PDA

View Full Version : John Lennon was a Republican, Fan of Reagan


epicSocialism4tw
06-29-2011, 09:42 PM
"John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

"John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

"He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me."

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism."

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assistant

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

I guess John moved along the path that most people do. Liberal while young and naive and conservative as the wisdom and family concerns set in.

Whats the old saying? "If you arent somewhat liberal when you're young then you don't have a heart, if you're not conservative when you grow older then you don't have a brain."

Archer81
06-29-2011, 09:44 PM
While that does surprise me, I have to question posting this on the main forum...

I miss the foozeball.


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
06-29-2011, 09:46 PM
While that does surprise me, I have to question posting this on the main forum...

I miss the foozeball.


:Broncos:

For people like me who spent a chunk of their life absorbing every note that emanated from Lennon and McCartney, this is huge news.

"Imagine" is basically the progressive liberal anthem. Its big news that Lennon himself thought it naive.

I miss the foozball too. If Tebow were negotiating for us, we'd have never had a lockout. World Peace wouldn't just be Ron Artest's new last name, either. We'd call the Earth the "Tim Tebow planet Earth"

Dr. Broncenstein
06-29-2011, 09:51 PM
Looking through a glass onion.

epicSocialism4tw
06-29-2011, 09:53 PM
Looking through a glass onion.

Everybody's Got Something To Hide, 'Cept for Me and My Monkey

UberBroncoMan
06-29-2011, 09:56 PM
Another good example is Jon Voight.

DBroncos4life
06-29-2011, 10:17 PM
Another good example is Jon Voight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2iNNqj2fQ

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-29-2011, 10:19 PM
"John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

"John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

"He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me."

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism."

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assistant

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

I guess John moved along the path that most people do. Liberal while young and naive and conservative as the wisdom and family concerns set in.

Whats the old saying? "If you arent somewhat liberal when you're young then you don't have a heart, if you're not conservative when you grow older then you don't have a brain."

Haha. Thank you!

Pony Boy
06-29-2011, 10:25 PM
Now we know what the song was about..... Imagine there's no liberals.... Living for today....

Dagmar
06-29-2011, 10:28 PM
You've undoubtedly heard the old Lord Acton quote, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Apparently, it doesn't really matter how that power is derived, and Internet trolls are drunk with it -- "it" being the power of anonymity. According to a study by the Northwestern University, anonymity affects the judgment (http://www.news.com.au/technology/anonymous-alcoholics-study-finds-web-trolls-get-a-feeling-of-abandon-similar-to-drunks-and-dictators/story-e6frfro0-1226080815072) of people similarly to alcohol intoxication and excessive power.
"Although these pathways appear to be unrelated on the surface, they all lead to disinhibited states through a common psychological and neurological mechanism," said Jacob Hirsh of the university's Kellogg School of Management. Dr. Hirsh's colleague, Professor Adam Galinsky, said the loss of inhibition causes "significant behavioral consequences" -- though, that's not necessarily good or bad in itself.
When a person is operating behind a mask such as the Internet, they're more likely to make decisions that align with their true motives or character -- be that heroism or hedonism. "This is why intoxicated individuals can be aggressive in one instant and altruistic in another," said Hirsh, and it could help explain why people tend to express such extreme views when they get behind a keyboard.
People often feel there are no repercussions for their actions online because they're not visually confronted with another person. Dr. Darryl Cross, a psychologist at Crossways Consulting, believes the anonymity of the Internet encourages split personalities. He noted that people have two personas: one driven by raw animal instinct, and another that's more conservative. The former kicks in online.
"What you've got [online] is people who are prepared to let their instinctual personality out rather than really taking a second perspective, looking at it in a different way, and then saying the second thing that comes into their mind instead of the first." Naturally, this occurs more frequently when you have an open system like ours that encourages "guest" posters, versus strictly registered commenters.
"Anything that requires personal responsibility has got to be a plus," Cross said. "Once they have to register and they're held accountable, then that's really going to be a major step forward." Worried that you're a troll? Cross suggests that you establish a method to determine the demeanor of your comment. For instance, consider what your grandparents might say about your post before submitting it. .

SonOfLe-loLang
06-29-2011, 11:08 PM
Oh jeez...the llama really needs to go the **** away already

I always like posting this: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/what-would-reagan-really-do.html

And Nixon? He'd be a communist by today's right wing standards

SonOfLe-loLang
06-29-2011, 11:28 PM
Now we know what the song was about..... Imagine there's no liberals.... Living for today....

Pakistan is nice this time of year. Barely a liberal there.

myMind
06-29-2011, 11:34 PM
Let the man's shade rest in peace.
He will always be remembered as an activist and freethinker.
Politics aren't morals.
Politics is gang warfare round these here parts.
Leave the legend be sir.

Irish Stout
06-29-2011, 11:35 PM
Your saying is incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill by many right wingers. Winston Churchill's assistant said that Churchill was a conservative at 15 and a liberal by the time he was 35. So which Brit did more for the world?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-29-2011, 11:43 PM
John Lennon was a Republican, Fan of Reagan

Hilarious!

Thanks - I needed a good laugh.

Whats the old saying? "If you arent somewhat liberal when you're young then you don't have a heart, if you're not conservative when you grow older then you don't have a brain."

I believe this quote is more apropos:


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

- John Stuart Mill

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-29-2011, 11:44 PM
Oh jeez...the llama really needs to go the **** away already

I always like posting this: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/what-would-reagan-really-do.html

And Nixon? He'd be a communist by today's right wing standards

Exactly.

That the Bush Youth are oblivious to this fact only underscores their complete lack of historical perspective.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-29-2011, 11:46 PM
Your saying is incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill by many right wingers. Winston Churchill's assistant said that Churchill was a conservative at 15 and a liberal by the time he was 35. So which Brit did more for the world?

Ooops! Ha!

SoCalBronco
06-30-2011, 12:03 AM
Never been much of a fan of either Lennon or Reagan.

DHallblows
06-30-2011, 12:14 AM
Who the **** is John Lennon?

Taco John
06-30-2011, 12:22 AM
Who the **** is John Lennon?

He's the guy who invented the air conditioner.

OABB
06-30-2011, 12:22 AM
man, yoko ****ed him up good.

enjolras
06-30-2011, 01:15 AM
He's the guy who invented the air conditioner.

Nononoo... that's Lennox. He's the guy who starred in the odd couple opposite Walter Matthau.

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 01:25 AM
Nononoo... that's Lennox. He's the guy who starred in the odd couple opposite Walter Matthau.

But I thought Lennox (Annie) was the singer who performed "Into the West" for the third Lord of the Rings movie....

worm
06-30-2011, 01:55 AM
But I thought Lennox (Annie) was the singer who performed "Into the West" for the third Lord of the Rings movie....

Like everyone else in Hollywood, Annie is not a Republican....but Lennox (Lewis) was a Lord of the Ring.

DHallblows
06-30-2011, 01:59 AM
My work here is done...

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 02:18 AM
Like everyone else in Hollywood, Annie is not a Republican....but Lennox (Lewis) was a Lord of the Ring.

Indeed, he was. ;D

Archer81
06-30-2011, 02:39 AM
man, yoko ****ed him up good.


No. Yoko helped Lennon realize when you have half the people sponging off the productive half, the productive half eventually goes broke.

So in a way, she helped spark the realignment of his political views.


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:10 AM
Oh jeez...the llama really needs to go the **** away already

I always like posting this: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/what-would-reagan-really-do.html

And Nixon? He'd be a communist by today's right wing standards

The article stands on its own.

There's no reason to react to it with fear, though.

Hogan11
06-30-2011, 04:16 AM
What's funny is that there is not one instance to support this claim in his last Rolling Stone interview three days before he was murdered (or any other interviews he gave at the time in question). As political as Lennon was, one would think he would've come out strong publicly on this if it was true.

Outside of maybe the part of Lennon playing the Devil's advocate for provocative purposes with the guy's commie uncle, I'm calling it bullshat.

ColoradoDarin
06-30-2011, 05:55 AM
No. Yoko helped Lennon realize when you have half the people sponging off the productive half, the productive half eventually goes broke.

So in a way, she helped spark the realignment of his political views.


:Broncos:

Bahahahahahahahahah

Hilarious! Hilarious!

alkemical
06-30-2011, 06:29 AM
LSD does crazy things...

;)

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 07:41 AM
Nononoo... that's Lennox. He's the guy who starred in the odd couple opposite Walter Matthau.

That's Jack Lemon...you are thinking of the famous boxer.

55CrushEm
06-30-2011, 07:50 AM
He's the guy who invented the air conditioner.

No. That would be John Kerry.

No wait....that was the internet he invented.

No wait....that was Al Gore that invented the internet.

Ummmm......

Dutch
06-30-2011, 07:54 AM
The correct quote is:
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill

Churchill was actually loosely quoting George Bernard Shaw who was a life long Socialist.

The correct quote from Shaw is: "If one is under twenty-five and is not a socialist, he has no heart; if one is over 25 and still a socialist he has no head". The use of alliteration in "heart and head' adds to the effectiveness of the epigram.

Others from Winston:

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill

"A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air." - Winston Churchill

"Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart." - Winston Churchill

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

jhns
06-30-2011, 08:00 AM
If you are a republican or democrat, you have proven that you are a mental midget and can't think for yourself. It is funny watching a bunch of retarded kids yell that the other side is retarded though.

OABB
06-30-2011, 08:12 AM
No. Yoko helped Lennon realize when you have half the people sponging off the productive half, the productive half eventually goes broke.

So in a way, she helped spark the realignment of his political views.


:Broncos:

I hate when i lose a joke off. Rep you bastard.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 08:22 AM
The correct quote is:
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill

Churchill was actually loosely quoting George Bernard Shaw who was a life long Socialist.

The correct quote from Shaw is: "If one is under twenty-five and is not a socialist, he has no heart; if one is over 25 and still a socialist he has no head". The use of alliteration in "heart and head' adds to the effectiveness of the epigram.

Others from Winston:

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill

"A liberal is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air." - Winston Churchill

"Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart." - Winston Churchill

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

Shaw and Churchill:

"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill.

"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 08:24 AM
Nobody finds it odd that this news comes out 3 decades after his death?

Ha. Okay.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 08:55 AM
Lennon's love of Reagan is based upon the opinion of an assistant who was caught stealing from Lennon after his death:

Seaman, 58, was forced to apologise in court to Lennon’s widow in 2002 after he was accused of stealing hundreds of the star’s personal photographs and letters....... and was given five years probation.


Good source and apparently the only one.

But even if true, Lennon was not in love with the Reagan that became president and gave us Iran-Contra and Ollie North. He would not have been a fan of the CA gov....who called out the National Guard at Berkeley at a time when Lennon was definitely a radical. Which Seaman claims Lennon forgot.

It ain't true until Yoko screeches it so.

Smiling Assassin27
06-30-2011, 08:59 AM
Nobody finds it odd that this news comes out 3 decades after his death?

Ha. Okay.

When does the statute of limitations end, exactly? Is it 2 decades? Surely you have more to your argument than this. :strong:

SonOfLe-loLang
06-30-2011, 09:07 AM
The article stands on its own.

There's no reason to react to it with fear, though.

The articles point is that your party has become completely ****ing unreasoonable with your ideology. And the fact that you think current democrats are actually socialists makes you ultra paranoid

Smiling Assassin27
06-30-2011, 09:08 AM
Lennon's love of Reagan is based upon the opinion of an assistant who was caught stealing from Lennon after his death:



Good source and apparently the only one.

But even if true, Lennon was not in love with the Reagan that became president and gave us Iran-Contra and Ollie North. He would not have been a fan of the CA gov....who called out the National Guard at Berkeley at a time when Lennon was definitely a radical. Which Seaman claims Lennon forgot.

It ain't true until Yoko screeches it so.

This is a reasonable argument. I mean, if being pi$$ed at Jimmy Carter makes one a 'Republican', then 98% of Americans wouild've been Republican. Not to mention that Lennon still did plenty of historically liberal causes like supporting workers rights, strikes, etc. I do believe that has he got older and wealthier, he changed his political position on certain issues, as it's usually inevitable. Heck, Adele's only 21 and she's going through the same thing now that she's rolling in the dough. (see what i did there?).

bowtown
06-30-2011, 09:11 AM
Lennon's love of Reagan is based upon the opinion of an assistant who was caught stealing from Lennon after his death:


He also just happens to have a book out about lennon's final years... paging the Gaffster.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 09:18 AM
This is a reasonable argument. I mean, if being pi$$ed at Jimmy Carter makes one a 'Republican', then 98% of Americans wouild've been Republican. Not to mention that Lennon still did plenty of historically liberal causes like supporting workers rights, strikes, etc. I do believe that has he got older and wealthier, he changed his political position on certain issues, as it's usually inevitable. Heck, Adele's only 21 and she's going through the same thing now that she's rolling in the dough. (see what i did there?).

Exactly.

Lennon's attitudes did mature as he aged, as evidenced by an interview published in the New Statesman. But to label him a 'Reagan Conservative' because he argued with Seaman's communist Uncle is a simplification.

Lennon much regretted his earlier association with the radical left, as the contents of the chapter entitled "We'd all love to see the plan" (quoting from the song "Revolution") make clear.

Writing in 1978, he stated: "The biggest mistake Yoko and I made in that period was allowing ourselves to become influenced by the male-macho 'serious revolutionaries', and their insane ideas about killing people to save them from capitalism and/or communism (depending on your point of view). We should have stuck to our own way of working for peace: bed-ins, billboards, etc."

Lennon's primary gift was for writing and recording songs that communicate with millions in ways that no ideologically driven political creed -- whether of the left or right -- ever could.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/cultural-capital/2010/02/tariq-ali-lennon-head-hindle

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 09:20 AM
He also just happens to have a book out about lennon's final years... paging the Gaffster.

Coming soon, to a bookstore near you. ;D

Mogulseeker
06-30-2011, 09:22 AM
What's funny is that there is not one instance to support this claim in his last Rolling Stone interview three days before he was murdered (or any other interviews he gave at the time in question). As political as Lennon was, one would think he would've come out strong publicly on this if it was true.

Outside of maybe the part of Lennon playing the Devil's advocate for provocative purposes with the guy's commie uncle, I'm calling it bullshat.

I could see Lennon as a devils advocate... maybe even a Reagan supporter. Not as a hardcore Republican though.


This is a reasonable argument. I mean, if being pi$$ed at Jimmy Carter makes one a 'Republican', then 98% of Americans wouild've been Republican. Not to mention that Lennon still did plenty of historically liberal causes like supporting workers rights, strikes, etc. I do believe that has he got older and wealthier, he changed his political position on certain issues, as it's usually inevitable. Heck, Adele's only 21 and she's going through the same thing now that she's rolling in the dough. (see what i did there?).

Solid.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 09:25 AM
When does the statute of limitations end, exactly? Is it 2 decades? Surely you have more to your argument than this. :strong:

Just asking a question. Kindly untwist your panties.

You really don't find it odd that something like this -- some would call it a bombshell that a pro-peace demonstrator and artist "was a republican" -- wouldn't come out until 30 years after said artist's death?

That's not odd to you?

it's odd to me. Seems like, at some point during the last 30 ****ing years, someone would have dropped this bombshell on the populace. It's not like Lennon's name hasn't been bandied about in the last 30 years; there have been plenty of opportunities to bring this up before. Yet... here we are.

Oh wait. You're a Republican. Curiosity is something you're unfamiliar with. Questions are "gotchas." I keep forgetting.

alkemical
06-30-2011, 09:31 AM
‘If record execs got their hands on the Beatles today’


http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/afiles/beatlesrecordexe1kjfd_thumb.jpg

lostknight
06-30-2011, 09:32 AM
Your saying is incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill by many right wingers. Winston Churchill's assistant said that Churchill was a conservative at 15 and a liberal by the time he was 35. So which Brit did more for the world?

Actually Churchill at 15 was ripping up Africa, at 35 was commanding Gallipoli, and 40 was enforcing the gold standard, which nearly bankrupted the world, and fighting Ghandi left and right in India.

It's what he did after that which was interesting:
Winston Churchill left the "Liberal party" in 1922, and rejoined the conservative party. The following year, he formally rejoined the Conservative Party, commenting wryly that "anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."

His positions where hardly liberal - in fact during this period he argued against universal suffrage and a return to suffrage based on land rights. He also took a hawkish position on Nazi Germany. This in opposition to the Liberal party, which was finally swung out by a serious miscalculation on Herr Hitler.

lostknight
06-30-2011, 09:35 AM
Not surprising really. Honestly, people forget exactly how bad Jimmy Carter really was in office with stagflation and a real sense of malaise. Honestly, we are going through many of the same things right now. Regean was demonized left right and center - as every president often is - but there was a real inertia behind him. Morning in America was just as much a movement as "Hope and Change" bama.

Smiling Assassin27
06-30-2011, 09:35 AM
‘If record execs got their hands on the Beatles today’


http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/afiles/beatlesrecordexe1kjfd_thumb.jpg

It's Oasis! :wiggle:

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 09:46 AM
Just asking a question. Kindly untwist your panties.

You really don't find it odd that something like this -- some would call it a bombshell that a pro-peace demonstrator and artist "was a republican" -- wouldn't come out until 30 years after said artist's death?

That's not odd to you?

it's odd to me. Seems like, at some point during the last 30 ****ing years, someone would have dropped this bombshell on the populace. It's not like Lennon's name hasn't been bandied about in the last 30 years; there have been plenty of opportunities to bring this up before. Yet... here we are.

Oh wait. You're a Republican. Curiosity is something you're unfamiliar with. Questions are "gotchas." I keep forgetting.

Lennon never gave up being a 'peacenik.' Somehow, that doesn't mesh with Reagan.

And being shot by a fundamentalist/born again wacko, probably wouldn't have changed his mind about religion either.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OY0COX0gcyw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 09:59 AM
‘If record execs got their hands on the Beatles today’


http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/afiles/beatlesrecordexe1kjfd_thumb.jpg

Cutler was a Beatle?? :spit:

barryr
06-30-2011, 10:15 AM
Back when Lennon was still alive, anybody in the music business and Hollywood hid being a conservative or else be blacklisted, so I could see his reluctance to come out and admit having changed his thinking if he indeed did do that.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 10:18 AM
Back when Lennon was still alive, anybody in the music business and Hollywood hid being a conservative or else be blacklisted, so I could see his reluctance to come out and admit having changed his thinking if he indeed did do that.

link?

barryr
06-30-2011, 10:21 AM
link?

Looking to link up? I thought you just stuck in your head in a hole and that is where your knowledge came?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 10:22 AM
Looking to link up? I thought you just stuck in your head in a hole and that is where your knowledge came?

So you don't have a link? Just more bluster?

K. Keep up the ****ty work.

Dutch
06-30-2011, 10:48 AM
If you are a republican or democrat, you have proven that you are a mental midget and can't think for yourself. It is funny watching a bunch of retarded kids yell that the other side is retarded though.

This...

Dutch
06-30-2011, 10:50 AM
Shaw and Churchill:

"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill.

"Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

Heh heh heh....Rep to you for that one...

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 10:58 AM
]Back when Lennon was still alive, anybody in the music business and Hollywood hid being a conservative or else be blacklisted, so I could see his reluctance to come out and admit having changed his thinking if he indeed did do that.


LOL

Yeah, right!! ROFL!

Dutch
06-30-2011, 10:58 AM
This is a reasonable argument. I mean, if being pi$$ed at Jimmy Carter makes one a 'Republican', then 98% of Americans wouild've been Republican. Not to mention that Lennon still did plenty of historically liberal causes like supporting workers rights, strikes, etc. I do believe that has he got older and wealthier, he changed his political position on certain issues, as it's usually inevitable. Heck, Adele's only 21 and she's going through the same thing now that she's rolling in the dough. (see what i did there?).

Agreed. Those that didn't live it have no clue how bad the malaise in this county was just prior to 1980. Double digit inflation, interest rates, and unemployment, plus the Iran hostage situation. I could see Lennon falling into the "Reagan Democrat" camp at that time as did many, many others.

DHallblows
06-30-2011, 11:03 AM
Who the **** is Winston Churchill?

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 11:16 AM
Supporting workers rights is not liberal. Far from it. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican after all and he believed in reform, regulation, and the workers rights. He later was with the Bull Mosse party...but that was after he was President and somebody shot him.

Dutch
06-30-2011, 11:23 AM
Supporting workers rights is not liberal. Far from it. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican after all and he believed in reform, regulation, and the workers rights. He later was with the Bull Mosse party...but that was after he was President and somebody shot him.

I agree with your statement on worker's rights not being the exclusive domain of liberals. However, Teddy was only a Republican because he didn't stand a chance in the Democratic party at the time he decided to enter politics. Read David McCullough's excellent book "Mornings on Horseback: The Story of an Extraordinary Family, a Vanished Way of Life and the Unique Child Who Became Theodore Roosevelt". Don't forget that Lincoln was a Republican as well.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 11:29 AM
I agree with your statement on worker's rights not being the exclusive domain of liberals. However, Teddy was only a Republican because he didn't stand a chance in the Democratic party at the time he decided to enter politics. Read David McCullough's excellent book "Mornings on Horseback: The Story of an Extraordinary Family, a Vanished Way of Life and the Unique Child Who Became Theodore Roosevelt". Don't forget that Lincoln was a Republican as well.

Ultimately he was a progressive. Yes...true.

I recently read that he was given the a medal of honor for the Rough Riders. What did that book say about him deciding to do that other than his own ego.

Dutch
06-30-2011, 11:50 AM
Ultimately he was a progressive. Yes...true.

I recently read that he was given the a medal of honor for the Rough Riders. What did that book say about him deciding to do that other than his own ego.

I believe the points that McCullough makes about his Rough Rider days is that it was more about his fierce nationalism (and he was a hopeless romantic about military service and war, as were most of the moneyed elite of the day). The book is a great read especially when followed up with McCullough's "Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal". "Mornings" focus is on Teddy's childhood and early adulthood where you get good insite into him as President in "Path" which is a facinating read on it's own merits.

Fedaykin
06-30-2011, 11:55 AM
Supporting workers rights is not liberal. Far from it. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican after all and he believed in reform, regulation, and the workers rights. He later was with the Bull Mosse party...but that was after he was President and somebody shot him.

How many times does your ignorant butt need to be reminded that "democrat" and "republican" are mere labels and that the principals of the groups that label themselves such change over time?

broncocalijohn
06-30-2011, 11:59 AM
Who the **** is Winston Churchill?

BroncoSteven says he is the guy who does the sting operations on NBC for those internet predators.

DBroncos4life
06-30-2011, 12:09 PM
I can't wait for 2040 on the mane when I find out Michael Jackson was a weirdo and was a fan of Emmanuel Lewis.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 12:16 PM
I can't wait for 2040 on the mane when I find out Michael Jackson was a weirdo and was a fan of Emmanuel Lewis.

LOL.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 12:18 PM
I believe the points that McCullough makes about his Rough Rider days is that it was more about his fierce nationalism (and he was a hopeless romantic about military service and war, as were most of the moneyed elite of the day). The book is a great read especially when followed up with McCullough's "Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal". "Mornings" focus is on Teddy's childhood and early adulthood where you get good insite into him as President in "Path" which is a facinating read on it's own merits.

I've always looked at his RR days as something he did to feed his own ego and circumvent US policy, but I haven't studied that since the 7th grade.

Blart
06-30-2011, 12:21 PM
Most conservatives become frustrated at the complexity of human morality and the economy, so they grasp for simple ideological explanations or cling to their parent's traditions.

"more taxes = less business!"

But show this Atlas Shrugged fan the strong economy and increasing GDP of the most taxed country in the world, Denmark, or any Nordic country, and they don't have an answer. Just don't show them scientific studies about welfare states (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state), as the word "science" means "liberal" to them.

"taxes is stealin!"

You see, taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.

"Slippery slope! If Obama helps people get medical care, next stop is communism! If gays get married, what's to stop brothers and sisters gettin married?"

Conservatives love their slippery slope fallacy. A leads to B, which leads to C, and so on until we finally get A leads to Z. David Tyree's anarchy, where legal gay marriage leads to legalized murder. Each step must have a strong factual basis, or there is no slippery slope.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 12:29 PM
Most conservatives become frustrated at the complexity of human morality and the economy, so they grasp for simple ideological explanations or cling to their parent's traditions.

"more taxes = less business!"

But show this Atlas Shrugged fan the strong economy and increasing GDP of the most taxed country in the world, Denmark, or any Nordic country, and they don't have an answer. Just don't show them scientific studies about welfare states (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state), as the word "science" means "liberal" to them.

"taxes is stealin!"

You see, taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.



More taxes do equal less businesses because it directly impacts a businesses ability to compete in the market place and I would say something is rotten in Denmark because what you are talking about is subjective.

Taxation is not theft, but there should be limits to what can and cannot be taxed and what it's spent upon. You hear the conversative message, but you don't really listen. Conservatives want less government and in our time the Federal Governemnt is getting involved in things that is not its responsibility. Like Healthcare for example.

NUB
06-30-2011, 12:37 PM
The 1950s were some dark, dark times in America. Overly regulated financial markets trying to support an overtaxed population. Ugh.

Flex Gunmetal
06-30-2011, 12:44 PM
OP please get off my broncos forum.
Go btch n moan somewhere else.
How many of these were dragged from central to WR+P? There has to be a forum for you somewhere.

http://i.imgur.com/N1dX1.png

bombay
06-30-2011, 12:47 PM
Lennon's politics obviously moderated over the years - 'if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anhow' - but I doubt that he became a big fan of the folks in the political party who tried so desparately for so long to have him deported, not to mention his ongoing status as a peacenik.

Run on sentence.

enjolras
06-30-2011, 12:51 PM
More taxes do equal less businesses because it directly impacts a businesses ability to compete in the market place and I would say something is rotten in Denmark because what you are talking about is subjective.

Except that it's not even close to that simple. When that tax money is spent correctly those higher taxes can create a better environment for the business to operate in.

When governments are doing their job of playing referee (ie: regulation) those businesses can be on a better and more level playing field.

When governments are doing their job and providing the infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc...) then those businesses have a huge leg-up when it comes to competition. I'd argue that Americas industrial might was built not on innovation, but infrastructure. For the better part of a century we've enjoyed a huge advantage in roads, shipping, and logistics all built with tax dollars. It's an advantage we've completely squandered.

You can even make a case that health care, while costing more in tax dollars, creates a saner environment for business to operate in. I've told the story of losing a developer we really wanted to a competitor based in Canada.

I'm certainly not on the "raise taxes and solve our problems" bandwagon. I'm also not an ideologue. The idea that higher taxes is never the answer is the wrong one.

Our problem in America isn't taxes, its the people we put in charge of managing them. Year after year we elect narrow-minded intellectual midgets who waste our money rather than spending it effectively.

woodall
06-30-2011, 01:01 PM
Conservatives want less government and in our time the Federal Governemnt is getting involved in things that is not its responsibility. Like Healthcare for example.

So who decides what exactly falls under the Federal Governments responsibility?? It seems that is really subjective depending on who you ask. I feel like healthcare does fall under governmental responsibility while you obviously don't feel that way so who gets to decide?

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 01:05 PM
So who decides what exactly falls under the Federal Governments responsibility?? It seems that is really subjective depending on who you ask. I feel like healthcare does fall under governmental responsibility while you obviously don't feel that way so who gets to decide?


The contract.


It is not specifically enumerated that the Federal Governemnt regulate healthcare. The states can. It's only through intellectual interpretation that they can even start to get their hands around it. It's dishonest. If we really wanted this as a community...fine...but pass a Constitutional Amendment saying so.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 01:07 PM
Except that it's not even close to that simple. When that tax money is spent correctly those higher taxes can create a better environment for the business to operate in.

When governments are doing their job of playing referee (ie: regulation) those businesses can be on a better and more level playing field.

When governments are doing their job and providing the infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc...) then those businesses have a huge leg-up when it comes to competition. I'd argue that Americas industrial might was built not on innovation, but infrastructure. For the better part of a century we've enjoyed a huge advantage in roads, shipping, and logistics all built with tax dollars. It's an advantage we've completely squandered.

You can even make a case that health care, while costing more in tax dollars, creates a saner environment for business to operate in. I've told the story of losing a developer we really wanted to a competitor based in Canada.

I'm certainly not on the "raise taxes and solve our problems" bandwagon. I'm also not an ideologue. The idea that higher taxes is never the answer is the wrong one.

Our problem in America isn't taxes, its the people we put in charge of managing them. Year after year we elect narrow-minded intellectual midgets who waste our money rather than spending it effectively.

It's not always that simple..no. But regulation can level the playing field. It can also keep people out at the state, local, and federal level. I agree...taxes in and of themselves are not evil and more specifically it's the people we elect.

jsco70
06-30-2011, 01:16 PM
‘If record execs got their hands on the Beatles today’


http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/afiles/beatlesrecordexe1kjfd_thumb.jpg

This picture is disturbing on many levels.

Mogulseeker
06-30-2011, 01:37 PM
‘If record execs got their hands on the Beatles today’


http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/afiles/beatlesrecordexe1kjfd_thumb.jpg

How is that any different than the long hair and organic clothing Lennon wore during his hippie days?

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 01:47 PM
What's funny is that there is not one instance to support this claim in his last Rolling Stone interview three days before he was murdered (or any other interviews he gave at the time in question). As political as Lennon was, one would think he would've come out strong publicly on this if it was true.

Outside of maybe the part of Lennon playing the Devil's advocate for provocative purposes with the guy's commie uncle, I'm calling it bullshat.

Lennon also spent his last years corresponding with televangelists and Christian religious leaders because he was seriously exploring Christianity.

Its certainly not out of the realm of reason that Lennon was returning to his traditional roots.

mhgaffney
06-30-2011, 02:19 PM
John Lennon a Republican?

Yes, and Mother Theresa was a porn star.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 02:55 PM
Lennon also spent his last years corresponding with televangelists and Christian religious leaders because he was seriously exploring Christianity.

Its certainly not out of the realm of reason that Lennon was returning to his traditional roots.

Got a link?

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:00 PM
Got a link?

This is common knowledge. You may want to ask why you have never heard of it before.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=john%20lennon%20oral%20roberts&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1024&bih=550&pdl=300&wrapid=tljp1309463310890022&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 03:05 PM
This is common knowledge. You may want to ask why you have never heard of it before.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=john%20lennon%20oral%20roberts&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1024&bih=550&pdl=300&wrapid=tljp1309463310890022&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

I don't have to look, if you're talking about the urban legend, typed letter to Oral Roberts in 1972.

Ok, I looked, and you are talking about the famous 'Oral Roberts' letter.

Now where are the links to your statement:

Lennon also spent his last years corresponding with televangelists and Christian religious leaders because he was seriously exploring Christianity.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:11 PM
I don't have to look, if you're talking about the urban legend, typed letter to Oral Roberts in 1972.

Ok, I looked, and you are talking about the famous 'Oral Roberts' letter.

Now where are the links to your statement:

There are hundreds of them in the link I provided. I provided all of them so you could compare them...you know...like someone who is interested in comparing and contrasting different opinions and information because they want to know the truth.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 03:17 PM
There are hundreds of them in the link I provided. I provided all of them so you could compare them...you know...like someone who is interested in comparing and contrasting different opinions and information because they want to know the truth.

Can you find any evidence to support your claim that:

Lennon also spent his last years corresponding with televangelists and Christian religious leaders because he was seriously exploring Christianity.

Because one supposed letter, sent in 1972, is not remotely evidence.

Lennon was never one to keep his beliefs under wraps, so do you have a quote from him, or just Christian bloggers/websites and rumor??

Even if he did write to Roberts, at best one would claim it was a plea during his 'unconscious' period. A letter like that would be very valuable.....where is it??

bowtown
06-30-2011, 03:19 PM
There are hundreds of them in the link I provided. I provided all of them so you could compare them...you know...like someone who is interested in comparing and contrasting different opinions and information because they want to know the truth.

Here's the truth:

http://thislandpress.com/03/07/2011/the-gospel-of-john-lennon/

Lennon’s letter received a tremendous amount of fanfare, both at the time of the reading and since then. It has been mentioned in several books, numerous blog posts, a Christianity Today article, and was even referenced in Roberts’ obituary in the New York Times. However, every reference to the letter cites the incomplete version in the Harrell Jr. biography. And all of these references may actually be wrong. Why?

“We have looked for the original for years, but it is nowhere to be found,” explains Roger Rydin, curator of the Oral Roberts University (ORU) archive. “We have done a good job over the years of keeping up with these kind of items, but this one got away. We had a researcher here in 1985, and it was ‘lost’ then, and has not been found since.”

Without the original letter, it’s impossible to verify whether it was actually Lennon who wrote it. When Roberts read the letter at the chapel, he was reading a typed version of the letter, and when he read it out loud, he frequently interrupted the letter and altered the words. The most accurate record of the letter is Roberts’ audiotaped sermon, but representatives from ORU are oddly skittish about allowing access to the audiotape; their public relations director ignored repeated requests for permission to hear the tape.

While we may never know for certain if Lennon actually penned the letter, there’s an interesting allusion Lennon left for us to consider–and we have audio of John Lennon singing it.

On November 14, 1980, less than a month from his murder, Lennon recorded a song he had written to Yoko called, “You Saved My Soul.” It exists only as a rough demo of the very last recording he ever sang on, passed around as a bootleg recording. The lyrics read:

When I was lonely and scared, I nearly fell for a TV preacher in a hotel room in Tokyo. Remember the time I went to jump right out the apartment window on the west side of town of old New York. You saved me from that suicide and…I wanna thank you, thank you, thank you for saving my soul with your true love.

It appears that Lennon had found the savior he was seeking.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:22 PM
Can you find any evidence to support your claim that:



Because one supposed letter, sent in 1972, is not remotely evidence.

Lennon was never one to keep his beliefs under wraps, so do you have a quote from him, or just Christian bloggers and websites and rumor??

Even if he did write to Roberts, at best one would claim it was a plea during his 'unconscious' period. A letter like that would be very valuable.....where is it??

Lennon also conversed with Pat Robertson and Billy Graham.

You should read more and let the facts convince you instead of trying to bend truths into half-truths so that you can fit what is obviously an uncomfortable reality into your compartmentalized view of the world.

http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/Books/carey_john_lennon.aspx

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 03:23 PM
Is epicFAIL ever right?

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:24 PM
Here's the truth:

http://thislandpress.com/03/07/2011/the-gospel-of-john-lennon/

Lennon’s letter received a tremendous amount of fanfare, both at the time of the reading and since then. It has been mentioned in several books, numerous blog posts, a Christianity Today article, and was even referenced in Roberts’ obituary in the New York Times. However, every reference to the letter cites the incomplete version in the Harrell Jr. biography. And all of these references may actually be wrong. Why?

“We have looked for the original for years, but it is nowhere to be found,” explains Roger Rydin, curator of the Oral Roberts University (ORU) archive. “We have done a good job over the years of keeping up with these kind of items, but this one got away. We had a researcher here in 1985, and it was ‘lost’ then, and has not been found since.”

Without the original letter, it’s impossible to verify whether it was actually Lennon who wrote it. When Roberts read the letter at the chapel, he was reading a typed version of the letter, and when he read it out loud, he frequently interrupted the letter and altered the words. The most accurate record of the letter is Roberts’ audiotaped sermon, but representatives from ORU are oddly skittish about allowing access to the audiotape; their public relations director ignored repeated requests for permission to hear the tape.

While we may never know for certain if Lennon actually penned the letter, there’s an interesting allusion Lennon left for us to consider–and we have audio of John Lennon singing it.

On November 14, 1980, less than a month from his murder, Lennon recorded a song he had written to Yoko called, “You Saved My Soul.” It exists only as a rough demo of the very last recording he ever sang on, passed around as a bootleg recording. The lyrics read:

When I was lonely and scared, I nearly fell for a TV preacher in a hotel room in Tokyo. Remember the time I went to jump right out the apartment window on the west side of town of old New York. You saved me from that suicide and…I wanna thank you, thank you, thank you for saving my soul with your true love.

It appears that Lennon had found the savior he was seeking.

Ah, so he agrees that Lennon was seriously exploring converting to Christianity.

Lennon also wrote Christian songs with names such as "Talking with Jesus" and "Amen".

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 03:27 PM
Lennon also conversed with Pat Robertson and Billy Graham.

You should read more and let the facts convince you instead of trying to bend truths into half-truths so that you can fit what is obviously an uncomfortable reality into your compartmentalized view of the world.

http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/Books/carey_john_lennon.aspx

Nah, that won't fly either.

Where is all the correspondence? Everything you're linking is related to the Roberts letter and the subsequent rumors reported by christian bloggers and websites.

You're trying desperately to connect Lennon with being 'Born Again.'

Hinckley is the closest you're going to get.....he was 'Born Again' when he shot Lennon.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 03:29 PM
Nah, that won't fly either.

Where is all the correspondence? Everything you're linking is related to the Roberts letter and the subsequent rumors reported by christian bloggers and websites.

You're trying desperately to connect Lennon with being 'Born Again.'

Hinckley is the closest you're going to get.....he was 'Born Again' when he shot Lennon.

I gave you hundreds of links.

You look at them yourself.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 03:31 PM
Ah, so he agrees that Lennon was seriously exploring converting to Christianity.

Lennon also wrote Christian songs with names such as "Talking with Jesus" and "Amen".

Really?? The song was written to Yoko.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 03:32 PM
I gave you hundreds of links.

You look at them yourself.

I did, 3 pages.

But I am very familiar with the rumor. It never had legs and you linking to the Roberts letter, over and over, doesn't change that.

Killericon
06-30-2011, 03:44 PM
Liberal when poor, conservative when rich.

Sure sounds right...

bowtown
06-30-2011, 03:45 PM
Bottom line is whether Lennon did or didn't write the letter (probably didn't); whether he was or wasn't exploring Christianity (very well might have been); whether he was or was in an "unconcious" period (he clamis he was), none of it has any bearing on whether or not he became a Republican. Only in epic's mind do Republicans have a monopoly on Christ.

bombay
06-30-2011, 03:53 PM
the epic douchebag is quite the disengenuous and unlikable fat man.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 04:11 PM
the epic douchebag is quite the disengenuous and unlikable fat man.

Wooo! Personal attacks are a great way to debate! Solid!

That's how they do it on MSNBC. It must be working for them as much as its working for you considering nobody watches that channel except for the hard core leftist extremists.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 04:14 PM
Someone posted an article that proposes an idea we cant handle!

Quick! To the personal attacks! They must be isolated and attacked! Get the torches! Lets storm the doors!

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 04:16 PM
Someone posted an article that proposes an idea we cant handle!

Quick! To the personal attacks! They must be isolated and attacked! Get the torches! Lets storm the doors!


LOL

Awwww, always the victim.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 04:21 PM
LOL

Awwww, always the victim.

Look at how many of you knee-jerk liberal thought police rallied to this thread and went into attack mode.

Attack the original poster! We can't handle this information!

As if the idea that John Lennon was not a cookie-cutter hyperliberal extremist like you guys in some way threatens you.

Why are you so threatened by the idea that other people are not like yourself?

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 04:23 PM
Look at how many of you knee-jerk liberal thought police rallied to this thread and went into attack mode.

Attack the original poster! We can't handle this information!

As if the idea that John Lennon was not a cookie-cutter hyperliberal extremist like you guys in some way threatens you.

Why are you so threatened by the idea that other people are not like yourself?

Yeah, you proved Lennon was a born again christian and conservative. Ha!

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 04:30 PM
Yeah, you proved Lennon was a born again christian and conservative.

I never said that he was a born again Christian. I didn't write the original article either.

You shouldn't be so utterly scared of opposing view points that you mentally crap the bed when someone provides some information that makes you uncomfortable.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 04:42 PM
I am sure Lennon was just like everybody else. Conservative on some issues and Liberal on others. The test is was he registered with either? Because if you don't put your name on the roster...you ain't a member.

bowtown
06-30-2011, 04:45 PM
I am sure Lennon was just like everybody else. Conservative on some issues and Liberal on others. The test is was he registered with either? Because if you don't put your name on the roster...you ain't a member.

He wasn't American.

Chris
06-30-2011, 04:46 PM
He wasn't American.

Technically he became American by the time of his death (believe he held a US passport).

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 05:02 PM
I never said that he was a born again Christian. I didn't write the original article either.

You shouldn't be so utterly scared of opposing view points that you mentally crap the bed when someone provides some information that makes you uncomfortable.

Still clueless.

My response to the 'article' you posted.

But even if true, Lennon was not in love with the Reagan that became president and gave us Iran-Contra and Ollie North. He would not have been a fan of the CA gov....who called out the National Guard at Berkeley at a time when Lennon was definitely a radical. Which Seaman claims Lennon forgot.

You see 'utterly scared' in my response??

bombay
06-30-2011, 05:03 PM
Technically he became American by the time of his death (believe he held a US passport).

Which is kind of funny after Nixon had him followed by the FBI and hounded by every other government agency possible in an effort to have him deported. It would seem somewhat odd that he wouldn't be grateful to Carter for granting him citizenship. Makes stories to the contrary a little hard to swallow.

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2011, 05:04 PM
I guess John finally woke the fug up. I really can't stand his solo career (music) because it was all political crap. I'm sorry, but RocknRoll ain't no place for political activism. Groups like Rage Against the Cappy Music can suck it for all I care.

IMHO, it's ok for a musical group to point out some social injustices in a song every now and then, but when your hell bent on pushing an agenda--no thanks.

DenverBrit
06-30-2011, 05:07 PM
At the time of his death, I believe he was a resident alien. But intended to become a citizen.

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 06:18 PM
I guess John finally woke the fug up. I really can't stand his solo career (music) because it was all political crap. I'm sorry, but RocknRoll ain't no place for political activism. Groups like Rage Against the Cappy Music can suck it for all I care.

IMHO, it's ok for a musical group to point out some social injustices in a song every now and then, but when your hell bent on pushing an agenda--no thanks.

Where did you get this notion? Rock and roll has been utilized as an avenue for expressing political views since before it was even "born" (with its roots in the blues).

Hogan11
06-30-2011, 08:15 PM
I guess John finally woke the fug up. I really can't stand his solo career (music) because it was all political crap. I'm sorry, but RocknRoll ain't no place for political activism.....

Oh wow.

Hogan11
06-30-2011, 08:16 PM
Bono's ex-personal assistant just came out and said he's really an athiest!

Que
06-30-2011, 08:38 PM
Wooo! Personal attacks are a great way to debate! Solid!

That's how they do it on MSNBC. It must be working for them as much as its working for you considering nobody watches that channel except for the hard core leftist extremists.

Tool

rugbythug
06-30-2011, 08:51 PM
Why would anyone care?

DBroncos4life
06-30-2011, 09:05 PM
Why would anyone care?

Clearly you don't understand that the views and who people liked 30 years ago is the new "mania".

I have good proof that Herman Munster voted for Andy Grifftith

scorpio
06-30-2011, 09:06 PM
Why are people still playing this game with Drama Llama?

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 09:27 PM
Where did you get this notion? Rock and roll has been utilized as an avenue for expressing political views since before it was even "born" (with its roots in the blues).

It used to be that way. Now its just another arm of the democratic party pretty much. There are some party line bands out there for sure.

People are too scared to be rebels anymore.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-30-2011, 09:29 PM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230769?ie=UTF8&tag=theofficiw0c2-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1595230769

Check this guy out. Long time Lib who switched sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet

mhgaffney
06-30-2011, 09:31 PM
Epic never heard of the Republican Beach Boys, apparently.

Most of you clowns don't even know what being a conservative means.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-30-2011, 09:43 PM
Epic never heard of the Republican Beach Boys, apparently.

Most of you clowns don't even know what being a conservative means.

Explain?

ghwk
06-30-2011, 09:53 PM
It used to be that way. Now its just another arm of the democratic party pretty much. There are some party line bands out there for sure.

People are too scared to be rebels anymore.

Llama you are a rebel, as a matter of fact you are a one man wolf pack! Hilarious!

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 09:56 PM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230769?ie=UTF8&tag=theofficiw0c2-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1595230769

Check this guy out. Long time Lib who switched sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet

"The problems facing us, faced by all mankind engaged in Democracy, may seem complex, or indeed insolvable, and we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment-a state of "belief" in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Here, the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors.

This is the essence of Leftist thought. It is a devolution from reason to "belief," in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness. And if government is Good, it is a logical elaboration that more government power is Better. But the opposite is apparent both to anyone who has ever had to deal with Government and, I think, to any dispassionate observer."
-David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge

Its good to see people starting to come out of the darkness.

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 10:23 PM
It used to be that way. Now its just another arm of the democratic party pretty much. There are some party line bands out there for sure.

People are too scared to be rebels anymore.

I disagree... there are so many places where bands can record rock n' roll music that it's essentially impossible for a band to be blackballed due to politics. Rock n' roll isn't like country music where there's only one city and artists (Dixie Chicks, anyone?) can and do face a backlash due to their politics.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-30-2011, 10:34 PM
"The problems facing us, faced by all mankind engaged in Democracy, may seem complex, or indeed insolvable, and we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment-a state of "belief" in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Here, the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors.

This is the essence of Leftist thought. It is a devolution from reason to "belief," in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness. And if government is Good, it is a logical elaboration that more government power is Better. But the opposite is apparent both to anyone who has ever had to deal with Government and, I think, to any dispassionate observer."
-David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge

Its good to see people starting to come out of the darkness.

Its so easy being a Lib. You just have to say yes to everything. So much harder when you actually have to be an adult and say no to something.

DHallblows
06-30-2011, 10:36 PM
I guess John finally woke the fug up. I really can't stand his solo career (music) because it was all political crap. I'm sorry, but RocknRoll ain't no place for political activism. Groups like Rage Against the Cappy Music can suck it for all I care.

IMHO, it's ok for a musical group to point out some social injustices in a song every now and then, but when your hell bent on pushing an agenda--no thanks.

Yes, we get it. You're old so you don't like new music because it speaks out against what you believe. That's never happened before to other generations ::)

Tombstone RJ
06-30-2011, 10:38 PM
Where did you get this notion? Rock and roll has been utilized as an avenue for expressing political views since before it was even "born" (with its roots in the blues).

I'm talking about the bands (and or artist) that concentrate their music on a political/social point of view, not the bands that occassional have a message in one of their songs. Big difference. big.

HAT
06-30-2011, 10:48 PM
John Lennon was a douche......

Fixed your thread title.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
06-30-2011, 10:56 PM
John Lennon was a douche......

Fixed your thread title.

Wow. Really. What would you say if Sean Penn to the "dark side". hahah

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 10:57 PM
John Lennon was a douche......

Fixed your thread title.

He had his moments for sure.

By all appearances, he was becoming a pretty good dude by the time he was killed though. He was notorious around NYC for being kind and generous.

enjolras
06-30-2011, 11:00 PM
Its so easy being a Lib. You just have to say yes to everything. So much harder when you actually have to be an adult and say no to something.

You really have no idea just how much of the problem you are do you?

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm talking about the bands (and or artist) that concentrate their music on a political/social point of view, not the bands that occassional have a message in one of their songs. Big difference. big.

Very few rock n' roll bands stick solely to political or social commentary with their music... the political stuff generally comprises only a small percentage of their repertoire. Yet some very high-profile rock bands do include some political stuff in their music.

bombay
06-30-2011, 11:04 PM
Lennon cetainly was a sad case as a solo artist. Maybe he did completely lose his abitlities and creativity.

HAT
06-30-2011, 11:06 PM
Wow. Really. What would you say if Sean Penn to the "dark side". hahah

Say wha?? I could care less about Sean Penn's (Or Lennon's) politics.

I'm a one issue voter who could give a rat's ass about politics. Give the Navy, CIA & whatever dark SpecOp program an unlimited budget with none or very little oversight & I'll vote for you.

**** hippy singers.....And actors.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Lennon cetainly was a sad case as a solo artist. Maybe he did completely lose his abitlities and creativity.

Or maybe he just lost McCartney.

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 11:11 PM
Very few rock n' roll bands stick solely to political or social commentary with their music... the political stuff generally comprises only a small percentage of their repertoire. Yet some very high-profile rock bands do include some political stuff in their music.

Some popular bands have allowed themselves to become claricatures of their former selves with political activism. Green Day and to a lesser extent System of a Down are two off the top of my head.

Nowadays though, if you want to rebel against the government, you need to be a libertarian or something similar. Nobody seems to have that gumption anymore. The reality that bands are out there supporting the idea of giving your money to bureacrats in stuffed suits is hilarious and is probably part of the reason why the music world is less relevant now than it has been since before the prominence of radio.

Blueflame
06-30-2011, 11:21 PM
Some popular bands have allowed themselves to become claricatures of their former selves with political activism. Green Day and to a lesser extent System of a Down are two off the top of my head.

Nowadays though, if you want to rebel against the government, you need to be a libertarian or something similar. Nobody seems to have that gumption anymore. The reality that bands are out there supporting the idea of giving your money to bureacrats in stuffed suits is hilarious and is probably part of the reason why the music world is less relevant now than it has been since before the prominence of radio.

Green Day still enjoys a great deal of popularity... I'd venture to say that "caricatures of their former selves" would not be the consensus of opinion (as an accurate characterization of the band) from the majority of their fanbase.

Music is relevant... otherwise you wouldn't find artists being paid for the rights to use certain songs in political campaigning.

pricejj
06-30-2011, 11:54 PM
The articles point is that your party has become completely ****ing unreasoonable with your ideology. And the fact that you think current democrats are actually socialists makes you ultra paranoid

If you think balancing the federal budget to keep the country solvent is "unreasonable", then what exactly do you find reasonable?

epicSocialism4tw
06-30-2011, 11:55 PM
Green Day still enjoys a great deal of popularity... I'd venture to say that "caricatures of their former selves" would not be the consensus of opinion (as an accurate characterization of the band) from the majority of their fanbase.

Green Day was briefly a punk band. Now they are a pop-rock outfit. It makes them more marketable, sure, but it also makes them a caricature of their former selves. Its great that they can sell records and make money, but that's just about all they're doing anymore. You have to give up the creative bend and give in to the production machine to get where they are, and that's what they have done. So for music purists who like to see music at its most raw, powerful, innovative, and thought-provoking, Green Day is not relevant at all and hasn't been for a long time. Its kind of like visual art...more people will buy that pretty piece at Target because its not too wild and it matches the furniture. But the pieces that spawned the generations of print knock-offs that were mass produced in their wake have long been irrelevant in the way that art is moving through the minds of the artists themselves.


Music is relevant... otherwise you wouldn't find artists being paid for the rights to use certain songs in political campaigning.

What's funny about that is that its still "classic" bands who get asked for those songs. Fleetwood Mac, Tom Petty, etc.

But as for musics relevancy...as recent as the mid-1990's, bands were making a living selling records and playing cheap shows across the country. Now, nobody listens to radio anymore, and shows cost about 60 bucks a pop. Bands have to charge alot at the gate because people steal music. As for content, I mean how innovative, new, or interesting is it to hear "republicans arent cool"? Has that dead horse not been beaten dead long ago? I have never liked cookie-cutter philosophy in music (one of the biggest reasons I like the Pixies so much and dislike alot of mainstream Christian music as much as I dislike Green Day).

Music is a venue for new philosophy. An important artist makes you travel new philosophical roads. That just isn't happening much these days.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 12:17 AM
Most conservatives become frustrated at the complexity of human morality and the economy, so they grasp for simple ideological explanations or cling to their parent's traditions.

"more taxes = less business!"

But show this Atlas Shrugged fan the strong economy and increasing GDP of the most taxed country in the world, Denmark, or any Nordic country, and they don't have an answer..

LOL

Gotta love Socialists, who think they are morally superior to, and have a better grasp of economics then everyone who ever lived, including the founding fathers, just because they have an Arts & Crafts college degree. Deficit spending of $1.6T, IN ONE YEAR, is not only foolish, reckless, or absurd. It is HORRIFIC.

All of the Nordic countries have a population of less than 10 million, and are in the top 10 most debtor nations as a percentage of GDP IN THE WORLD. On top of that, they have the highest individual tax rates IN THE WORLD.

Come again.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 12:27 AM
So who decides what exactly falls under the Federal Governments responsibility?? It seems that is really subjective depending on who you ask. I feel like healthcare does fall under governmental responsibility while you obviously don't feel that way so who gets to decide?

You do realize government is paid for by the taxpayer, of which I am one. Therefore, you believe that I am responsible for paying for your healthcare? This makes no sense, and in effect makes me your slave.

Blueflame
07-01-2011, 12:56 AM
.

Green Day was briefly a punk band. Now they are a pop-rock outfit. It makes them more marketable, sure, but it also makes them a caricature of their former selves. Its great that they can sell records and make money, but that's just about all they're doing anymore. You have to give up the creative bend and give in to the production machine to get where they are, and that's what they have done. So for music purists who like to see music at its most raw, powerful, innovative, and thought-provoking, Green Day is not relevant at all and hasn't been for a long time. Its kind of like visual art...more people will buy that pretty piece at Target because its not too wild and it matches the furniture. But the pieces that spawned the generations of print knock-offs that were mass produced in their wake have long been irrelevant in the way that art is moving through the minds of the artists themselves.




What's funny about that is that its still "classic" bands who get asked for those songs. Fleetwood Mac, Tom Petty, etc.

But as for musics relevancy...as recent as the mid-1990's, bands were making a living selling records and playing cheap shows across the country. Now, nobody listens to radio anymore, and shows cost about 60 bucks a pop. Bands have to charge alot at the gate because people steal music. As for content, I mean how innovative, new, or interesting is it to hear "republicans arent cool"? Has that dead horse not been beaten dead long ago? I have never liked cookie-cutter philosophy in music (one of the biggest reasons I like the Pixies so much and dislike alot of mainstream Christian music as much as I dislike Green Day).

Music is a venue for new philosophy. An important artist makes you travel new philosophical roads. That just isn't happening much these days.

Meh. Country music is the genre that currently lacks "identity"... far more than rock and roll. With "classic country", one could instantly recognize whether the singer was George Jones, Willie Nelson, or Johnny Cash (to name just a few). Today, Nashville is looking so hard for the "next Garth Brooks" that the sound has become entirely homogenous and it's very nearly impossible to differentiate one singer from another... they all sound pretty much alike.

Anyway... re: Green Day, the assertion you made (that they are "caricatures of their former selves) is actually your personal opinion; not established fact. And it's OK that you think that... but also OK that I don't entirely agree.

Is it surprising that politicians want their names associated with the music of bands that were popular in times of... less economic uncertainty? To me, it's not.

Cost of (musical) stadium shows is kinda linked to a common issue discussed on football message boards... new stadiums and the passed-on-to-the consumer costs of the new digs. It's all about the money (and not necessarily just the money going into the pockets of the performers). Even in small towns, the economy has made it so that local (amateur) bands can't get gigs; the taverns go with karaoke instead to save money 'cause when times get tough, the first thing that goes in a tight (personal or family) budget is "discretionary spending" (people stop going out.... or go out less often)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-01-2011, 02:12 AM
If you think balancing the federal budget to keep the country solvent is "unreasonable", then what exactly do you find reasonable?

Balancing the budget is a must.

Just not your way...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/264066_230990753589464_114270361928171_782844_2129 24_n.jpg

Many Republicans and people on the right claim that they love Jesus, yet they're constantly doing exactly the opposite of what biblical Jesus would do. I doubt very highly that biblical Jesus would take money from programs that help women and children to give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations.

epicSocialism4tw
07-01-2011, 03:04 AM
Meh. Country music is the genre that currently lacks "identity"... far more than rock and roll. With "classic country", one could instantly recognize whether the singer was George Jones, Willie Nelson, or Johnny Cash (to name just a few). Today, Nashville is looking so hard for the "next Garth Brooks" that the sound has become entirely homogenous and it's very nearly impossible to differentiate one singer from another... they all sound pretty much alike.

I have never been a country music fan. I love bluegrass and old country music. Today's country music is nothing but pop music underneath the same anecdotes taken from the same stereotypes written by the same groups of people with the same studio musicians. There are some diamonds in the rough out there like Vince Gill, who is a top musician and writer, but other than those few guys I couldn't care less unless I'm hearing some hammered dulcimer, banjo, and/or mandolin.

Anyway... re: Green Day, the assertion you made (that they are "caricatures of their former selves) is actually your personal opinion; not established fact. And it's OK that you think that... but also OK that I don't entirely agree.

No, it is 100% fact that when you sign a record deal, you agree to terms to work with a producer who's job it is is to mediate between the sound that the band envisions and the sound that the label wants. The label dictates the terms once you sign that document. Those decisions are made in committees that the band is not a part of. With Green Day, the producers wanted to take their boorish punk rock, put a nice pop sheen on it, and tighten it up.

The frontman Armstrong on parting ways with punk rock after signing with Reprise:

Armstrong told Spin magazine in 1999, "I couldn't go back to the punk scene, whether we were the biggest success in the world or the biggest failure ... The only thing I could do was get on my bike and go forward." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Day#Formation_and_Lookout_years_.281987.E2.8 0.931993.29

They traded their creative control for a shot to make it. Most bands are more than willing to take that leap. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work. You just become a caricature of yourself in the process. Most people are willing to do that. I know several bands who got deep into the process of producing an album, didn't want to follow through, and then pulled out of the contract. I also know several bands who made that leap, and saw the record label pull out after laying down most of the tracks. The label then owns all of that work and you can't do anything about it. I saw it break up two major bands that were really taking off. The list is very long of those bands who were "put on hold" when the economy started tanking. Now they are literally owned by a label and cannot perform their own material under their own name.


Cost of (musical) stadium shows is kinda linked to a common issue discussed on football message boards... new stadiums and the passed-on-to-the consumer costs of the new digs. It's all about the money (and not necessarily just the money going into the pockets of the performers). Even in small towns, the economy has made it so that local (amateur) bands can't get gigs; the taverns go with karaoke instead to save money 'cause when times get tough, the first thing that goes in a tight (personal or family) budget is "discretionary spending" (people stop going out.... or go out less often)

Oh, I wasn't referring to stadium shows. That's a whole other scale of consumer pricing. I was referring to bands who might be in the prime of their careers who are doing the mid-to-large sized club venue circuit. I saw Arcade Fire this year for about 60 bucks. Animal Collective last year was 55. Pixies was 70 bucks (more when I saw them in San Francisco). The National? That one was relatively cheap at 40ish. I just bought tickets to Bon Iver for 45.

Back when I saw Weezer in the early 1990's on the Pinkerton tour? 17 bucks. Smashing Pumpkins on the Mellon Collie tour? 20. Sonic Youth? 15. Mike Watt? 12. Frank Black? 15. Phish? 25 (and they played for like well over 4 hours). Ween? 15 bucks. Soundgarden on the Superunknown tour? It was like 15 bucks. Same for Stone Temple Pilots on their second album tour with Meat Puppets.

It was cheap then, even cheaper than that in the mid 1980's and so on. Shirts were 10-15 bucks. Now they're 25-35 bucks. But now kids don't buy the records because they are available for free online, and the radio doesn't spin innovative music anymore because there's no money in it. Thats why the music on the radio all sounds the same...thats the sound that entities like Clear Channel demand from the labels, so the labels will snap up bands that they can fit into that demographic and they will produce their records using the same techniques so that they sound the same. One genre (my nickname for it): "Puddle of Nickelback Doors Down".

Anyhow, bands have to make money now by doing extensive tours and charging much more for tickets and merch.

myMind
07-01-2011, 03:09 AM
"The problems facing us, faced by all mankind engaged in Democracy, may seem complex, or indeed insolvable, and we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment-a state of "belief" in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Here, the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors.

This is the essence of Leftist thought. It is a devolution from reason to "belief," in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness. And if government is Good, it is a logical elaboration that more government power is Better. But the opposite is apparent both to anyone who has ever had to deal with Government and, I think, to any dispassionate observer."
-David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge



Read this and replace government, democracy, and leftist with religion/ous...
Think about it...

Which ticket has the larger "god" platform?

To clarify, I am not bashing peoples right to faith.
I respect your beliefs. Please respect my right to call them into question.

*Bracing for impact*

**edit- I am drunk

TheElusiveKyleOrton
07-01-2011, 07:33 AM
LOL

Gotta love Socialists, who think they are morally superior to, and have a better grasp of economics then everyone who ever lived, including the founding fathers, just because they have an Arts & Crafts college degree. Deficit spending of $1.6T, IN ONE YEAR, is not only foolish, reckless, or absurd. It is HORRIFIC.


Yep. Should have left the wars off the budget like the previous administration. Because that worked out SO well for everyone, and if it's not written down, it totally doesn't count. Right, buddy? Is that sound economic policy?

ColoradoDarin
07-01-2011, 07:41 AM
**edit- I am drunk

hahahahahaha, love the edit!

rmsanger
07-01-2011, 10:21 AM
I love political discourse threads, it really leads to lots of lulz... Especially when people talk in absolutes (Republican vs Democrat; Conservative vs Liberal). To compare the Republican party of the 18th Century to that of FDR's generation and even Reagan's 80's vs Bush's 00's is rediculous. Each party changes and is in constant fludiity. I would argue that Bush was not a real conservative and Obama is not a real liberal. Each is strikingly similar in overall policy were just in shades of gray here.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 10:38 AM
Balancing the budget is a must.

Just not your way...

Many Republicans and people on the right claim that they love Jesus, yet they're constantly doing exactly the opposite of what biblical Jesus would do. I doubt very highly that biblical Jesus would take money from programs that help women and children to give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations.

Jesus, Muhammed, Noah, Joseph, peace be upon them, or any other prophet you name, would NEVER approve of running oneself into deeper and deeper debt, until you are bankrupt. In fact, taking out loans on interest was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. All of these prophets believed in the giving of charity, to help those in need, which many of us engage in. $2T in tax revenues is more than enough to feed every man, woman, and child in the country (not that that is necessary, or recommended).

For the federal government to spend beyond revenues collected, is a CRIME against humanity. If you think that something is to be gained by promoting deficit spending, you are a fool. The usurious ones remain terrified to the very last breath. This is merely a warning to you.

DHallblows
07-01-2011, 11:05 AM
Jesus, Muhammed, Noah, Joseph, peace be upon them, or any other prophet you name, would NEVER approve of running oneself into deeper and deeper debt, until you are bankrupt. In fact, taking out loans on interest was STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. All of these prophets believed in the giving of charity, to help those in need, which many of us engage in. $2T in tax revenues is more than enough to feed every man, woman, and child in the country (not that that is necessary, or recommended).

For the federal government to spend beyond revenues collected, is a CRIME against humanity. If you think that something is to be gained by promoting deficit spending, you are a fool. The usurious ones remain terrified to the very last breath. This is merely a warning to you.

Just to clarify. You believe that Jesus would have been more outraged by:

-People trading more gold than they possessed

over

-A government giving gold to the wealthy...let's say Romans...all while said gold was taken away from ensuring that women and children didn't starve.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 11:29 AM
Just to clarify. You believe that Jesus would have been more outraged by:

-People trading more gold than they possessed

over

-A government giving gold to the wealthy...let's say Romans...all while said gold was taken away from ensuring that women and children didn't starve.

1. There are no women and children starving in this country. There is enough taxpayer assistance for someone to have as many kids as they want, and not have to provide ANYTHING, without threat of starvation, or loss of shelter. It's called Section 8, TANF, and Foodstamps.
2. When did the U.S. government start giving gold away? It was my understanding that the federal taxes were collected to provide for basic governmental functions as enumerated in the U.S. Constitutution, not to bankrupt the citizenry.
3. Yes, I believe Jesus would have been outraged by any government that continuously borrows and spends money with interest, to be paid back at a later date by it's citizenry, with no reasonably justifiable plan to reduce said debt.

DenverBrit
07-01-2011, 11:39 AM
1. There are no women and children starving in this country. There is enough taxpayer assistance for someone to have as many kids as they want, and not have to provide ANYTHING, without threat of starvation, or loss of shelter. It's called Section 8, TANF, and Foodstamps.
2. When did the U.S. government start giving gold away? It was my understanding that the federal taxes were collected to provide for basic governmental functions as enumerated in the U.S. Constitutution, not to bankrupt the citizenry.
3. Yes, I believe Jesus would have been outraged by any government that always borrows and spends money on interest, to be paid back at a later date by it's citizenry, with no reasonably justifiable plan to reduce said debt.

You're joking, right??

* Feeding America is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when we were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year.
* That means one in eight Americans now rely on Feeding America for food and groceries.
* Feeding America's nationwide network of food banks is feeding 1 million more Americans each week than we did in 2006.
* Thirty-six percent of the households we serve have at least one person working.
* More than one-third of client households report having to choose between food and other basic necessities, such as rent, utilities and medical care.
* The number of children the Feeding America network serves has increased by 50 percent since 2006.

http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study-2010.aspx

DHallblows
07-01-2011, 11:50 AM
1. There are no women and children starving in this country. There is enough taxpayer assistance for someone to have as many kids as they want, and not have to provide ANYTHING, without threat of starvation, or loss of shelter. It's called Section 8, TANF, and Foodstamps.
2. When did the U.S. government start giving gold away? It was my understanding that the federal taxes were collected to provide for basic governmental functions as enumerated in the U.S. Constitutution, not to bankrupt the citizenry.
3. Yes, I believe Jesus would have been outraged by any government that continuously borrows and spends money with interest, to be paid back at a later date by it's citizenry, with no reasonably justifiable plan to reduce said debt.

So your answer is: YES. Jesus would be more outraged by overspending of gold than by not feeding starving families.

Gotcha.

DivineBronco
07-01-2011, 11:56 AM
So your answer is: YES. Jesus would be more outraged by overspending of gold than by not feeding starving families.

Gotcha.

I am very excited for the pricejj era here on the mane

GOLD

pricejj
07-01-2011, 11:57 AM
You're joking, right??

* Feeding America is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when we were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year.


I know several single mom's with kids who live in Section 8, get cash assistance through TANF, and have an EBT card for foodstamps.

1. Mom1 living in Dallas, TX, single mom, 5 kids, no job, gets $700 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

2. Mom2 living in Houston, TX, single mom, 2 kids, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

3. Mom3 living in Denver, CO, single mom, 1 kid, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, also living in Section 8 housing.

The list goes on, and on...

Taxpayer funded assistance is readily available for those who take it. I am sure many of these same people take advantage of food banks, like Feeding America, in order to supplement their food supply, so that they may use EBT card funds, and cash from TANF for other, non-essential expenditures.

Food banks, and other forms of charity are great :sunshine:

pricejj
07-01-2011, 12:02 PM
So your answer is: YES. Jesus would be more outraged by overspending of gold than by not feeding starving families.

Gotcha.

You are advocating taking away food from starving families to purchase gold? You are the first person whom I ever heard come up with that horrible concept. You should be ashamed of yourself for proposing such a thing. Very un-Jesuslike.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 12:07 PM
DHALLBLOWS, how could you be so heartless?

DenverBrit
07-01-2011, 12:13 PM
I know several single mom's with kids who live in Section 8, get cash assistance through TANF, and have an EBT card for foodstamps.

1. Mom1 living in Dallas, TX, single mom, 5 kids, no job, gets $700 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

2. Mom2 living in Houston, TX, single mom, 2 kids, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

3. Mom3 living in Denver, CO, single mom, 1 kid, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, also living in Section 8 housing.

The list goes on, and on...

Taxpayer funded assistance is readily available for those who take it. I am sure many of these same people take advantage of food banks, like Feeding America, in order to supplement their food supply, so that they may use EBT card funds, and cash from TANF for other, non-essential expenditures.

Food banks, and other forms of charity are great :sunshine:

Unfortunately, there are thousands in the Denver area alone who go hungry if the food banks and other not-for-profits don't provide meals/groceries.

DHallblows
07-01-2011, 12:14 PM
You are advocating taking away food from starving families to purchase gold? You are the first person whom I ever heard come up with that horrible concept. You should be ashamed of yourself for proposing such a thing. Very un-Jesuslike.

So did you read my last 2 posts and then attempt to write some sort of anti-summary? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was intentional.

Now if you're looking to troll, I'm down for that, too. I'm going to warn you (assuming you're the character I've made up in my head)...I'm significantly better at it than you.

Binkythefrog
07-01-2011, 12:20 PM
I know several single mom's with kids who live in Section 8, get cash assistance through TANF, and have an EBT card for foodstamps.

1. Mom1 living in Dallas, TX, single mom, 5 kids, no job, gets $700 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

2. Mom2 living in Houston, TX, single mom, 2 kids, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, Section 8 costs her $100 a month to live in a 3 bedroom apt., gets cash assistance of $300 per month.

3. Mom3 living in Denver, CO, single mom, 1 kid, no job, gets $500 per month on EBT card for food, also living in Section 8 housing.

The list goes on, and on...

Taxpayer funded assistance is readily available for those who take it. I am sure many of these same people take advantage of food banks, like Feeding America, in order to supplement their food supply, so that they may use EBT card funds, and cash from TANF for other, non-essential expenditures.

Food banks, and other forms of charity are great :sunshine:

Can't speak for TANF or Food Stamps, but housing assistance in the United States is extremely difficult to get. It is not freely available to anyone who qualifies.

Also, 25% of Section 8 residents elderly or have a disabled person in their household (33% for public housing). (http://www.nchph.org/pdfs/Demographics%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf)

Many think these vouchers only go to single moms with "welfare" kids.

Every city has long waiting lists, and many families who apply for assistance never get it. In most cities, you need wait years and years to get assistance.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/housing-crisis-reaches-full-589653.html

http://www.thecha.org/pages/faqs/81.php

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/factsheet.shtml

http://www.dhadal.com/Gi/facts.html

bowtown
07-01-2011, 12:26 PM
Unfortunately, there are thousands in the Denver area alone who go hungry if the food banks and other not-for-profits don't provide meals/groceries.

Many of them go hungry even if it is provided. Just because they aren't starving to death does not mean they aren't still going to bed hungry and that serious damage is not being done. Lack of proper nutrition can wreak havoc on a child's physical, mental and emotional development. Thier hunger today means that they aren't going to get the same development and equal shot as someone who did have enough to eat. Growing up in poverty and hunger is not their choice, yet when they are poorly adjusted adults, they'll be the same ones we like to say had the same chance as everyone else and blame for their lack of personal accountability. Then call them freeloaders and try to cut assistance from their kids... and the cycle continues. Hunger is one of the greatest problems the world and even this country face. It is truly amazing the problems that proper nutrition can conquer.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Many of them go hungry even if it is provided. Just because they aren't starving to death does not mean they aren't still going to bed hungry and that serious damage is not being done. Lack of proper nutrition can wreak havoc on a child's physical, mental and emotional development. Thier hunger today means that they aren't going to get the same development and equal shot as someone who did have enough to eat. Growing up in poverty and hunger is not their choice, yet when they are poorly adjusted adults, they'll be the same ones we like to say had the same chance as everyone else and blame for their lack of personal accountability. Then call them freeloaders and try to cut assistance from their kids... and the cycle continues. Hunger is one of the greatest problems the world and even this country face. It is truly amazing the problems that proper nutrition can conquer.

Everybody who I know who needs foodstamps or section 8, gets it. I lived in 5 points for several years and never saw anybody starving, or not getting proper nutrition, except crackheads or alcoholics who trade away everything they own for a hit or a drink.

I also have seen alot of abuses of the system.

When I was a kid out on the eastern plains, we got government cheese and dehydrated milk a few times, but we never went on foodstamps. I am glad for that, but I know some families need assistance.

Blueflame
07-01-2011, 02:14 PM
I have never been a country music fan. I love bluegrass and old country music. Today's country music is nothing but pop music underneath the same anecdotes taken from the same stereotypes written by the same groups of people with the same studio musicians. There are some diamonds in the rough out there like Vince Gill, who is a top musician and writer, but other than those few guys I couldn't care less unless I'm hearing some hammered dulcimer, banjo, and/or mandolin.
Allison Krauss is also an incredibly talented vocalist and musician... but in general I detest the "product" Nashville is putting out these days.

No, it is 100% fact that when you sign a record deal, you agree to terms to work with a producer who's job it is is to mediate between the sound that the band envisions and the sound that the label wants. The label dictates the terms once you sign that document. Those decisions are made in committees that the band is not a part of. With Green Day, the producers wanted to take their boorish punk rock, put a nice pop sheen on it, and tighten it up.

The frontman Armstrong on parting ways with punk rock after signing with Reprise:

Armstrong told Spin magazine in 1999, "I couldn't go back to the punk scene, whether we were the biggest success in the world or the biggest failure ... The only thing I could do was get on my bike and go forward." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Day#Formation_and_Lookout_years_.281987.E2.8 0.931993.29

They traded their creative control for a shot to make it. Most bands are more than willing to take that leap. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your work. You just become a caricature of yourself in the process. Most people are willing to do that. I know several bands who got deep into the process of producing an album, didn't want to follow through, and then pulled out of the contract. I also know several bands who made that leap, and saw the record label pull out after laying down most of the tracks. The label then owns all of that work and you can't do anything about it. I saw it break up two major bands that were really taking off. The list is very long of those bands who were "put on hold" when the economy started tanking. Now they are literally owned by a label and cannot perform their own material under their own name.
So then, going by this remark, it's not just Green Day; it's every artist who's signed a recording contract... that's "a caricature of their former selves". Because they cede a lot of their originality and control of their creative direction by signing for the big money. Guess what we're disagreeing on is semantics (your phrase "caricatures of themselves"). I do agree that Green Day's music today would likely be a bit different if they had been independently wealthy and could have afforded to self-produce.

Oh, I wasn't referring to stadium shows. That's a whole other scale of consumer pricing. I was referring to bands who might be in the prime of their careers who are doing the mid-to-large sized club venue circuit. I saw Arcade Fire this year for about 60 bucks. Animal Collective last year was 55. Pixies was 70 bucks (more when I saw them in San Francisco). The National? That one was relatively cheap at 40ish. I just bought tickets to Bon Iver for 45.

Back when I saw Weezer in the early 1990's on the Pinkerton tour? 17 bucks. Smashing Pumpkins on the Mellon Collie tour? 20. Sonic Youth? 15. Mike Watt? 12. Frank Black? 15. Phish? 25 (and they played for like well over 4 hours). Ween? 15 bucks. Soundgarden on the Superunknown tour? It was like 15 bucks. Same for Stone Temple Pilots on their second album tour with Meat Puppets.

It was cheap then, even cheaper than that in the mid 1980's and so on. Shirts were 10-15 bucks. Now they're 25-35 bucks. But now kids don't buy the records because they are available for free online, and the radio doesn't spin innovative music anymore because there's no money in it. Thats why the music on the radio all sounds the same...thats the sound that entities like Clear Channel demand from the labels, so the labels will snap up bands that they can fit into that demographic and they will produce their records using the same techniques so that they sound the same. One genre (my nickname for it): "Puddle of Nickelback Doors Down".

Anyhow, bands have to make money now by doing extensive tours and charging much more for tickets and merch.
Technology (iPods, iTunes, etc. now; opposed to buying CDs and listening to AM or FM radio) is changing consumers' habits and the faster technology advances, the more drastic those changes are.

bowtown
07-01-2011, 03:25 PM
Everybody who I know who needs foodstamps or section 8, gets it. I lived in 5 points for several years and never saw anybody starving, or not getting proper nutrition, except crackheads or alcoholics who trade away everything they own for a hit or a drink.

I also have seen alot of abuses of the system.

When I was a kid out on the eastern plains, we got government cheese and dehydrated milk a few times, but we never went on foodstamps. I am glad for that, but I know some families need assistance.

It's nice that that's been your experience, but it's not everyone's:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html

The increase, of 13 million Americans, was much larger than even the most pessimistic observers of hunger trends had expected and cast an alarming light on the daily hardships caused by the recession’s punishing effect on jobs and wages.

About a third of these struggling households had what the researchers called “very low food security,” meaning lack of money forced members to skip meals, cut portions or otherwise forgo food at some point in the year.

The other two-thirds typically had enough to eat, but only by eating cheaper or less varied foods, relying on government aid like food stamps, or visiting food pantries and soup kitchens.

“These numbers are a wake-up call for the country,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

One figure that drew officials’ attention was the number of households, 506,000, in which children faced “very low food security”: up from 323,000 the previous year. President Obama, who has pledged to end childhood hunger by 2015, released a statement while traveling in Asia that called the finding “particularly troubling.”

Again, someone does not need to be starving in order to be receiving insufficient nutrition or to go to bed hungry.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 07:54 PM
It's nice that that's been your experience, but it's not everyone's:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17hunger.html



Again, someone does not need to be starving in order to be receiving insufficient nutrition or to go to bed hungry.

Foodstamp usage is up to 1 out of 6 people in the U.S., what is your point? I don't see any malnutritioned people running around, never have, except on T.V. Are you implying we should lay off some of the bureacracy that has been added in the last 2 years to increase the amount of EBT cards that are issued? Sure great. The federal budget needs to be balanced either way.

pricejj
07-01-2011, 07:56 PM
So did you read my last 2 posts and then attempt to write some sort of anti-summary? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was intentional.

Now if you're looking to troll, I'm down for that, too. I'm going to warn you (assuming you're the character I've made up in my head)...I'm significantly better at it than you.

LOL

Yes you are a troll, congratulations.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-01-2011, 09:23 PM
Its so easy to shake the faith of Libs. hahahaahhahaha

epicSocialism4tw
07-01-2011, 09:47 PM
Allison Krauss is also an incredibly talented vocalist and musician... but in general I detest the "product" Nashville is putting out these days.

Krauss is a throwback. I like her too.

The cool thing about country music is that the people who form the populace of the industry of players is that most of these performers have grown up around musicians. Real musicians who know how to play. So you occasionaly get people like Krauss who grow up submerged in real country music, and who aren't fully pulled away from their roots. Bluegrass and Mountain Music are rich pieces of American culture.

So then, going by this remark, it's not just Green Day; it's every artist who's signed a recording contract... that's "a caricature of their former selves". Because they cede a lot of their originality and control of their creative direction by signing for the big money. Guess what we're disagreeing on is semantics (your phrase "caricatures of themselves"). I do agree that Green Day's music today would likely be a bit different if they had been independently wealthy and could have afforded to self-produce.

It's not always the case. Many times bands build a unique place for themselves before they are signed (this is becoming more common as bands market themselves on the net). There are also decent-sized labels that encourage originality (like Sub-Pop). Sometimes a band can finish out a contract and go on their own (Radiohead, etc).

Technology (iPods, iTunes, etc. now; opposed to buying CDs and listening to AM or FM radio) is changing consumers' habits and the faster technology advances, the more drastic those changes are.

Youtube and myspace have changed the industry more than shareware sites like Napster and Limewire did.

The music industry is waiting to be reborn. A great entrepreneur will be the one to do it.

BowlenBall
07-02-2011, 03:28 AM
"John Lennon was a closet wizard, who felt a little embarrassed by his former muggleism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Lord Voldemort fan who enjoyed arguing with muggles who reminded him of his former self.

"John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Voldemort because he was really sour on (Democrat) Dumbledore.

Fixed it for you.

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/john-lennon-totally-looks-like-harry-potter.jpg

mhgaffney
07-02-2011, 07:03 AM
Epic is too young to even remember John Lennon. No wonder he has no clue.

Lennon was a social revolutionary -- which is probably why he was gunned down.

Tombstone RJ
07-02-2011, 09:09 AM
Very few rock n' roll bands stick solely to political or social commentary with their music... the political stuff generally comprises only a small percentage of their repertoire. Yet some very high-profile rock bands do include some political stuff in their music.

Green Day, for example, is now getting very political in their music. I love old Green Day music and I saw them live in Denver back in the day. But now, I have no desire to listen to any of their new material because it's political. John Lennon was an activist after the Beatles and his music (for the most part) reflected that, especially his live performances which he admitted just funded his social agenda.

Again, it's about where the band/artist is coming from when they are performing. Some bands, like Rage, admit their political/social agenda and their music reflects it. Again, no thanks.

HAT
07-02-2011, 09:45 AM
I know several single mom's with kids who live in Section 8, get cash assistance through TANF, and have an EBT card for foodstamps.



Translation...."I'm banging several single moms who...."

DHallblows
07-02-2011, 10:01 AM
LOL

Yes you are a troll, congratulations.

::) So you're saying: "Yes, I did completely ignore what you said and changed what we were talking about."

Good tactic. Better than suggesting that Jesus would have cared about money more than hungry children.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-02-2011, 11:30 AM
Translation...."I'm banging several single moms who...."

Single mom's need love too.

R8R H8R
07-02-2011, 12:20 PM
Your saying is incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill by many right wingers. Winston Churchill's assistant said that Churchill was a conservative at 15 and a liberal by the time he was 35. So which Brit did more for the world?

James Bond

epicSocialism4tw
07-02-2011, 01:00 PM
Epic is too young to even remember John Lennon. No wonder he has no clue.

Lennon was a social revolutionary -- which is probably why he was gunned down.

Ha!

Uh...

You do realize that Lennon was killed by an obsessed fan, right?

bombay
07-02-2011, 01:42 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/cant-imagine-john-lennon-as-a-republican/2011/06/30/AGihvyrH_blog.html


On the inanity of John Lennon being a Tory: nope.

Blueflame
07-02-2011, 02:49 PM
Green Day, for example, is now getting very political in their music. I love old Green Day music and I saw them live in Denver back in the day. But now, I have no desire to listen to any of their new material because it's political. John Lennon was an activist after the Beatles and his music (for the most part) reflected that, especially his live performances which he admitted just funded his social agenda.

Again, it's about where the band/artist is coming from when they are performing. Some bands, like Rage, admit their political/social agenda and their music reflects it. Again, no thanks.

Some of Green Day's earlier music edged into political/social themes too. Music is just another avenue for expressing oneself... I don't have a problem with it if they feel they have something to say. But some listeners will like it and some won't. :)

Mogulseeker
07-02-2011, 08:50 PM
I love political discourse threads, it really leads to lots of lulz... Especially when people talk in absolutes (Republican vs Democrat; Conservative vs Liberal). To compare the Republican party of the 18th Century to that of FDR's generation and even Reagan's 80's vs Bush's 00's is rediculous. Each party changes and is in constant fludiity. I would argue that Bush was not a real conservative and Obama is not a real liberal. Each is strikingly similar in overall policy were just in shades of gray here.

Yup yup....

The deficit started with Reagan, blew up under Bush II, and continues to expand under Obama.

"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

cutthemdown
07-02-2011, 08:56 PM
It doesn't matter if we have some deficits its just that it has gotten way out of control. Stop pointing fingers and just spend less. Still neither side seems to want to touch pentegon. The reason is repubs love defense spending, and dems afraid how that will go down politically speaking. You could end up closing bases and ending funding for programs that hurt the dems just as much as repubs. When you have no big base in your district you can close and not worry. But some politicians would face a ton of resentment in areas that depended on the base for commerce and money etcetc.

epicSocialism4tw
07-02-2011, 10:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/cant-imagine-john-lennon-as-a-republican/2011/06/30/AGihvyrH_blog.html


On the inanity of John Lennon being a Tory: nope.


This ain't Britain, son.

Mogulseeker
07-02-2011, 11:23 PM
It doesn't matter if we have some deficits its just that it has gotten way out of control. Stop pointing fingers and just spend less. Still neither side seems to want to touch pentegon. The reason is repubs love defense spending, and dems afraid how that will go down politically speaking. You could end up closing bases and ending funding for programs that hurt the dems just as much as repubs. When you have no big base in your district you can close and not worry. But some politicians would face a ton of resentment in areas that depended on the base for commerce and money etcetc.

Defense spending is 4 percent of the budget. We spend more on debt intrest.

BowlenBall
07-03-2011, 12:33 PM
Defense spending is 4 percent of the budget. We spend more on debt intrest.

Defense spending is 5-6% of the GDP -- but 20% of the budget.

Interest on debt is roughly 5% of the budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

mhgaffney
07-04-2011, 02:04 PM
Defense spending is 4 percent of the budget. We spend more on debt intrest.

After 9/11 -- the Pentagon budget steadily grew to $800 billion a year.

But Christopher Hellman, a former policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argues that the actual number is a staggering $1.2 trillion (with a “t”), if military aid to foreign countries, international peacekeeping operations, veteran’s benefits, military pensions, and the military component of the interest we pay on the national debt are also factored in

Check this out:

http://www.counterpunch.org/hellman03012011.html