|
|
On August 18 2012 04:35 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +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..
To the first part, I already said to drop it, because I can't think of it a good way to explain my frustration with his attitude. But I guess I'll try. The sheer amount of apathy toward things he is against and Romney is for annoys me because I find it so partisan it's ridiculous. He doesn't seem to mind one bit that his guy is probably lying his ass off to do it. He cares about winning.
Yes, the insurance system needs to be regulated heavily because health insurance companies are currently trying their damn hardest to avoid paying you their dues at all costs. They're trying their damn hardest to not do their job and still get paid for it. And sorry, but posting some scare story about some terrible thing in a socialized system is completely negated by the sheer amount of socialized systems that cost consumers insane amounts less and actually get much better care.
There is absolutely no reason at this point to think that a free-market based system would be cheaper or better at this point. This has basically been proven horribly wrong over and over again. But because Americans seem to think that the free market fixes everything and anything no matter what, we still haven't changed.
|
On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver 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. 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.
As a Pink Floyd fan, I take offense to the fact that you think that politics and lyrics don't matter.
Songs can be great with no meaning, and just as music.
Songs can be great with meaning, and with politically charged lyrics.
If you think all political music is shit, that's your opinion, but just cause classical instrumental music doesn't have politics doesn't mean modern music can't, it's apples and oranges. I've had this debate just recently cause of how political Roger Water's The Wall tour is, and people complaining about it.
|
On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote: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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI 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.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think you underestimate the power of politically driven pop culture such as music (folk music of the 60's for example). They have no legal means to stop anyone for using or abusing their music (such as Rush Limbaugh using a RATM song on his show) so I have no problem if they speak out about it. If I was in Tom Morello's shoes, I'd do the same thing to make sure my image wasn't being related to a bunch of right wing goons.
|
On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver 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. 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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI 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.
Hey look, someone who thinks their definition of musical greatness is the only one that matters in a clearly subjective arena!
|
On August 18 2012 06:12 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote:On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver 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. 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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI 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. Hey look, someone who thinks their definition of musical greatness is the only one that matters in a clearly subjective arena!
hey be nice. i just listen to music casually and get annoyed at overly political songs. i feel the same way about a movie, if it starts going off on a tangent it rubs me the wrong way
|
Then perhaps say that instead of disregarding others opinion's and saying you hate songs with a message?
|
On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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.
I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing.
And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment.
On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver 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. 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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI 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.
To say Mozart's music has no lyrics that have ever meant anything, politically or otherwise, is wrong. Granted, the lyrics to his operas are written by the librettist, not Mozart, but Mozart was definitely passionate about which stories were being told. Le Nozze di Figaro had to be rewritten to not offend the nobility, for example. Censorship, really.
He wasn't an outwardly political man, but to say that no one gives a shit about lyrics for Mozart... not true, man. Mozart wrote his operas for the lyrics and story being presented, and it's something he did very well. Having named myself in this forum for a character in one of his operas, I just have to object to what you're saying. Listening to Don Giovanni without knowing what's being sung or why is actually detrimental to what makes the music so appropriate and fitting.
|
On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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. I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing. And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment. Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:52 WniO wrote:On August 18 2012 05:44 koreasilver 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. 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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi8vJ_lMxQI 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. To say Mozart's music has no lyrics that have ever meant anything, politically or otherwise, is wrong. Granted, the lyrics to his operas are written by the librettist, not Mozart, but Mozart was definitely passionate about which stories were being told. Le Nozze di Figaro had to be rewritten to not offend the nobility, for example. Censorship, really. He wasn't an outwardly political man, but to say that no one gives a shit about lyrics for Mozart... not true, man. Mozart wrote his operas for the lyrics and story being presented, and it's something he did very well. Having named myself for a character in one of his operas, I just have to object to what you're saying. Listening to Don Giovanni without knowing what's being sung or why is actually detrimental to what makes the music so appropriate.
hey i saw amadeus so im a mozart expert and you are wrong - mozart in the end when hes composing requiem before he dies he hums the melodies as the guy writes the notes, NOT "gee mozart thats great composing, but when can we start with the lyrics!?" just kidding ill stop i see your point.
|
I almost had a heart attack :/
|
As an aside, I am personally very much indebted to the relationship shared between music and politics, in that I really started getting into the ska/punk scene right around the election of 2000, and the first "Rock Against Bush" album is still a treasured possession of mine. Especially in today's polemic world, music is an excellent means with which to enunciate otherwise difficult to communicate ideas, politics included.
|
On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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. I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing. And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment.
I didn't respond to the majority of your post because it was discussing ideas that I don't really hold and didn't really feel like speaking to. It also misconstrued and took out of context the original point that I was making.
|
On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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.
What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws.
|
On August 18 2012 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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. I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing. And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment. I didn't respond to the majority of your post because it was discussing ideas that I don't really hold and didn't really feel like speaking to. It also misconstrued and took out of context the original point that I was making.
That's vague. What idea was it addressing that you don't hold, specifically? Are you strictly pro-life, even in cases of rape? Because that was not my understanding. This is, in fact, the point: you don't seem to want to defend your own position on this matter.
Your point, it seemed to me, was you get offended by how some Democrats approach the debate, speaking of women who were raped. But it seems that this "offense" you take is just a great way of avoiding actually clarifying your position on the matter.
I could ask you right now, do you think a fetus conceived from rape is a human being, and thus deserving of full protection?
Would I get an answer? Or does the question "offend" you?
|
On August 18 2012 07:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
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. I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing. And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment. I didn't respond to the majority of your post because it was discussing ideas that I don't really hold and didn't really feel like speaking to. It also misconstrued and took out of context the original point that I was making. That's vague. What idea was it addressing that you don't hold, specifically? Are you strictly pro-life, even in cases of rape? Because that was not my understanding. This is, in fact, the point: you don't seem to want to defend your own position on this matter. Your point, it seemed to me, was you get offended by how some Democrats approach the debate, speaking of women who were raped. But it seems that this "offense" you take is just a great way of avoiding actually clarifying your position on the matter. I could ask you right now, do you think a fetus conceived of rape is a human being, and thus deserving of full protection? Would I get an answer? Or does the question "offend" you?
As I am pretty sure that I have said previously in this thread (or the republican nominations thread), I don't really have a position on abortion. I tend to stray pro-life because I find the use of abortion merely to cover up for either a failure in birth control or a failure to use birth control to be repugnant. I also recognize that the right to an abortion is settled law, so the debate is basically over (other than funding issues and procedural/timing issues). Because of this, abortion rights are so low on my list of political priorities that I don't really care that much in terms of what legislation that a candidate proposes. I don't object to pro-choice politicians just because they are pro-choice.
In the circumstance of rape, I don't really have a problem with a woman getting an abortion.
|
BELFAST — The battle over whether Maine Republican Party delegates who support Congressman Ron Paul should be allowed to participate in the Republican National Convention in Tampa moved to the courts Friday.
Friday delegates Stavros Mendros, Brent Tweed and Matthew Mcdonald filed a request for an injunction with Belfast Superior Court.
It asks that the court rule against the Republican National Committee and stop its process of investigating whether 21 Paul delegates from Maine were elected legally during the party's state convention in Maine.
Mendros said the injunction notes the RNC was suppose to rule on the issue last Friday but instead asked for more evidence against the Paul delegates.
"We filed an injunction that basically states the RNC has no authority at this point," Mendros said. "We were duly elected."
According to Mendros the RNC was expected to rule on that complaint last Friday but instead asked for more evidence.
Source
|
On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:
I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing.
And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...).
Hey look I am only quoting part of your post too! Am I evil or do I just want to address one point and tl;dr the rest?
Anyway, I always enjoy how conservatives are supposedly people who only view the world in black and white and don't really care about people and their lives which is nice for demagoguery against those who don't want the rape/incest exception for abortion and then those who decide to accept the exception get to be labelled inconsistent so it's ad hominem all around! Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Implying that non-conservatives don't understand if all choices are bad? Everyone understands when all choices are "bad" or "unfortunate," but Conservatives rather throw people to the curb if they make mistakes rather than help them recover their lives. The whole concept of "responsibility" is way overblown by conservatives.
|
On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad.
I think the point is that conservatives want to make the choice for other people. That is, like, when Paul Ryan gets raped he can decide to keep the baby if he wants, but it's something the state shouldn't get involved in...
Reducing the number of abortions is, however, a totally non-controversial goal (except that conservatives don't want to teach people about condoms so idk maybe this is wrong)
|
On August 18 2012 06:22 WniO wrote:
hey be nice. i just listen to music casually and get annoyed at overly political songs. i feel the same way about a movie, if it starts going off on a tangent it rubs me the wrong way
TBH, I can understand what you're saying too. I mean, I really enjoy the music Rush performs, and as a musician myself I really respect the talent. I don't enjoy the Ayn Rand inspired lyrics though.
Speaking of which, I was surprised to learn that Rush had also asked Limbaugh to stop playing their music, considering some of their right wing influence. I suppose not all right wingers are mouthbreathing Limbaugh fans after all lol.
The show 24 and recent Batman movies are other examples where I just can't swallow the message being offered. I find it ironic though, since Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather was Tommy Douglas ("The Greatest Canadian") who brought universal healthcare to Canada. :D
I guess bottom line is that I can understand Tom Morello speaking out about it, just like I would expect Ted Nugent to do the same if Obama used Cat Scratch Fever at his rallies.
|
An official statement from the Silversun Pickups in regards to the Romney campaign's use of their song.
Seems as if the GOP is once again whimsically ignoring our great nation's laws to do whatever it wants to do, and shooting itself in the foot in the process. Without any regard for copyright or intellectual property laws, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has, without permission, begun to use Silversun Pickups' 2009 smash "Panic Switch" at campaign stops across the country. Neither the band nor its representatives were contacted to gain permission for the use of the song and the band has no intention of endorsing the Romney campaign. The band's attorney issued a cease and desist today.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
