Question for those who believe Americans shouldn’t criticize their government while abroad: During the Clinton impeachment, I lived in China. People would ask me what I thought of the whole issue. I said that the Republican-led Congress was engaging in a shameful partisan witchhunt driven by an irrational hatred of Clinton and that the effort was a shameful subordination of the Constitution to bitter partisanship.
So, basically, I criticized Congress and defended the President. My questions are: Is it okay to criticize Congress while abroad? Or does the no-criticism rule only apply to the President? Or should I have pretended that I didn’t have an opinion on the matter?
No, there’s nothing wrong with it. There is no such tradition, law or moral code. It’s just phony, made up point of pretended moral outrage on the part of those who don’t like what’s being said.
Tell me, do you think that US military personel serving overseas should be allowed to put political bumper stickers on their cars? How about civilians?
Amazing that no one on the right was the least bit upset about anti-Clinton sentiment being expressed outside the country.
I don’t think foreignors are stupid. I think they can realise when an individual civilian is expressing and opinion, and what the “official” U.S. government policy is.
So I feel that a regular civilian can express themselves as desired.
However, those directly representing the Government (or at least pert of it, like a Congressmen or soldier) should be more restrained. Because of their position, it’s possible that some unnecessary confusion can result…
Amazing that you’re willing to paint my argument by what you’re sure I believe because your prejudices say I believe it. Actually, not that amazing.
Do you have record of anti-Clinton sentiment being expressed outside the U.S.? If so, I’ll condemn it.
This is exactly why I think very little of your arguments.
I state again what I said in my post: “You have every right to do it.” That sentence was right there in the post you responded to, it’s pretty obvious, and the following sentence starts with “But” to contrast with it.
So now you ask me if I think such speech should be “allowed”? I’ve already stated that I did; you now repeat the question so as to imply that I don’t actually think that way. Because I don’t think that something legal is also moral, I must - in your view, apparently - actually secretly desire to make it illegal.
For the record - I think service personel or civilians overseas putting bumper stickers on their vehicles is idiotic. Why do South Koreans give a shit that you support Cardin for Senate in '06? It also might be craven cowardice - “If I put Kerry stickers on my car, maybe people won’t throw bricks at me!” If the car is usually on a base surrounded by Americans, then it’s no more wrong than anyone stateside doing the same.
But I fully support your right to be a douchebag and an idiot. I certainly think it should be “allowed”.
There are several things that separate out what the Dc did from acceptable behavior:
It was a cheap shot at the President, not a policy of the President. Saying that you think the War in Iraq was a huge mistake is fine, saying that you’re ashamed of the President is another. Especially when overseas.
The DC chose as their venue CW music, where Patriotism is part of the style. If they had been in rock or rap, it wouldn’t be news. Thus, it was a betrayal of their self-selected fan base. (They knew the job was dangerous when they took it! )
The DC got all hypocritical about it. Sure, they have the right to say that under the 1st Ad- but then their (ex)-fans have every right under that same damn Ad to criticize them for that comment, and also not buy their music anymore. The 1st Ad cuts both ways. It would only have been “censorship” if the Government had gotten in on the act. Ex-fans deciding to boycott the music is their right under the 1st Ad. Got that, Hypocritical-chicks?
WTF? Are you serious or is this a whoosh? How does criticising your country’s leader have anything remotely to do with crude remarks about someone’s child?
What’s wrong with all of this is the Dixie Chicks crying in their beer over their own stupidity. President Bush nailed them to the wall with reality: **"[T]he Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say … They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out … Freedom is a two-way street … **
Natalie Maines’ response to that was to call the Presiden a dumb fuck. I’d say pissing off your fans makes her the dumb fuck. Especially after the apologies and the attempt to buy publicity using the American Red Cross.
I think there’s something being missed - certainly, when things are going well, not badmouthing the government abroad makes the country look strong. On the other hand, not badmouthing the government when things aren’t going well tends to make you look stupid, and gives the impression that the populace is entirely happy with what’s happening.
Whether that’s an accurate or an inaccurate perception, Bush and the the current U.S. administration are generally not seen as good over here. If Americans didn’t say what they felt, we’d have a lot lower impression of you.
It’s not a cheap shot at the President. He’s a war criminal and I’m ashamed of him. The overseas thing has absolutely nothings to do with it. I’d say the same thing in the States if I were to move back there. Saying something like he’s likely an ex-cocaine user may be a cheap shot, or saying that he’s the figurehead of a party which loves their pages may be as well, but being ashamed of a president who discards international law is not.
Expressing your feelings about something that is insulting to the people you work with will result in a loss of business or your job. The fans did not pay money to be insulted by the Dixie Chicks.
Uh huh. That would, of course, be your opinion and a function of free speech. IMO the Dixie Chicks are a bunch of dumb fucks who lost millions because they thought people would pay them to be insulted. Why don’t you try it out at your next business meeting and let us know how it works out.
Most certainly. I’m a freedom of speech fanatic…and one should be able to say whatever one wants too, short of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
That said, one should realize that freedom of speech doesn’t not mean freedom from consequences of your actions…nor be surprised when folks that don’t agree with you use their own free speech rights to blast you back.
Howdy. I’d like to say that your argument is a hell of a thing, that really shines the ugliness in this discussion up all bright. What in the name of Willie Nelson do you think you’re talking about? You know, this here’s the USA, where the single most patriotic thing I think I can do is say what I feel about the President.
And as far as country goes, I grew up listening to Patsy and Hank, Waylon and Willie, and let me tell you, the idiot Patriotism that I hear in your words is a shallow mockery of the true thing.
I must have missed GWB’s arrest and arrainment at the Hague. :rolleyes: Damn, you’d think that sort of thing would be in the news. :dubious:
Welp, E-Sabbath, your fellow CW music fans seem to disagree with you. I don’t listen to it myself, but the outcry- and the sales- speak for themselves. The DC original chosen fan base felt betrayed, at least for the most part.
By invading Iraq against international law and the will of the international community, Bush crowned himself Emperor of the World, therefore there is no “abroad” as far as Bush is concerned. Furthermore, Bush is acting as Britain’s leader in this and decision’s he has made have adversely affected their country, even though they had no opportunity to vote for him.
However, I think the DC’s were mainly worried that their London audience would stereotype them as right-wing nut jobs and they wanted to assure them that not all people from Texas are right-wing nut jobs, and what better way to do than than to distance themselves from the Right-Wing-Nut-Job-in-Chief.
But people did not respond simply by telling them, “we disagree with your remarks and think you should be more respectful toward the President while abroad” or saying “I don’t think I’ll be buying their records or going to their concerts anymore”. No, the Dixie Chicks were subjected a tremendous amount of angry, hateful invective, accusations of treason, organzied protest and boycotts, punishment from powerful entities such as Clear Channel, and death threats.
This is not a case of “crazy libs crying ‘fascism’ again”. This is genuine, honest-to-goodness, dyed-in-the-wool fascism. :mad:
All of which (except for the death threats, and they are a matter for the police) are indeed, a fair usage of those dudes and companies First Admendment rights, and thus just the opposite * from fascism. If dudes here can accuse GWB of being a war criminal, then the DC ex-fans can accuse the DC of being treasonable. Clear Channel is indeed a powerful enity, but it’s a private company, thus it has every right to excercise it’s right to not play the DC music. Or would you live in a nation where the FCC decides what everyone will listen to, and if a Radio stattion *doesn’t * play certain music, it loses it’s license? :dubious:
“You keep using that word, I do not think that word means what you think it does.” And, of course, you have just Godwinized.
I was living in the far east during the whole Lewinsky thing, and I had many conversations about it with Asians. Their responses basically broke down into two broad categories:
– How can this man possibly remain in public life after this disgrace? Has he no shame? (and by extension, have Americans no shame for allowing it?)
– Well, of course, it’s okay … I mean, that’s just the way all Americans act, right?*
I did not vote for Clinton, and while he was an OK president, I never really liked him. I did and do think he should have resigned, and I had no problem distancing myself from his behavior; yet when given the opportunity to trash him in front of audiences of foreigners, I felt there was a line I didn’t want to cross. I almost invariably ended up “explaining” him in a way that was more-or-less a defense.
I valued my loyalty to my nation (and by extension, Clinton as my then-President) more highly than the momentary thrill of speaking my mind and/or the nodding approval I’d get from my audience.
YMMV, obviously.
*Clinton played into a whole slew of stereotypes about Americans: likable, freindly, enormously talented and successful, but also a tubby oversexed fast-food-loving slickster, utterly without dignity or class.
)