

What's that old saying again? "What's good for the goose is nobody else's business but the gander." :D

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by SnotRocket
I say they should all get nekkid and let George W. have his way with them (even in the "bad" place!) then I'll forgive them for bashing the U.S. on foreign soil. I have a better idea. Why don't they get nekkid and let ME have MY way with them, and after that I can bash George W. on foreign soil. Yeah. I'd like that a lot, I darn well would.

[nickel]

Originally posted by zenbooty
I have a better idea. Why don't they get nekkid and let ME have MY way with them, and after that I can bash George W. on foreign soil. Yeah. I'd like that a lot, I darn well would.

for you zenbooty

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/warprotest.jpg

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by nickelback


for you zenbooty

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/warprotest.jpg Nice pick, but you'd think they'd shave for it, given their message :heh:

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Nice pick, but you'd think they'd shave for it, given their message :heh:

I was hoping that's what they were talking about when they said "No Bush". :D

[Jabberwocky]

I don't think they are being unfairly ostracize for having their own opinion. You can say what you want about anything in America but people are given the right to think and say what they what about you. It's hypocritical to cry foul when other people are simply exercising their right to free speech in response to your exercise of free speech.

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Nice pick, but you'd think they'd shave for it, given their message :heh:

I think we should get together and start a "say no to bush" campain. Shave America.

[Sir_Froggy]

From my viewpoint, it seems that this whole contreversy with the Dixie Chicks is sort of like the Red Scare with McCarthy. Some people say their mind ie. they are Communist, then everyone avoids them, and doesn't hire them etc. Not that this has really got to as extreme of a level of McCarthy, but still, it reminds me of that era.

Even though they aren't completely out of money, they still will have lost a pretty big part of their support, which helps provide for them and keep them alive etc. So yeah, this just popped in my mind when I was reading these posts.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
From my viewpoint, it seems that this whole contreversy with the Dixie Chicks is sort of like the Red Scare with McCarthy. Some people say their mind ie. they are Communist, then everyone avoids them, and doesn't hire them etc. Not that this has really got to as extreme of a level of McCarthy, but still, it reminds me of that era.

Even though they aren't completely out of money, they still will have lost a pretty big part of their support, which helps provide for them and keep them alive etc. So yeah, this just popped in my mind when I was reading these posts.

You're pretty smart for a little dude :P

[sbp]

These celebs think their views are so great and oh so worthy of acclaim but don't like any critiquing of those views.

Wonder if they were ashamed of the last nitwit in office.

Yeah like this latest move by the Dixie Hicks is a sure fire way to let the controversy {which they supposely abhor} die down. http://www.pcabusers.net/forums/images/smilies/smackme.gif

[Sir_Froggy]

haha

nice we're on the way to the top

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
From my viewpoint, it seems that this whole contreversy with the Dixie Chicks is sort of like the Red Scare with McCarthy. Some people say their mind ie. they are Communist, then everyone avoids them, and doesn't hire them etc. Not that this has really got to as extreme of a level of McCarthy, but still, it reminds me of that era.

Even though they aren't completely out of money, they still will have lost a pretty big part of their support, which helps provide for them and keep them alive etc. So yeah, this just popped in my mind when I was reading these posts.


NO WAY! The Red Scare was state sponsored!!! This is just pissed off citizens and fans not liking what the Dixie Chicks said and saying so with their music choices and dollars. That also is an excercise of our freedom of speech and should be respected as much some celebrity spouting off about how the war is for oil and how tons of innocent children are dying.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd



NO WAY! The Red Scare was state sponsored!!! This is just pissed off citizens and fans not liking what the Dixie Chicks said and saying so with their music choices and dollars. That also is an excercise of our freedom of speech and should be respected as much some celebrity spouting off about how the war is for oil and how tons of innocent children are dying.

I agree, score one for people who actually know something about history.

[Sir_Froggy]

Notice I didn't say exactly, said "sort of like"

And I think people on this board do know something about history. Not only you went to school.

Also, cheapbast@rd, yes the Red Scare was state sponsored, but it almost seems to be the same thing. Different as in the state messing people's lives up, yes, but still lives are being changed quite a lot from the effect of what they believe and what they think is right and saying it publicly. Same process no, same idea yes.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Yossarian
froggy, you've got some new found respect from me with your posts here. granted, i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but i AM going to be a history teacher, so i know a little. the way you've presented yourself is f*cking awesome! good to know some people our age are capable of smartness :D

you want him, dontcha? ;)

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
Notice I didn't say exactly, said "sort of like"

And I think people on this board do know something about history. Not only you went to school.

Also, cheapbast@rd, yes the Red Scare was state sponsored, but it almost seems to be the same thing. Different as in the state messing people's lives up, yes, but still lives are being changed quite a lot from the effect of what they believe and what they think is right and saying it publicly. Same process no, same idea yes.

i still would vehemently disagree! the dixie chicks used their concert as a platform to express their beliefs. they proactively initiated the situation.
nobody came to them and said, "hey, we heard that you might be against the bush administration and therefore we are not going to buy your cds anymore. plus, we're going to take you before congress and threaten to throw you in jail!" do some research on the red scare and see how bad it really was. it was ridiculous!

they said out loud, in a concert, "WE ARE ASHAMED OF THE PRESIDENT." nobody is accusing them of anything else. and i resent the fact that people are acting like i'm stifling their freedom of speech by not buying their music or wanting to hear it on the radio. that's part of my freedom of speech! nobody is telling the dixie chicks that they didn't have a right to do what they did. it was perfectly legit, legal, constitutional, etc. they just did something that any reasonable person would expect adversely affect the buying/listening habits of their fans. if barbara streisand (sp?) had said it, nobody would have noticed and it wouldn't have effected her income. however, she has a totally different fan base. nobody is telling people that don't listen to ted nugent because of his pro-gun stance, "hey, you're stepping on his first amendment rights go buy his music."

lastly, as to whether or not it should have an impact on their lives, that's just not a reasonable expectation. standing up for something always requires a sacrifice. if you're going to leverage your stardom to make a statement, expect to be affected either adversely or positively. if you're not willing to risk it, you're not really being brave or sincere in your message. you're just trying to get attention like the rest of hollywood.

please note: all of my angst is not directed at you. i'm just ticked at the stupid stars that are always so predictable in their protesting. it's always against fur, war, republicans, guns, not enough money for aids research, etc. "hi, i'm sally cuteface. because i'm good-looking and starred in a movie, i have a better idea of what's best for the country than you ugly peasants. and while you're at home in your shi%%y house watching tv, be sure to catch my radiant face on tv at one of the lakers games. i'll be wearing an al gore pin on my white shirt that says 'no war for oil' with the faux fur collar next to the red ribbon."

why don't they protest against adult illiteracy, poverty in our own country, absentee fathers, the shrinking wages of the lower classes, child obesity, etc. these are real problems that take real answers. no, they're not real popular and won't get you on the front page of time magazine, but they need champions just as badly. /end rant.

[Sir_Froggy]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd


i still would vehemently disagree! the dixie chicks used their concert as a platform to express their beliefs. they proactively initiated the situation.
nobody came to them and said, "hey, we heard that you might be against the bush administration and therefore we are not going to buy your cds anymore. plus, we're going to take you before congress and threaten to throw you in jail!" do some research on the red scare and see how bad it really was. it was ridiculous!


please note: all of my angst is not directed at you.

why don't they protest against adult illiteracy, poverty in our own country, absentee fathers, the shrinking wages of the lower classes, child obesity, etc. these are real problems that take real answers. no, they're not real popular and won't get you on the front page of time magazine, but they need champions just as badly. /end rant.


Yes, I do agree with you that the extent is not as extreme as going with the complete government taking the Dixie Chicks into trial such as in the Red Scare, an extremely "excited" man yelling at you at the stand etc. But still the idea is the same, as said in the previous post, process isn't the same, but idea is. And yes, taking a stand requires sacrifices, but I do think that a person would not really be willing to give up their livelihood just to promote something they care very little about.

Also those problems you listed, I agree with you as well. The only thing is that they have been around a long time already. Not saying that problems that have been for a while should be ignored, but I think that people have sort of become either "desensitized" about it, they have seen it, heard the problem, but after awhile seeing or hearing something repeatedly does make you care less and less.


and the note, I say the same as well. This is simply a discussion board so nothing said in earnest discussion should be taken personally.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy



Yes, I do agree with you that the extent is not as extreme as going with the complete government taking the Dixie Chicks into trial such as in the Red Scare, an extremely "excited" man yelling at you at the stand etc. But still the idea is the same, as said in the previous post, process isn't the same, but idea is. And yes, taking a stand requires sacrifices, but I do think that a person would not really be willing to give up their livelihood just to promote something they care very little about.

Also those problems you listed, I agree with you as well. The only thing is that they have been around a long time already. Not saying that problems that have been for a while should be ignored, but I think that people have sort of become either "desensitized" about it, they have seen it, heard the problem, but after awhile seeing or hearing something repeatedly does make you care less and less.


and the note, I say the same as well. This is simply a discussion board so nothing said in earnest discussion should be taken personally.

I still agree with cheapbast@rd. This isn't the government saying "don't buy their records". The dixie chicks have their right to express their opinions and I have my right to express my opinions. If they do something or say something that I don't agree with then I can take action. My action is to stop listening to their music and to stop buying their albums. Other people have the right to do the same or to do other non-illegal things (i.e. peacful protests, etc...)to show their disdain for what the dixie chicks said.

And I still don't think that the "Red Scare" and what is going on with the dixie chicks is the same. One was state sponsored control(the "Red Scare") and the other is people excercising their right on what music they want to buy and what music they don't want to buy. Just because I don't go to "Joe Blow's" music concert or I don't buy "Joe Blow's" music doesn't mean I am surpressing his rights or doing anything wrong. I can choose not to spend money on "Joe Blow's" music for any number of reasons, ranging from I don't like his music, he is an a$$hole, he supports slavery, etc.... It doesn't matter what the reason is that I decide to not buy someone's music. Among many other more important things, the freedom that we have in the US gives me the ability to choose what music I buy.

If you feel that what is being done to the dixie chicks is something you are against then send the dixie chicks a check to offset all of us that have decided to boycott them or do something else legal to take action to voice your opinion.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
Yes, I do agree with you that the extent is not as extreme as going with the complete government taking the Dixie Chicks into trial such as in the Red Scare, an extremely "excited" man yelling at you at the stand etc. But still the idea is the same, as said in the previous post, process isn't the same, but idea is. And yes, taking a stand requires sacrifices, but I do think that a person would not really be willing to give up their livelihood just to promote something they care very little about. They are not the same. Their is no constitutional right to be agreed with or to speak your mind without consequences. The Red scare was about government intrusion into people's lives, and threatening and ruining those lives on the basis of those people's personal beliefs. The Dixie Chicks situation is one between them, their fans, and the private stations that play their music. All free people making free decisions about what they want to say, buy, broadcast, support, or be associated with. There is no injustice in that. There was serious injustice going on with the red scare, where government authorities were threatening jail upon artists who were perceived as having leftist views, and strong-arming the heads of the film industry to blacklist them and destroy their careers regardless of what the people thought of them. That's a very different scenario.

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by zenbooty
They are not the same. Their is no constitutional right to be agreed with or to speak your mind without consequences. The Red scare was about government intrusion into people's lives, and threatening and ruining those lives on the basis of those people's personal beliefs. The Dixie Chicks situation is one between them, their fans, and the private stations that play their music. All free people making free decisions about what they want to say, buy, broadcast, support, or be associated with. There is no injustice in that. There was serious injustice going on with the red scare, where government authorities were threatening jail upon artists who were perceived as having leftist views, and strong-arming the heads of the film industry to blacklist them and destroy their careers regardless of what the people thought of them. That's a very different scenario.

Well said.:thumbup:

[Sir_Froggy]

Originally posted by zenbooty
destroy their careers regardless of what the people thought of them.

Well with zenbooty's post, I guess I've lost this discussion :P

I concede and throw in the towel

:P

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy


Well with zenbooty's post, I guess I've lost this discussion :P

I concede and throw in the towel

:P


lol. if you disagree, continue to challenge our arguments! "a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

our counterpoints are not intended to shut you up. they are intended to explain our point and to identify any "faults" in your arguement that we think you might have. a discussion like this is healthy, and the ability to freely have one is what sets our country apart from many others.

[Sir_Froggy]

:)

I know, I still disagree with you in that this situation is similar to the Red Scare, but not identical, many of the arguments made against my points I believe have been sort of deflected or responded against. The idea of the government taking the action of course is the main difference and that is the point I have no real argument against.

So I do disagree with you guys' opinions. I don't believe this controversey could be discounted as a complete difference from the Red Scare.

[cheapie]

read this and compare it to the current dixie chick situation...


Senate Releases 50-Year-Old McCarthy Transcripts

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85981,00.html

WASHINGTON — Pushing an anti-communist crusade that riveted America a half century ago, Joseph McCarthy (search) manipulated his Senate hearings by calling witnesses he could intimidate and ignoring those likely to oppose him, newly released transcripts show.

Among the roughly 400 witnesses covered in transcripts of closed door meetings, made public Monday by the Senate, are composer Aaron Copland, New York Times journalist James Reston and Eslanda Goode Robeson, the wife of blacklisted singer-actor Paul Robeson. Some 4,000 pages of newly released documents also show that McCarthy was convinced that many writers, government officials and secretaries had access to classified information.

McCarthy, a Wisconsin Republican, chaired the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (search) in 1953 and 1954 at the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. His investigation into communists in the U.S. government, denounced by critics as a witch hunt, spawned the term "McCarthyism" to describe smear attacks.

Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie, who assembled the volumes, said McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn (search), used the closed-door sessions like grand jury proceedings.

"Anybody who stood up to McCarthy in closed session, and did so articulately, tended not to get called up into the public session," Ritchie said. "McCarthy was only interested in the people he could browbeat publicly."

Copland, brought before the subcommittee because he had been hired by the State Department to lecture overseas, was one of those never called back for a public session.

When McCarthy asked whether he had ever been a communist sympathizer, Copland replied, "I am not sure I would be able to say what you mean by the word 'sympathizer."'

"These executive sessions are really trolling sessions," said David M. Oshinsky, author of a McCarthy biography, A Conspiracy So Immense, and a history professor at the University of Texas.

"McCarthy is looking for people who either have a spectacular story to tell, or people he thinks he can break in public, or people he was certain will take the Fifth Amendment" against self-incrimination, Oshinsky said.

McCarthy was angered when Eslanda Goode Robeson (search) cited the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, as well as the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer whether she was a member of the Communist Party.

"The 15th Amendment has nothing to do with it," said McCarthy.

Robeson replied: "(Y)ou see, I am a second-class citizen in this country and, therefore, feel the need of the 15th. ... I am not quite equal to the rest of the white people."

Robeson finally said a truthful answer would incriminate her. McCarthy brought her back to testify in public.

"McCarthy thrived on the Fifth Amendment," Oshinsky said. "He liked nothing better than to ask people very pointed questions, and they would take the Fifth, so he could call them 'Fifth Amendment communists' and talk about a larger conspiracy."

The tide began to turn against McCarthy in 1954, when he looked for subversives in the Army. President Eisenhower, a retired Army general, worked to get the hearings televised so the public could see McCarthy's bullying tactics, Oshinsky said.

Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman (search), a freshman Republican who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said in a statement that McCarthy had "an obligation to use his authority in a way to make America safer, and determine the influence of communism, if it existed, in American policy."

"Instead, he used his position to threaten, to intimidate and to destroy the lives of Americans," Coleman said.

The volumes show McCarthy often held hearings in New York City and Boston, subpoenaing witnesses on short notice, and would be the only senator to attend.

Sometimes even McCarthy wouldn't attend, Ritchie said. The 26-year-old Cohn would question witnesses, and his buddy, G. David Schine, who served as unpaid consultant to the committee, would preside. Cohn addressed Schine as "Mr. Chairman."

Oshinsky said communists had indeed infiltrated the government during the 1930s and 1940s, but by the time McCarthy launched his investigation that had pretty much been stamped out.

Still, Republicans succeeded in portraying Democrats as soft on communism, riding that message to political gains in 1952. The GOP won the White House and Congress that year, making McCarthy chairman of the investigations subcommittee.

McCarthy continued hunting for communists in the State Department, Voice of America, U.S. overseas libraries, Government Printing Office and Army Signal Corps. Republicans began to turn on him when he set his sights on the Eisenhower administration.

The Senate censured McCarthy in December 1954, and he lost his chairmanship the following month after Democrats regained the majority. Discredited and broken, McCarthy died in 1957 at 47.

That same year, the Supreme Court ruled that witnesses don't lose their constitutional rights when they testify in a congressional investigation. Some historians say that ruling is McCarthy's most important legacy.

[Kim]

Originally posted by Yossarian
... granted, i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed....

Hey, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed! :D

[ShawnLee]

Let them be punished by the public for what they said, it's their right to say it, it's our right to stop buying CD's. Besides, where are all the civil rightts activists when people trample on other rights? (Not to turn this post into an argument about gun laws, but the second amendment is continuously ignored)

[Sir_Froggy]

Didn't we already know that McCarthy was only bullying people into saying things that would incrimnate them and that he usually had no evidence?

I don't understand what new information that article gives us, not bad mouthing the article, just don't understand what's new.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
Didn't we already know that McCarthy was only bullying people into saying things that would incrimnate them and that he usually had no evidence?

I don't understand what new information that article gives us, not bad mouthing the article, just don't understand what's new.

You're right, we already knew what he did and how he did it. From my understanding these documents were just freed up which show us the details on exactly how bad it was in these hearings. But we pretty much knew what went on.

[ProMinx]

I believe the point that cheapb@stard was trying to make with that article was that the Dixie Chicks have not been persecuted and prosecuted by any means. They were not called to secretive behind-closed-doors mmetings or to public (social) executions by members of the state department. We don't see any Senators publicly declaring their actions as traitorous. What we do see is a number of humble Americans making up their minds not to support these women. The vast majority of country listeners tend to support the GOP (as much as I hate to share a boat with these inbred slack-jaws)...so when the Dixie Chicks spoke against something supported by their listeners...they lost those listeners with strong convictions.

I am sorry, but I too cannot find significant similarities to the Red Scare. The only similarity is that someone is suffering from a rapidly dwindling success...but the difference is that the Dixie Chicks are losing popularity due to their decision to state what they believe, while back in the 50s...people were suffering because they belonged to a group that became the next target of a madman's wandering eye.

Sorry Little Sir.

ProMinx

[guiseppewv]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
Didn't we already know that McCarthy was only bullying people into saying things that would incrimnate them and that he usually had no evidence?

I don't understand what new information that article gives us, not bad mouthing the article, just don't understand what's new.

I think what is new about cheapb@stard's post is that it shows that the statements that you made comparing what is happening to the dixie chicks has next to nothing in common with the Red Scare and McCarthy except that maybe both the dixie chicks and the people being persecuted by McCarthy are Americans.

Seemed like a pretty straight forward post to me.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Sir_Froggy
Didn't we already know that McCarthy was only bullying people into saying things that would incrimnate them and that he usually had no evidence?

I don't understand what new information that article gives us, not bad mouthing the article, just don't understand what's new.


basically, i just saw this article and thought people that posted to this thread might be interested in the story.

[Sir_Froggy]

ok, just didn't know what was new, but yeah, after reading minx's post, it does seem a little more clear for where you guys see things.
So it's starting to make a little more sense of what you guys are saying.

what's to be sorry bout prominx?
haven't seen you post here in awhile

[Momma Kitty]

Wow, for starting off as a pro-nekked thread this sure got serious in a hurry. I would say something about it but I think the war is still too hot a topic and has people's undies in a bunch (for those wearing them! :D )

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Momma Kitty
Wow, for starting off as a pro-nekked thread this sure got serious in a hurry. I would say something about it but I think the war is still too hot a topic and has people's undies in a bunch (for those wearing them! :D )


what???? i actually think this stuff gets my undies out of a bunch. i enjoy debating this kind of stuff and don't hold any animosity towards those with differing views. but i would like to go back to the pro-nekked part. lol....

[ShawnLee]

Yes, let it be said, naked women are always welcome, no matter how wacky their political views may be.