NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone else noticed this? Or is it just me?

Natalie Maines makes a disparaging remark about bush, introducing a new phrase into the American lexicon: "being Dixie-Chicked."

The latest folks to get "Dixie-Chicked" are Whoopi Goldberg, for her joke regarding the Resident's last name, and a slang term for a part of the female human anatomy...and Linda Ronstadt, for her comments about Michael Moore, and Fahrenheit 9/11 at The Aladdin, in Las Vegas.

Reportedly, in the Ronstadt incident, half the crowd cheered Ronstadt, and half erupted into boos. Those who booed her apparently streamed out of her concert (the comments were made right near the end of the entire performance) she dedicated The Eagles' song "Desperado" to Michael Moore. the ones who booed and streamed out reportedly also vandalized posters of Ronstadt, and threw their drinks at the posters. These same people, guilty of VANDALISM...demanded refunds of their ticket price on the Ronstadt concert, after, of course, having enjoyed the entire show, sans the finale, "Desperado." And yet, here they are, vandalising the hotel, and demanding a refund??

Where's the fricking cops??

And the manager of The Aladdin is no better...he escorted Ronstadt from the hotel, refused to allow her to return to her suite at The Aladdin, and, in effect, fired her.

What woulda happened had she dedicated a different song to GWB, and proclaimed him the greatest President ever, and claimed he walked on water? Half the crowd woulda cheered, half woulda booed...I doubt the people who woulda booed for that woulda VANDALIZED stuff...but Ronstadt would be, right now, signing a multi-million dollar contract with The Aladdin for six more shows, and be being hailed by that goddamn liberal media as being a "true American patriot."

And what of Whoopi Goldberg? She's a comedienne. It's her VOCATION to make jokes, sometimes, tasteless jokes. Tasteless humor often gets the largest laughs. For her actions, she loses her job as spokesperson for Slim-Fast (manufacturer Unilever Corp. for those who want to boycott) If she'd made a crude reference to Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and cigars, she'd probably also be being hailed right now as a "true American patriot."

In other, less star-studded cases, a West Virginia couple who were arrested at the State Capitol in Charleston, for wearing T-Shirts with an anti-Bush slogan...charges of trespassing were dropped, the court affirming (for once) the Freedom of speech/expression.

A lady in Philadelphia gets arrested and carted away for handing out voter registration cards after a showing of Fahrenheit 9/11. Yet, in Phoenix, a radio DJ offers free tickets to F-9/11, for those who promised to boo and heckle the film, impeding paying customers right to enjoy the movie. Yet, for her actions, the lady in Philadelphia is arrested for "inciting a public nuisance." the planned disruption of F-9/11 in Phoenix never came off, but I'm betting THEY wouldn't have been arrested for "inciting a public nuisance!"

Folks are still all over the Democrats in California for making issue of Gropinator Schwarzenegger's comments referring to California Democrats as "girlie-men..." (is that the best insult they can come up with??) These folks are all saying politicians should have a thick skin. Those folks saying that are all Repukes.

Yet, these same folks who say politicians should have a thick skin...they damn near have a stroke and need a waaaaambulance if you criticize Bush! Witness the "Dixie-Chicking" of Ronstadt and Whoopi! Witness the sneers being directed at California Democrats who are making a fuss about Gropinator Schwarzeneggers "girlie-men" reference.

Yet, When Bush calls Adam Clymer, NYT reporter a "major-league asshole" these same people do not call on BUSH to have a thick skin. They don't call on Cheney to have a thick skin, and even cheer him telling Sen. Patrick Leahy, on the Senate floor, to "go fuck himself." Later, Cheney even BRAGS about having done so. And this isn't being thin-skinned? What did Leahy do? He made insinuations regarding Cheney and his connections to Halliburton, and the no-bid war contracts Halliburton got in Iraq...and Cheney responded by telling Leahy to "go f**k himself."

Natalie Maines gets all but burned in effigy...Ronstadt and Whoopi get "Dixie-Chicked," CA Democrats are called "whiners" for taking issue with The Gropinator's "girlie-men" remark, a woman in Philadelphia gets arrested for doing something that is an act of real patriotism, calling on people to take an active role in government, and to register to vote, to participate in the system that hundreds of thousands of our ancestors fought and died to defend...our right to vote...a couple in West Virginia gets arrested for T-Shirts...Bush sets up "First Amendment Zones" a mile away from him so that he doesn't have to see or hear the protestors, so he can continue his self-delusion of all America loving him...

Meanwhile, they go around calling reporters "major-league assholes," telling U.S. Senators, on the Senate floor, to "go f**k themselves" and "Dixie-chicking" anyone famous who DARES speak out against that One Who Walks On Water (Bush) and arresting the common citizens who do similarly, on bullshit charges...call CA Democrats "whiners" and "girlie-men," And then have the nerve to call US on having thin skins?!?!

How come THEY get a free pass on the "thin-skin" thing? No one says a WORD, when they exhibit "thin-skinnedness" by "Dixie-chicking" performers who dare speak out, disparaging Democrats, who rightly take issue with Schwartzenegger's laeblling them "girlie-men," arresting common citizens who speak out, and shunting all other protestors into "First Amendment Zones" where their protests will never be seen or heard by the object of protest...and the "goddamn liberal media" never calls THEM on their thin-skinnedness!!


Am I the only one paying attention? Why is there not an outcry to the "goddamn liberal media" to quit giving the Repukes a free pass on "thin-skinnedness??"

Clinton was ridden, unmercifully, for the last six years of his Presidency, and even now, three and a half years later, they STILL can't leave him alone...but, make one disparaging comment about Bush...and they exhibit "thin-skinnedness" at it's worst...and, somehow, the "goddamn liberal media" gives them a free pass...while highlighting the "thin-skinnedness" of Democrats.



I dunno about the rest of you, but I, for one, am getting awful sick and tired of having MY patriotism and loyalty thrown into question, and having MY ability to speak dissent (which is an essential part of democracy) just because I won't drink the goddamn kool-aid!!

Meanwhile, who questioned the patriotism or loyalty of those who, to this day, are still after Clinton? In Clinton's case, they had the rope ready!!

Goddamn liberal media!!

If you could kindly sumarize that into a paragraph, I would read it.

If you could kindly sumarize that into a paragraph, I would read it.
When anti-Bushites attack Bush, Conservative Republicans pull a hissy fit and get pissed off. When the same happens to Liberals, they are told to be thicker-skinned. All the while the so-called 'liberal' media says nothing. Attack Bush, your loyalties are called into question, attack Clinton (even though he left office nearly 4 years ago) you are hailed as a loyal American.

When anti-Bushites attack Bush, Conservative Republicans pull a hissy fit and get pissed off. When the same happens to Liberals, they are told to be thicker-skinned. All the while the so-called 'liberal' media says nothing. Attack Bush, your loyalties are called into question, attack Clinton (even though he left office nearly 4 years ago) you are hailed as a loyal American.

There ya go...and thanks. Yes, this is now, condensed into a single paragraph, what my rant starting this thread is saying.

Mine is longer, because I am citing very specific examples, complete with details. Whereas this condensed version doesn't. But it addresses the very question I posed with starting this thread.

now how about a response?

Sadly, somehow the conservative Republicans have cornered the market on "patriotism." I don't really understand how. Is it because they've appropriated the language of all that is supposedly good, wholesome and old-fashioned: Father knows best and God and Jesus and the grand old flag and Mom and apple pie? (Granted, party-line liberal Dems have their own range of over-simplistic rhetoric, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.) But you're right; it seems that whenever the right is attacked, it's considered unpatriotic...an attack on the good old U. S. of A. Whereas when the left is attacked, it's almost considered patriotic to do so.

I know I haven't shed any light on your original post, only confirmed that I've seen the same phenomenon. I'm thoroughly puzzled by it, and disheartened as well.

I think that in America the mainstream media are quite balanced, except for FOX, which is a 24-hour campaign network for George Bush.

By way of the internet I am keeping an eye on this election-year "culture war" between American conservatives and "liberals". Mud is slung from both sides, but the level of false propaganda is far higher from the conservative side.

The worst example so far is the assertion that "every terrorist wants John Kerry to be the next president of the USA". It's not even true, and there is evidence indicating Al-Qaeda's preference for Bush.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090004

Where is the rationale for the constant conservative accusations of anti-Americanism on the part of those who criticise George Bush?

I'm reminded of the three chapters in Franken's book on the Bush comment "Elect me and I'll change the tone in Washington".

Ha! That Reuter's article showing evidence linking Terrorists supporting a Bush win in November is great! I'm so sending that to everyone I know. Thanks for the link, Sil!

Yeah it's sad how violently reactionary the right is. But what do you expect from power-hungry warmongers?

On the terrorist prefference it would seem that they like Bush cuz he helps get them more recruits.

Sadly, these folks' idea of freedom and democracy means going along with whatever Bush says without question. After all, he's our president and we have to support him 100%, and anything less is un-American. Of course, what we're beginning to discover is that powerful Bush supporters can't tolerate any criticism of their beloved President (not that they had any trouble bashing Clinton...) Frankly, if they don't like having Bush criticized, they should try a military coup installing Bush as president for life or something.

Right now, their strategy seems to be suppressing criticism of Bush and ensuring, by any means necessary, that he gets re-elected. Even by rigging ballot machines.

I am really sick of these self-righteous people who only consider it unpatriotic to criticize the President when he belongs to their party. They want me to give them respect and listen to what they have to say, but anything from me results in "you're a terrorist" or "you're unpatriotic." I never hear anything substantive from them to back up their claim of ownership of everything American, just some stupid sound bytes about Clinton-this or national security/unity-that that sound like they're being read off of a "how to be a good Republican" list.

Kanora you are a terrorist that hates freedom and America!

This has been a message from OPERATION ENDURING CENSORSHIP

There's no such thing as freedom from consequences....

Right now, their strategy seems to be suppressing criticism of Bush and ensuring, by any means necessary, that he gets re-elected. Even by rigging ballot machines.

Bust out your tinfoil hat, Alex Jones.....

Look... the same thing would have happened in like 1994 if some famous singer dedicated his song to Rush Limbaugh.

If some big star is going to do something political, then they can do it on their own time and money not other's people money. The Aladdin fired Ronstadt because if it kept her, it would have been branded with a bad reputation, people would stop going there, and you end up with lost profits.

Terrorists like it when you have a republican pres and then a democrat pres. The republican pres starts wars, meaning you get more recruits and support. Then the Democrat lowers security all the way down and opens the flood gates so you can go in and attack and know that you probably have like one missile shot back at you.

I want bipartisan stuff but I hated how John Kerry called the Hollywood actors/actresses anti-bush performance at that rally "the heart and soul of America." If that's true, then America is really a shallow puddle....

Bust out your tinfoil hat, Alex Jones.....

Speaking of Alex Jones...being as I live in Alex's town (Austin, Texas) and know him personally...
I can say this. I do not agree with a lot of his political ideology, but it doesn't follow that EVERYTHING the man says is out to lunch! The man does a lot of damn good digging! And he gets a lot of dirt, too.

Worth checking out, Alex's web site: http://www.infowars.com

I'm reminded of the three chapters in Franken's book on the Bush comment "Elect me and I'll change the tone in Washington".

One of the few times I can say that pure truth flowed from the mouth of Dubya. He certainly DID change the tone in Washington, didn't he? But not for the better!

We, as a people, are more bitterly divided than I have ever seen, we are polarized, big time...to the point where (and both sides are guilty of this) we won't even LISTEN to anyone holding the opposite view from our own. And yes, I, too am guilty of this (witness my own placing onto the Ignore list almost anyone holding an opposite view from my own)

Dubya is a divider, not a uniter. Half the country hates him. Half the country thinks he's The Second coming or some shit like that. Unbelievable!

As an aside, I'll let you folks in on something...

The USPS recently commissioned, (are you ready??) a fricking George W. Bush stamp!!
They had some problems with this, however...they began receiving a lot of complaints that the stamps were not properly adhering to envelopes.
So the USPS appointed a blue-ribbon commission to look into the problem of these stamps not sticking to envelopes.
The commission came back with three findings:

1. The stamps met with all requirements.
2. There was nothing wrong with the adhesive.
3. People were just spitting on the wrong side!

Have a nice day!!

maybe you havent heard but in brownshirted republicans latest hate crime against free speech they booed Linda Ronstadt off a stage in some cheesy hotel because she honored Michael Moores heroic service to his country

Actually, MKULTRA is right.

The Aladdin is a really cheesy hotel.

maybe you havent heard but in brownshirted republicans latest hate crime against free speech they booed Linda Ronstadt off a stage in some cheesy hotel because she honored Michael Moores heroic service to his country

Oh for the love of God....go tour your gulags, Commie....

Me!

maybe you havent heard but in brownshirted republicans latest hate crime against free speech they booed Linda Ronstadt off a stage in some cheesy hotel because she honored Michael Moores heroic service to his country

Ultra, you know I love you, but you need to learn to read the first post. ;)

Oh for the love of God....go tour your gulags, Commie....

Me!

Nothing disproves an argument such as a standalone Ad Hominem...

A lady in Philadelphia gets arrested and carted away for handing out voter registration cards after a showing of Fahrenheit 9/11.
This ticks me off to no end, especially in light of the Bush League campaign policy of handing out voter registration cards at conservative churches and recruiting not only voters, but campaign help from the pulpit.

Look... the same thing would have happened in like 1994 if some famous singer dedicated his song to Rush Limbaugh.

If some big star is going to do something political, then they can do it on their own time and money not other's people money. The Aladdin fired Ronstadt because if it kept her, it would have been branded with a bad reputation, people would stop going there, and you end up with lost profits.

Terrorists like it when you have a republican pres and then a democrat pres. The republican pres starts wars, meaning you get more recruits and support. Then the Democrat lowers security all the way down and opens the flood gates so you can go in and attack and know that you probably have like one missile shot back at you.

I want bipartisan stuff but I hated how John Kerry called the Hollywood actors/actresses anti-bush performance at that rally "the heart and soul of America." If that's true, then America is really a shallow puddle....

Sorry, dude, but that's a load of horse hockey. The same thing wouldn't have necessarily happened if Rush had've been given the same honor. Hell, you don't hear anything about liberals who accidentally attend a Toby Keith concert trashing the place when he spreads his self-righteous, uber-patriotic crap around.

The actions of the Hollywood folk were indeed reflective of "the heart of soul of America" ... at least the part of it that has been ignored and bashed and is sick and tired of the Bushies. And it's no more rude and repulsive than Cheney/Bush's attitude and language anytime they think someone isn't listening.

Nothing disproves an argument such as a standalone Ad Hominem...

Nothing MKULTRA posts is an argument.....it's Chomsky bullshit....

I know that sounds like a childish way to cop-out of the debate, but it simply is...consider this: if anyone is so far gone, as MKULTRA clearly is, there is no use in trying to convince them otherwise and to show them the obvious errors in their thinking....

Me!

Nothing MKULTRA posts is an argument.....it's Chomsky bullshit....

Oh yeah, I recognised MKULTRA's post was a direct quote from "Understanding Power."

I know that sounds like a childish way to cop-out of the debate, but it simply is...consider this: if anyone is so far gone, as MKULTRA clearly is, there is no use in trying to convince them otherwise and to show them the obvious errors in their thinking....

Me!
So you imply that anything left of the US Republican party is Communism?

So you imply that anything left of the US Republican party is Communism?

No, of course not...the Republican party is just as bad as the liberal Democrats they claim to be against.....they're both part of the problem, not the solution....

Me!

Well we agree on something.

Ultra, you know I love you, but you need to learn to read the first post. ;)
it was too long and its tone left me worried about the health of the poster

it was too long and its tone left me worried about the health of the poster
Shame, you would have agreed with it.

Try reading my prece [sp] of it. (3rd post iirc)

Oh for the love of God....go tour your gulags, Commie....

Me!

If that is the best you can do, then you may face my Ignore Cannon.

Shame, you would have agreed with it.

Try reading my prece [sp] of it. (3rd post iirc)ok

Ultra, you know I love you, but you need to learn to read the first post. ;)
Simple facts have never stopped RedArrow's crusade of utter confusion.

Simple facts have never stopped RedArrow's crusade of utter confusion.

Are we talking ACTUAL, DOCUMENTABLE FACTS...from RELIABLE sources...or just YOUR OPINION, propped up as "fact?" Because I won't accept your opinion as "fact" either, unless you can source and document your claims from RELIABLE sources. Hint: Fox News is NOT a reliable source. FreeRepublic is NOT a reliable source. Drudge is NOT a reliable source. NewsMax is NOT a reliable source. Rush Limbaugh, aka, Oxy-Rush, aka Pigboy, aka Flush Rimbaugh, is NOT a reliable source.

These obviously right-wing propaganda/spin machines spew shit all the time.

Gimme a source I can TRUST...like the New York Times, or The L.A. Times.

Some vague musings from a non AmericanThis ticks me off to no end, especially in light of the Bush League campaign policy of handing out voter registration cards at conservative churches and recruiting not only voters, but campaign help from the pulpit.
I've said this before, but as far as I'm concerned, churchs that get involved in secular politics are a legitimate target for demonstrations.


Sorry, dude, but that's a load of horse hockey. The same thing wouldn't have necessarily happened if Rush had've been given the same honor. Hell, you don't hear anything about liberals who accidentally attend a Toby Keith concert trashing the place when he spreads his self-righteous, uber-patriotic crap around.
Maybe you should consider starting. That's one of the worst things about liberals- their refusal to fight fire with fire. Sometime's it's neccessary to choose the treatment to fit the disease.

I think you're all missing the bigger picture here. What does this mean for Linda Ronstadt's career that she's playing utter crap holes in Vegas while Celine Dion is mangling both the English language and the illustrious tradition of well respected and much loved Las Vegas entertainers performing at Caesar's Palace!

Priorities, people, priorities!

Some vague musings from a non American
I've said this before, but as far as I'm concerned, churchs that get involved in secular politics are a legitimate target for demonstrations.

Indeed! Frankly, they should lose their tax exempt status. Post haste. But until then, a very big stink should be made (and to a certain extent even here in the religious right's homeground some stink has been made).

Maybe you should consider starting. That's one of the worst things about liberals- their refusal to fight fire with fire. Sometime's it's neccessary to choose the treatment to fit the disease.

The concept of 'live and let live' imbues the liberal philosophy where social issues are concerned. And I agree, it is a problem, as silence is taken as acquiescence. However, destruction of public property when done by anyone other than fine, upstanding, white young men is generally frowned upon.

Berkylvania: You are soooo right. Linda has fallen so far off that stone poney she's likely to be trampled.

Indeed! Frankly, they should lose their tax exempt status. Post haste. But until then, a very big stink should be made (and to a certain extent even here in the religious right's homeground some stink has been made).
Believe it or not it's even worse in the UK in some ways. Religious schools have charitable status over here. (Even more appallingly so do public schools (the same as private schools in the US) but that's a whole new rant).

The concept of 'live and let live' imbues the liberal philosophy where social issues are concerned. And I agree, it is a problem, as silence is taken as acquiescence. It's one of the many reasons that I'm not a liberal. It always amuses me how paranoid the American Right are about liberalism. There are far worse things (from their point of view) that people could be. However, destruction of public property when done by anyone other than fine, upstanding, white young men is generally frowned upon. I'd add well-off to that list. ;) Of course, there are more ways to be disruptive then simply property destruction.

looks like the clue train stops here

Indeed! Frankly, they should lose their tax exempt status. Post haste.

Really?

The NAACP also holds a "Tax Exempt" Status. Seeing how Vocally they support Kerry - should they lose their Tax exempt status?

Really?

The NAACP also holds a "Tax Exempt" Status. Seeing how Vocally they support Kerry - should they lose their Tax exempt status?

Political organization != Religious organization.

Really?

The NAACP also holds a "Tax Exempt" Status. Seeing how Vocally they support Kerry - should they lose their Tax exempt status?
yes they should--just like alot of churchs should lose it too for supporting Bush

Political organization != Religious organization.

tax exempt means tax exempt.

It also means that they are not allowed to speak out for candidates or they lose their tax exempt status.

The NAACP is a 501(c)3 charitable organization.
http://www.naacp.org/work/membership/membership.shtml

The IRS rules for a 501(c)3 charitable organization state clearly in the first Paragraph..

"To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates."
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

And here's an interesting tidbit about 501(c)3's and lobbying..

"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax."



"Inviting a Candidate to Speak

Depending on the facts and circumstances, an organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate).

Speaking as a Candidate:
When a candidate is invited to speak at an organization event as a political candidate, the organization must take steps to ensure that:

It provides an equal opportunity to the political candidates seeking the same office,


It does not indicate any support of or opposition to the candidate (This should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance.), and


No political fundraising occurs.
Equal Opportunity to Participate:
In determining whether candidates are given an equal opportunity to participate, an organization should consider the nature of the event to which each candidate is invited, in addition to the manner of presentation.

For example, an organization that invites one candidate to speak at its well attended annual banquet, but invites the opposing candidate to speak at a sparsely attended general meeting, will likely be found to have violated the political campaign prohibition, even if the manner of presentation for both speakers is otherwise neutral.

Depending on the facts and circumstances, an organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate)."


http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html

However just a short perusal of these IRS documents show that the NAACP is in breach of almost every single law and rule regulating tax exempt entities.

Further.. While it shows the NAACP in complete and utter breach of all the rules it also shows that the Churches are well within their rights to operate as they are in regards to the election.

Just another case of "Laws are only for Republicans to follow".

here is my two cents worth.

Freedom of Speech is garenteed under the 1st amendment, but there is no freedom for people strongly disagreeing with your comments. The country is pretty much split 50/50 between Bush and Kerry, but Americans, in general, love our country. If we have a complaint about something we keep it to ourselves and act silently to change it. In general, we do not compare our President (whatever party he is from) a "Hitler." In general, we support our soldiers.

When you come out publicly and bash our country, our President, or our soldiers, the "silent majority" will speak.

here is my two cents worth.

Freedom of Speech is garenteed under the 1st amendment, but there is no freedom for people strongly disagreeing with your comments. The country is pretty much split 50/50 between Bush and Kerry, but Americans, in general, love our country. If we have a complaint about something we keep it to ourselves and act silently to change it. In general, we do not compare our President (whatever party he is from) a "Hitler." In general, we support our soldiers.

When you come out publicly and bash our country, our President, or our soldiers, the "silent majority" will speak.
I agree people shouldnt bash our country or soldiers but anyone who doesnt bash this President should be hung for treason

Yaknow what? If I were hired to endorse some hippie beverage, or perform at some shaggy haired event, and made pro-Bush comments, I probably wouldn't make it out alive.

I've been among the lovely Liberal public at anti-Bush protests, fighting their message with mine along with others joined together by the Protest Warrior movement. I've been smacked in the face with placards that proudly proclaimed "Fighting Never Solved Anything!"

Enough with the complaining, you Liberal scum oppress people just as often as Conservative scum do, all the worse since you claim to be all about tolerance.

Yaknow what? If I were hired to endorse some hippie beverage, or perform at some shaggy haired event, and made pro-Bush comments, I probably wouldn't make it out alive.

I've been among the lovely Liberal public at anti-Bush protests, fighting their message with mine along with others joined together by the Protest Warrior movement. I've been smacked in the face with placards that proudly proclaimed "Fighting Never Solved Anything!"

Enough with the complaining, you Liberal scum oppress people just as often as Conservative scum do, all the worse since you claim to be all about tolerance.
but why were you defending evil?

but why were you defending evil?
one's opinion on what side is evil is an objective view, so your argument is a moot one.

Yaknow what? If I were hired to endorse some hippie beverage, or perform at some shaggy haired event, and made pro-Bush comments, I probably wouldn't make it out alive.

Fine, but she was at the Alladin and she just dedicated a song.

Fine, but she was at the Alladin and she just dedicated a song.
Even worse, this wasn't a suprise. She's friends with Moore, has been doing this on her tour at every show, had appeared on a local radio station talking about how she had done this at every show, and how she had intended to do this at that night's show. Puts the onis of responsability squarely back on the shoulders of those who felt it neccisary to vandalize the hotel and riot, and really removes any 'shock and disgust' the owner could claim.

Dedicating a song and harrasing protestors are two different things. I do not excuse protesters who hit people with thier signs no matter what side their on, it is up to them to know when they are being baited and control themselves, but the events are still not directly comprable.

tax exempt means tax exempt.

It also means that they are not allowed to speak out for candidates or they lose their tax exempt status.

The NAACP is a 501(c)3 charitable organization.Yes, yes they are. (I'm snipping your snips of the IRS regs...they're out there for folk to find.)

This attack on the NAACP is an old right-wing argument. You might go here for a good rebuttal: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=260520.

But basically...
1) you will not see an endorsement of Kerry/Edwards by the NAACP. Nor will you see them formally campaigning for either candidate, unlike what some of the churches are doing.
2) the NAACP has invited both parties' candidates to speak at their convention. Bush snubbed them; the members will come to their own conclusions as to what that means.
3) the NAACP's work with legislation is not by any means a "substantial part of its activities" and therefore does not violate their 501c3 status.

The NAACP mission currently (and at the time of initial tax exempt status):

The NAACP insures the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority groups and citizens; achieves equality of rights and eliminates race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; removes all barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic processes; seeks to enact and enforce federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights; informs the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and seeks its elimination; educates persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action in furtherance of these principles.

If it was a problem, it would have been a problem at that time.