|
|
On August 18 2012 03:41 xDaunt wrote:
Romney does want this debate. Again, there's difference between making cuts to Medicare to reduce the deficit and purportedly preserve Medicare, and then cutting Medicare to enact something unpopular like Obamacare. From what I've seen, pretty much all republicans are bullish on the debate.
Well, I will say that if he is able to put the right spin on it, he could probably find some decent gains from the center I think. Also, Obama never seems to be able to fully make his case and explain things well (imo) despite being a good orator. I hope there will be many hours of entertainment from this issue alone! :D
|
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt.
|
On August 18 2012 03:19 DoubleReed wrote:
I was not saying that xDaunt needs to agree on everything.
Sorry. Guess I misunderstood you when you said:
And you clearly don't care that Romney/Ryan is campaigning with something you're against or just straight up lying. Your attitude is really frustrating and tiring.
I can't quite put those two statements together, but then again I also don't understand how Obama campaigned in 08 to cut $400 billion dollar deficits in half and then gave us trillion dollar deficits ever year.
I don't understand why people want it to be more "free market based" when socialized medicine has been shown to be cheaper, better, and more efficient in every way. Less regulation means more ways that the health insurance can avoid giving you your payment. And paying for people's healthcare is their whole damn job, so that's a pretty egregious problem.
First, the insurance system in the US now is NOT free-market. It's a government regulated mess. Second, it's easy to save lots of health care costs when you just let lots of old people die so they they don't cost you anything any more..
|
On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt.
If you're going to pass a 2000+ page bill, you have to the take thing as a whole. You can't just focus on the good provisions.
|
On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt.
I think stuff like this won't get us anywhere in a debate. You've basically ruined any chance your post had at legitimacy right there. I'd also like to say that I'm a lefty from Ireland, have been following the thread closely for the last 3-4 days and can say that I agree with you more than I agree with xDaunt. But if you want to have a reasonable discussion here, that really isn't the way to do it.
Anyway I know very little about American politics but this Obamacare thing has me intrigued, this whole "he's cutting $700bn from medicare to pay for his bill! Can't you see his evil plan?!" versus "Oh this won't actually increase costs for recipients only for providers. It's actually a net saving if you look at the math!"
I've become hopelessly lost, so I'd like it if someone could help me out here.
#1: The medicare budget is losing roughly $700bn to pay for the Affordable healthcare act.
#2: Republicans think this is a disgrace.
#3: (this is where it gets tricky for me) Romney / Ryan want to repeal Obamacare and put that money back in medicare, but I thought Romney was about reducing government spending and reducing taxes as a way to reduce the deficit. If true, isn't he going against his own word to cut govenment spending to help the deficit? If he does put that money back into medicare, how likely is Romney to cut that money out later anyway?
#4: Democrats seem to be arguing very sternly that Obamacare, despite cutting $700bn from medicare, will not change the level of coverage provided to senior citizens... for reasons I honestly don't understand.
#5: Democrats also seem to say that Obamacare will actually cost less, and will therefore reduce the deficit.
Could someone help me out here? Sources or citations would be especially appreciated, the propaganda on both sides is making it impossible for me to determine what is true and false about this issue.
|
On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt.
Wow, I thought xDaunt was just a guy posting on a messageboard. Can I be a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate too? That sounds neat!
Also if you ask most people if they want a mansion and a yacht they'd like that too but they understand those things cost money. I want everyone to have great cheap health care but goods and services COST MONEY. To lower cost you increase supply and reduce demand. That's the opposite of Obamacare.
|
On August 18 2012 04:49 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt. Wow, I thought xDaunt was just a guy posting on a messageboard. Can I be a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate too? That sounds neat! Also if you ask most people if they want a mansion and a yacht they'd like that too but they understand those things cost money. I want everyone to have great cheap health care but goods and services COST MONEY. To lower cost you increase supply and reduce demand. That's the opposite of Obamacare.
I'm like the boogeyman to liberal children. They ask their parents to make sure that I'm not hiding under their beds or in their closets when they go to sleep at night.
|
I don't understand why people want it to be more "free market based" when socialized medicine has been shown to be cheaper, better, and more efficient in every way.
Haha, exactly. The purported efficiencies, cost improvements (and, when true, what must be sacrificed to gain these), and universal gain in switching is not accepted at large nor has been demonstrated to be a one-size-fits all. Am I correct in thinking that it is consider NHS > Medicare-Canada >= Europe's both in quality of care and gross cost per capita of system? Heck, as a simple comparison, the time required to schedule basic surgery and percent deaths of treatable conditions due to wait times. So what we have is a populace deeply repulsed by the idea of a rest-of-the-world system, and even more sickened by some screw-up-private and do-a-bad-job-at-public plan.
I just want to point out that regardless of who wins the election you can rest assured that private health insurers will continue to exist, while siphoning money from the system to pay people way too much money to read EOBs to indians, bullshit providers as to the status of their claims, and browse the internet all day. I haven't run into too many horribly inefficient systems in my life so I don't have much to compare it to, but private health insurance companies turn healthcare into a massive bureaucratic clusterfuck. Just FYI :D
I mean they provide health insurance to people that also browse the internet all day. Greedy fat cat bankers, heartless Big Pharma, price gouging Big Oil. I've heard enough of vilifying one sector of the economy (this time insurers) as if they in particular possess faults that the population at large does not. I believe them to be no more or less noble than farmers, truck drivers, waiters, and CEO's. The horrible efficiencies are born out of government regulation of the industry which has grown to be a negotiation of health care cost between insurers and hospitals, cutting the real knowledge from the consumers themselves. Free market reforms target that. Compliance with current regulation, indeed, creates this bureaucratic clusterfuck just as goverment designed to regulate that and related industries has been for generations.
Rest assured, bullying hospitals to charge this rate OR ELSE will not stand; more and more will refuse to see medicare-paying patients. The rest will jack up rates for the rest of insurers, as happens currently and will continue to happen at higher rates. Doc fix is kinda a proof of how things work in Washington with regards to healthcare. Kick the can down the road SGR formula fix, typical of the problem.
#Addendum#
#3: (this is where it gets tricky for me) Romney / Ryan want to repeal Obamacare and put that money back in medicare, but I thought Romney was about reducing government spending and reducing taxes as a way to reduce the deficit. If true, isn't he going against his own word to cut govenment spending to help the deficit? If he does put that money back into medicare, how likely is Romney to cut that money out later anyway?
#4: Democrats seem to be arguing very sternly that Obamacare, despite cutting $700bn from medicare, will not change the level of coverage provided to senior citizens... for reasons I honestly don't understand.
#5: Democrats also seem to say that Obamacare will actually cost less, and will therefore reduce the deficit.
#3: Repeal Obamacare but do cuts for the next generation to (trying to summarize) give the next generation a more sustainable system that won't go broke. (Ryan, no unified Republican front on this. Some surmises have been drawn on Romney's view in choosing a man so well known for his Medicare reform plans. Others say it's just to distance himself from Massachusetts "Romneycare" that gave him hiccups in the primary)
#4: You are correct.
#5: You are correct. "We end up saving more than we spend," has been a selling point of this bill in particular, and universal health care plans in general. In particular, this plan also sells itself to be able to keep your own doctor and insurer, with no/little (depends who you ask) rise in rates, only penalizing those who decide not to purchase insurance (Pelosi calls these free-loaders).
Hope that clarified. Obviously both sides are waging a pitched battle over the veracity of their claims, so confident are they that their side is right.
|
On August 18 2012 04:47 Razakel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt. I think stuff like this won't get us anywhere in a debate. You've basically ruined any chance your post had at legitimacy right there. I'd also like to say that I'm a lefty from Ireland, have been following the thread closely for the last 3-4 days and can say that I agree with you more than I agree with xDaunt. But if you want to have a reasonable discussion here, that really isn't the way to do it. Anyway I know very little about American politics but this Obamacare thing has me intrigued, this whole "he's cutting $700bn from medicare to pay for his bill! Can't you see his evil plan?!" versus "Oh this won't actually increase costs for recipients only for providers. It's actually a net saving if you look at the math!" I've become hopelessly lost, so I'd like it if someone could help me out here. #1: The medicare budget is losing roughly $700bn to pay for the Affordable healthcare act. #2: Republicans think this is a disgrace. #3: (this is where it gets tricky for me) Romney / Ryan want to repeal Obamacare and put that money back in medicare, but I thought Romney was about reducing government spending and reducing taxes as a way to reduce the deficit. If true, isn't he going against his own word to cut govenment spending to help the deficit? If he does put that money back into medicare, how likely is Romney to cut that money out later anyway? #4: Democrats seem to be arguing very sternly that Obamacare, despite cutting $700bn from medicare, will not change the level of coverage provided to senior citizens... for reasons I honestly don't understand. #5: Democrats also seem to say that Obamacare will actually cost less, and will therefore reduce the deficit. Could someone help me out here? Sources or citations would be especially appreciated, the propaganda on both sides is making it impossible for me to determine what is true and false about this issue.
#1: Correct
#2: I don't know if they actually think it is disgrace so much as they're demagoguing the issue. Even so, I don't really blame them for doing so after all the crap that they took from democrats when Ryan presented his budget last year. Turnabout is fair play.
#3: Romney doesn't want to do anything to Medicare. Ryan had a plan to make changes to it, but that is not part of Romney's platform. Democrats are trying very, very hard to to make that inference anyway, but I think they're charging into withering gunfire when they do so.
#4: I think it's a mixture of many democrats not really understanding what they passed in Obamacare and other democrats realizing that they've created a mess for themselves and are trying desperately to avoid the political consequences of what they did.
#5: As scored by the CBO, this is true. The savings is $109 billion over the next ten years per the June 2012 scoring of the bill to repeal Obamacare (see above for the link; it's all over the place).
|
Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Source
hahaha
|
There is no debate. There is no discussion. xDaunt sure as hell doesn't think so. You propose anything that refutes his twisted bullshit world and he changes the subject to some other nonsense. Go back throughout this topic and you'll see how his blind dumbass self goes through the Fox News talking points, word for word.
|
On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious: Show nested quote +
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha
i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me.
that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways.
|
On August 18 2012 05:23 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me. that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways.
Yet NIN still has you a fan...
|
On August 18 2012 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:23 WniO wrote:On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me. that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways. Yet NIN still has you a fan...
what do you mean? nin kicks ass
|
On August 18 2012 05:31 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 18 2012 05:23 WniO wrote:On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me. that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways. Yet NIN still has you a fan... what do you mean? nin kicks ass
NIN songs cover social issues, occasional politics, heck even philosophy. Rezner, and Yorke of Radiohead is very outspoken in terms of Politics. I guess I just have trouble of not liking when songs cover certain subjects and forgetting or not being reminded of the singers own social beliefs.
|
Been taking a break from this thread to draw monsters in the TL Creature thread.
Anyway, here's a fine article on Mitt and Obama's differing philosophical approaches to foreign policy from the American Conservative.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/romney-vs-niebuhr/
It's a fine read, and I wholly recommend it. This quote from Winston Churchill is just spot on.
Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.
|
On August 18 2012 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:49 dvorakftw wrote:On August 18 2012 04:31 aksfjh wrote:
If you ask people about the individual provisions of Obamacare, most are in favor. Republicans just have a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate that can make puppies and kittens look like the next greatest threat to "freedom."
You're a great example of this xDaunt. Wow, I thought xDaunt was just a guy posting on a messageboard. Can I be a gigantic, foaming-at-the-mouth media conglomerate too? That sounds neat! Also if you ask most people if they want a mansion and a yacht they'd like that too but they understand those things cost money. I want everyone to have great cheap health care but goods and services COST MONEY. To lower cost you increase supply and reduce demand. That's the opposite of Obamacare. I'm like the boogeyman to liberal children. They ask their parents to make sure that I'm not hiding under their beds or in their closets when they go to sleep at night.
Hiding is something I can see you doing well.
|
On August 18 2012 05:23 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me. that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways.
You don't have to read to comprehend lyrics. There's the act of listening that is supposed to be the primary method through which you come in contact with the lyrics, which is supposed to be the primary mode through which you're even supposed to enjoy music in the first place.
This doesn't even make any sense. We're not even talking about bands that don't actually have lyrical content or anything.
|
Easy on the simple rhetoric. If you feel like calling someone out do so by calling out the policies they support or you're risking a ban (this message brought to you by the guy who recently got banned for calling a troll who got banned stupid or something)
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win.
|
On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:23 WniO wrote:On August 18 2012 04:58 screamingpalm wrote:Time to lighten the mood with something less serious:
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
Sourcehahaha i really dont care what the lyrics are in a band, or what the support. i just like there music. last i checked you dont have to read the lyrics to listen to a song. foreign songs for example. radiohead/nin i love their music but the instant you start putting political or anti this or anti that into a song/album (year zero) for instance it really dumbs down the songs for me. that quote is such bullshit - rage against the machine is a one trick pony band anyways. You don't have to read to comprehend lyrics. There's the act of listening that is supposed to be the primary method through which you come in contact with the lyrics, which is supposed to be the primary mode through which you're even supposed to enjoy music in the first place. This doesn't even make any sense. We're not even talking about bands that don't actually have lyrical content or anything.
lyrics dont make a song. they come afterwords. thats why i hate songs that are political on any spectrum. doesnt make the music any better, it really doesnt. lets be honest does this - + Show Spoiler + bring my point moree clear? no one gives a shit about lyrics for mozart, why should we for some stupid rock bands? for me its like when a hollywood actor starts talking politics... no one cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
