Talk:Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)

Weasel words

Who considers the song offensive? Point it out, as per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. OCNative 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's offended? Any real American OUGHT to be offended. But then again, the song was marketed to people who believe the bible is a law book and that people have a right to own guns. "Putting a boot in your ass" was the way of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, not America. But if we keep going on as we are, maybe it's more true than I thought. Want to know why the world hates America? Look no further than Toby. He's the perfect stereotype of the ignorant, arrogant, self-important American buffoon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.136.197 (talk • contribs) 12:38, October 28, 2006.

Of course the author of the previous comment wrote it in a totally NPOV manner.--64.75.187.195 09:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC

Offended?

Being offended sounds reasonable, especailly after we see videos of our soldiers being held hostage by our Iraqi "friends". We go out of our way sending aid, and supplying safety and suffer at the benefit of our "friends". I guess we are totally out of place using a bad word like ass- even though we find no problem using that word to describe our own fellow Americans. It is more reasonable to forget to stand together as a united nation under God, for the betterment of our Country than to hate ourselves for helping others and trying to protect our fellow citizens. Lets just bag the president all together for trying to control safety in American and over seas. Maybe we'll have Clinton come back in and do what he did before- we'll just forget about those "African Skirmishes" that were killing each other off. Genocide is just too graphic to use.

• Not that I want to continue this pointless, inappropriate talk page argument... but anyone who says ass-kicking isn't the American way should read up on the Military history of the United States. Toby talks about striking back at the people who struck at the US on 9/11; he means Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who harbored them. Calling that racist or jingoistic seems illogical to me. --129.210.160.11 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but why do they need to mention Peter Jennings is Canadian here, are they implying that he only thought the song was too strong because he was Canadian? 24.65.87.238 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to include it, and someone keeps adding it despite the fact that the concensus is it is not relevant.

Where is this "concensus" you speak of? I see no real discussion at all. Please explain why it is not relevant. Just saying "it's not" isn't a real debate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

USA Today found it relevant enough to mention is this article about the incident: [1] "I find it interesting that he's not from the U.S.," Keith says of Jennings, who is Canadian. "I bet Dan Rather'd let me do it on his special.". CNN found it relevant enough to put in their article: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/13/tobykeith.abc/ "At least, that's the version from the roughneck Oklahoma native. ABC, on the other hand, has said logistics and "a number of other factors" prevented the network from booking Keith for its three-hour special, being hosted by Jennings, who is Canadian. " It was included in Keith's 60 Minutes interview: [2]. So tell me why USA Today, CNN and 60 Minutes found it RELEVANT ENOUGH for them, but I'm "biased" for thinking it is relevant? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated it. If we're talking about American patriotic issues, it seems quite relevant to me to mention that the person offended by it is not American. I don't see why this is an issue. It doesn't say "Peter Jennings, who didn't like it because he's not American..." 128.118.226.88 (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

why are you insulting him? Do you support al qeada or something? T 16:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eek, a Canadian!

I removed the reference to Peter Jennings being Canadian-born, because, One: it's irrelevant, and Two: whoever thought it was relevant was obviously trying to cast some aspersion on Jennings' motives in the issue, which hardly constitutes neutral pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC) My bad! I missed the connection to Keith's comments about Jennings. Reverted the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)