Right-Wingers Don't Get Music
Jeff Mills
For those of you who don't know me, I am an Independent who economically and
militarily is conservative, but socially liberal. However, I would not
classify myself as a libertarian. You want to know what the definition of a
libertarian is? A libertarian, I think, is someone who wants to legalize
marijuana. ;)
I sometimes feel like I am like Private Joker in "Full Metal Jacket", in
that scene where he's in Vietnam wearing his Marine uniform yet wears that
peace sign. I am a contradiction. I mostly listen to Beatles music and a
lot of artists whose beliefs are often very much different from mine, but I
believe difference of opinions is a good thing. Too many conservatives have
hopped on the "family values" bandwagon. Dan Quayle, to his credit, was
speaking from the heart and could explain what he meant. The thing is that
every Republican from kingdom come has parroted Quayle. Even the Democrats
have co-opted the "family values" jingle. They can't explain it, nor do
most of them practice it. But they say it so that is just good enough.
I am a firm believer in leading by example. Do I believe that words mean
things? Of course. But it is one thing to say how you are a good Christian
or Jew or whatever, and it is another to practice what you preach. I am
lucky in that both of my parents are pretty open-minded when it comes to
music and culture. They never censored music for me or my sister, nor did
they censor television programs or movies. They taught us right from wrong.
Plus, they allowed me the opportunity to think for myself. I don't agree
with a lot of the views that the Beatles had, but I don't see why many
right-wingers get so uptight about it.
I live in South Carolina, and to this day, there still are people who hold a
grudge against John Lennon for his "Jesus" comment. There are people who
make fun of me for being into a band that doesn't exist. Oh, that's right.
I should be like them and get a hard-on for Hootie and the Blowfish, right?
Sorry. I'm not impressed. I have always listened without prejudice and
kept an open mind about music and art. I will give anything a chance, but
the majority of music out there today is excrement. I did enjoy the "Lady
Marmalade" remake, and think that Mya and Christina Aguilera ought to do
more stuff like that. And the video was very nice, but then, I'm a guy.
I have often wondered why so many country singers are conservative. I think
it is because most come from the southern United States, which is
predominantly Bible Belt country. But even that is changing. Now we have
country singers from Canada who talk like Canadians, saying "aboot" instead
of about, but put them in the recording studio and it's "Gawn and dun'it!"
They are "southernized" in an instant by a Mutt Lange. In a way, though,
I'm glad that country is changing. It had become a good ole boys network
for far too long. The only difference with country today and yesterday is
that it is rock with a steel guitar and a fiddle. And the male vocalists
used to sing very deep, but now they yodel. But that's not my music. I
know people always give the yearbook answer and say, "Oh, I like everything!
It depends on my mood." I like rock and roll.
Leroy
"Jeff Mills" <jm1...@home.com> wrote
> I live in South Carolina,
Well, that's not going to stop me from buying my bottle rockets and
firecrackers there. It's a nice place.
Sean Carroll
wrote:
>You want to know what the definition of a
>libertarian is? A libertarian, I think, is someone who wants to legalize
>marijuana. ;)
Uhh, not quite.
--Sean, not a libertarian in the least
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
robertandrews
>A libertarian, I think, is someone who wants to legalize marijuana. ;)
That's OK with me. I'm for the legalization of all drugs, & the release of
all those in jail on drug offenses.
>The only difference with country today and yesterday is that it is rock
with a steel guitar and a fiddle.
Not exactly. I don't like most modern country music. But some of the older
stuff is tremendous, like Hank Williams & Patsy Cline (or earlier).
>And the male vocalists used to sing very deep, but now they yodel.
No, they used to yodel.
BballJunky
>speaking from the heart and could explain what he meant.
I agree with that....the guy got a bum rap over that stuff. It's hard to
believe someone actually has to ask people to be good to each other and teach
their children how to behave and treat others.
>I don't agree
>with a lot of the views that the Beatles had, but I don't see why many
>right-wingers get so uptight about it.
I don't know if I'm a right winger or not (I am conservative), but the views an
artist holds rarely keeps me from being "turned on" by them. So what if Lennon
said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus....Jesus was Jewish, and probably not
very tall, so in a way Lennon was more or less right.
>always listened without prejudice and
>kept an open mind about music and art. I will give anything a chance, but
>the majority of music out there today is excrement.
Good for you. I try to be the same way...just can't dig Marilyn Manson, Dixie
Chicks, and Kid Rock though. There is alot of good music out there, and I feel
like if it were not for my exposure to the Beatles, I wouldn't listen to some
of the music that I currently listen to. Bands like Wilco, the V-roys, and the
Jayhawks owe alot of their pop sensibility to Lennon and McCartney. Writers
like Paul Westerberg, Ryan Adams, and Jeff Tweedy can also peel off great hooks
and 3 minute songs....again, like Lennon and McCartney.
>I'm glad that country is changing. It had become a good ole boys network
>for far too long. The only difference with country today and yesterday is
>that it is rock with a steel guitar and a fiddle.
I can't go with you there. Today's country radio is full of cross-over
wannabes. There is something down home and real about Merle Haggard, Hank
Williams, Waylon Jennings, and Patsy Cline. The songs were not written or sung
so as to let you know just how country they were. It was just music, and at
one time it fit the country genre....now it's not even for that is it? No. Tim
McGraw, Billy Gilman, Shania Twain (pretty damn far from country, wouldn't you
say?) and those of that ilk litter the airwaves with pop/country.....wearing
their cowboy hats and singing sap at you with no heart, trying to convince us
(and probably themselves) that they really are country. Give me Steve Earle and
Scott Miller.....they are keeping the spirit of country music alive.
In a nutshell.....I think it's not really fair to say the right-wingers don't
"get" music. Conservative values do not automatically transfer one into a mind
numbed, one way thinker. It's all about how you relate to the art, and no
person, right or left wing has a lock on that. Long live the Beatles, they
shaped this rightwinger into a music loving zealot!! Freddy
Sixties Gen
"I am an Independent who is economically and militarily is
conservative, but socially liberal."
Well, you've got one out of three correct. However, you need to work
on those first two points.
Mister Charlie
"Leroy" <ler...@communityweb.net> wrote in message
news:tp07ddq...@corp.supernews.com...
Heh. I arrived there and could NOT get a drink because it was Sunday, yet I
was able to go to any of the number of Fireworks emporiums and buy munitions
that boggled my mind.
What a screwed up state!
>
>
Mister Charlie
anything in this world.
He is worthless and happily out of the public scene.
"BballJunky" <bball...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010831220338...@mb-ck.aol.com...
BballJunky
>Dan Quayle is a walking idiot and there is NOTHING he said that advanced
>anything in this world.
>
>He is worthless and happily out of the public scene.
>
I guess the same can be said for you. It's always easy to rip those who take a
stand...because you are not the one doing it in front of the world. You can be
"BballJunky" and rip into anything you want without any worries that you will
have any responsibility for what you say.
I respect any public official who speaks from their heart, whether I agree with
their policy or even like them.
Freedom of speech and the internet. Goes hand in hand. The public exercising
their rights to free speech on the internet and using that free speech to
ridicule anything they can, as they hide behind a keyboard. Go ahead.....read
through the posts on most message boards.....mainly negative. What miserable
and jealous people we must be. Freddy
Leroy
> Dan Quayle is a walking idiot and there is NOTHING he said that advanced
> anything in this world.
>
> He is worthless and happily out of the public scene.
You just don't see how damaging it was to our whole social structure that
a fictional, unmarried TV character was allowed to squeeze out a crumb
grinder in front of an audience of impressionable children. James Danforth
III knew that Murphy Brown belonged in some place like the Magdalene House,
working for three years as a slave to good righteous nuns, and collecting
three or four bucks for her time.
I wish I could make something like that up, but it's all from the news.
The Dan Quayles of the world have their place - I just don't want them as
close to the top as he was. Unfortunately, he was dead-on about one thing:
much as we wish to accept "single parent households," it takes two to raise
a child to adulthood.
Mister Charlie
> Mister Charlie (the real one, I think) wrote ...
> > Dan Quayle is a walking idiot and there is NOTHING he said that advanced
> > anything in this world.
> >
> > He is worthless and happily out of the public scene.
>
> You just don't see how damaging it was to our whole social structure
that
> a fictional, unmarried TV character was allowed to squeeze out a crumb
> grinder in front of an audience of impressionable children.
Are you quoting Quayle? Because if not I cannot believe any adult anywhere
on the globe would actually say that with a stright face (except Airhead
Quayle).
James Danforth
> III knew that Murphy Brown belonged in some place like the Magdalene
House,
> working for three years as a slave to good righteous nuns, and collecting
> three or four bucks for her time.
>
> I wish I could make something like that up, but it's all from the news.
Sorry, no idea what this is all about.
>
> The Dan Quayles of the world have their place - I just don't want them
as
> close to the top as he was.
Agreed. His place would be a sbandbox somewhere playing with his money.
Unfortunately, he was dead-on about one thing:
> much as we wish to accept "single parent households," it takes two to
raise
> a child to adulthood.
Ideally, yes. In reality? Not really. Many single parent households
manage quite nicely. What about widows/widowers? Are they to be condemned
for not running right out and remarrying?
Nonsense. Balderdash. It was a false premise he'd hoped to sell to a
nation weary of Republican rule. And it didn't work.
>
>
robertandrews
>The Dan Quayles of the world have their place - I just don't want them as
close to the top as he was.
Considering the level of hypocrisy & bigotry in America, Quayle, Helms, et
al. all have their place. I'm not questioning their right to represent
their constituency.
>Unfortunately, he was dead-on about one thing: much as we wish to accept
"single parent households," it takes two to raise a child to adulthood.
Assuming Yoko raised Sean independently, are you saying Sean is not an
adult? That we prefer two parents to one doesn't address the unjust &
discriminatory social policy that Quayle supports. It's the old
double-standard: his daughter can have an abortion (in secret), other people
can't. To quote William Bennett: "hypocritical values are better than none
at all."
Tom
> views an
> > artist holds rarely keeps me from being "turned on" by them. So what if
> Lennon
> > said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus....Jesus was Jewish, and probably
> not
> > very tall, so in a way Lennon was more or less right.
Huh? I've heard just about all the Jewish stereoypes, but that's a new
one on me. "Jewish men aren't tall." Most of the Jewish men I've known
would have towered over Lennon. Some of the women too, now that I
think about it.
Leroy
> > > Dan Quayle is a walking idiot and there is NOTHING he said that
advanced
> > > anything in this world.
> > >
> > > He is worthless and happily out of the public scene.
...and I reponded with his complaint about Murphy Brown's televised,
unmarried pregnancy.
> Are you quoting Quayle? <snip>
Not only did he say it, it may have been a major force in his
un-election. Even Letterman got to point out to the Veep that MB was just a
TV character.
> James Danforth
> > III knew that Murphy Brown belonged in some place like the Magdalene
> < House, working for three years as a slave to good righteous nuns, and
collecting
> > three or four bucks for her time.
> Sorry, no idea what this is all about.
One of those benevolent homes for unwed mothers on some island off the UK
coast - maybe it was Jersey, or the Shetlands. Needless to say, the Catholic
church wanted the whole story dropped, and apparently in your case they
succeeded. But it made NPR's news a few years back.
> > The Dan Quayles of the world have their place -
> Agreed. His place would be a sandbox somewhere playing with his money.
Is that how he defended Indiana from Vietcong tunnellers?
(Note: I'm no great fan of war either, but this guy was a scheming
politician in the making. And by God, Dubya sure kept those MiGs from
strafing Dallas! That National Guard saved us)
> < Unfortunately, he was dead-on about one thing:
> > much as we wish to accept "single parent households," it takes two to
> < raise a child to adulthood.
> Ideally, yes. In reality? Not really. Many single parent households
> manage quite nicely.
Remember that mag you wouldn't read, The Atlantic Monthly? They wrote J.
Danforth's obituary in a cover story, "Dan Quayle Was Right." Rush was wrong
trying to correct this to "Dan Quayle *Is* Right". But anyway, (based on
second hand reports; I'll admit I didn't buy this issue) the problem is in
teenage boys once they turn rebellious. Without a father or substitute ready
to beat him to death, he could end up a gangster or a permanently pubescent
rmb troll. Is it just coincidence that crime and illegitimacy tend to be
concentrated in the same neighborhoods?
Here's where we split: you will allow only the sugar coated version where
there are some very serious problems.
What about widows/widowers? Are they to be condemned
> for not running right out and remarrying?
Me, push marriage where it doesn't belong? Hell no! Matter of fact, where
God's Own Party lost me in the mid-90s was in sticking government's nose
into the marriage business - not to keep people off Welfare, not to make the
family look respectable, not for any outside reason. Fix a temporary problem
now, pay dearly later.
robertandrews is not likely ever to write
>
> Considering the level of hypocrisy & bigotry in America, Maxine Waters,
Carol Mosely-Jones, et
BballJunky
>one on me. "Jewish men aren't tall." Most of the Jewish men I've known
>would have towered over Lennon.
Way too serious, aren't you?! Freddy
Hey, smoke a bowl, have a drink or something.....I was making light....never
mind...if you didn't get it the first time.
Mister Charlie
> Here's where we split: you will allow only the sugar coated version
where
> there are some very serious problems.
No, where we split is I don't accuse you of sugar coating (who could?). I
am well aware of things that are not printed in the Atlantic, or Mother
Jones, or Ramparts, or the New Republic, etc.
Don't be so condescending. Your mother was right, it'll scrunch up your
face and it will stay that way.
>
> What about widows/widowers? Are they to be condemned
> > for not running right out and remarrying?
>
> Me, push marriage where it doesn't belong? Hell no! Matter of fact,
where
> God's Own Party lost me in the mid-90s was in sticking government's nose
> into the marriage business - not to keep people off Welfare, not to make
the
> family look respectable, not for any outside reason. Fix a temporary
problem
> now, pay dearly later.
>
You're half on the ball. Guess I should be happy with that much. You see,
I am only half as well. Anyime a person can honestly scrutinize their own
political beliefs and/or party and see the bad as well as the good then to
my mind they are doing something right.
Even without all them fancy magazines. (Who has time to read anyway, I am
the forge sentinel?)
Revenge of Sith
>adult?
Sean was raised by nannies. Yoko believed that motherhood was slavery.
Tom
> close to the top as he was. Unfortunately, he was dead-on about one thing:
> much as we wish to accept "single parent households," it takes two to raise
> a child to adulthood.
I'm not doing well in this thread. First I'm told that as a Jew, I'm
not tall, now I'm told that as an adult who grew up in a single parent
home, I don't exist.
Leroy
> You're half on the ball. Guess I should be happy with that much. You
see,
> I am only half as well. Anyime a person can honestly scrutinize their own
> political beliefs and/or party and see the bad as well as the good then to
> my mind they are doing something right.
I've checked the header, and this is clearly the best forgery I've ever
seen. It looks like it came from Charlie's machine, but that's impossible.
Oh well, on to the subject header -
BballJunky wrote
> In a nutshell.....I think it's not really fair to say the right-wingers
don't
> "get" music. Conservative values do not automatically transfer one into a
mind
> numbed, one way thinker...
- Freddy
Keep in mind that people change over many years, turning from Kennedy Kid
altruists to heartless right wing bastards like me. A teacher once said that
his seventh grade students' politics was their parents' politics; I resented
that, but it takes time to develop ones own beliefs. Music can be far more
instantaneous: I've got liner notes somewhere that described a first hearing
of You Really Got Me over the car radio as being sledgehammered. In a nice
way, I'm sure. The good kid who listens to his parents' music can change
overnight, so I'll agree there's a disconnect between musical tastes and
political beliefs.
Leroy
"Tom" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote
>
> I'm not doing well in this thread. First I'm told that as a Jew, I'm
> not tall, now I'm told that as an adult who grew up in a single parent
> home, I don't exist.
Hey Tom, if you're going to vanish, could you leave us your record
collection?
dlarsson
Well ... it makes sense ... they were dumb enough to vote for Bush ..
(meanwhile ... the U.S. is going bankrupt just like the 80s all over
again)
-Derek
==========================================
Derek Larsson EMail: derek_...@3com.com
==========================================
BballJunky
>not tall, now I'm told that as an adult who grew up in a single parent
>home, I don't exist.
...and don't forget, I implied you had no sense of humor!! Freddy :-)
Mister Charlie
> Mister Charlie wrote
>
> > You're half on the ball. Guess I should be happy with that much. You
> see,
> > I am only half as well. Anyime a person can honestly scrutinize their
own
> > political beliefs and/or party and see the bad as well as the good then
to
> > my mind they are doing something right.
>
> I've checked the header, and this is clearly the best forgery I've ever
> seen. It looks like it came from Charlie's machine, but that's impossible.
> Oh well, on to the subject header -
Yes, no one can forge Mr. Charlie like ME, Mr Charlie.
Yes, it was no forgery...or did you know that? Your sarcasm is a rather odd
type that seems to miss the target more often than not. It was
concilliatory, but hell, it don't have to be.
musicman
Vietnam.
paramucho
wrote:
>RIGHT WINGERS DON'T GET MUSIC
>
>For those of you who don't know me, I am an Independent who economically and
>militarily is conservative, but socially liberal. However, I would not
>classify myself as a libertarian. You want to know what the definition of a
>libertarian is? A libertarian, I think, is someone who wants to legalize
>marijuana. ;)
That probably puts you just shy of the extreme right (Ratbag Right) of
the political spectrum in Australia. In fact, here's an equivalance
table:
America Australia
------- ---------
Liberal Conservative
Democrat Right Winger
Conservative Ratbag Right
Australia America
--------- -------
Right winger Democrat
Political Center Left Winger
Labour Looney Left
Holland Australia
------- ---------
Right Winger Left Winger
Left Winger Looney Left
So, how can we say that a "Right Winger" doesn't get music when
they're a "Left Winger" in other countries...
I guess a possible response is that the Left-Inclined and the
Right-Inclined just position themselves about the Political-Middle:
Political Middle
Left Right
+------------------------+---------------------+
Holland Australia America
Germany
You can test this measure simply by looking at the positions on
Abortion, Death Penalty, Guns, Life Termination, Homosexual Marriage,
Gene Technology etc along with definitions of Public versus Private
institutions. Australia is slowly drifting left politically and right
economically.
Given that we could say, "The Right Inclined Don't Get Music". But, we
have a couple of right-wingers here who clearly do. Well, at least one
:-)
Me, I'm a left-winger grown old. That means I still have all my left
ideals but I function pretty happily in a country dominated by the
political middle and my ideals are nostalgic things that I keep about
me for sentimental value. I vote for the Left-Of-Center party, not for
the Greens etc.
The Beatles were probably politically fairly conservative in 1963.
John later went left, then went a bit like me. George used to like
guns and sherrifs and stuff, but then went Spiritual-Left. Paul went
Animal-Rights left. Ringo I don't know. Maybe he's not sure either,
although he's the one who says that it's still about Peace And Love.
BTW: I wouldn't take my demographic data too literally. I don't. It's
more the general notion of the Political Middle that I wanted to
illustrate.
Ian
Francie Schwartz
On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 20:05:08 EST i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
> I vote for the Left-Of-Center party, not for
> the Greens etc.
>
Shame. The Greens are very important to support worldwide.
> The Beatles were probably politically fairly conservative in 1963.
I wouldn't say so, Ian. They were apolitical at that point. Isn't
there a record somewhere that shows they never voted until after
the Beatles broke up?
> John later went left, then went a bit like me.
Conservative fiscally?
George used to like
> guns and sherrifs and stuff, but then went Spiritual-Left.
I'm not so sure he ever liked sheriffs and guns.
But I get your point. In America, the saying goes,
after you get a certain amount of money, you become
Republican.
Paul went
> Animal-Rights left.
Are you talking Left (American style) or Left (as in Aussie Right)?
Paul's work supporting PETA is an embarassment. It's become
*the* right wing conservative weirdo group, especially in view
of fur's return to high fashion and a well-rounded diet's return
to the general population - who are aware of vegetables and
fruits being irradiated and "Natural" and "Organic" becoming
meaningless buzz words on food labels.
Ringo I don't know. Maybe he's not sure either,
> although he's the one who says that it's still about Peace And Love.
>
Isn't it? He certainly seems the mellowest of the Threetles.
Maybe sobriety has benefited him more than he admits.
> BTW: I wouldn't take my demographic data too literally. I don't. It's
> more the general notion of the Political Middle that I wanted to
> illustrate.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
When Bill Clinton consulted Dick Morris, he found that
"triangulation" between the more prominent opinions on
either end of the political spectrum could get him elected.
"W" used this same strategy.
Obla di obla da...
;-)
Francie
--
Special: My Mother's Letter on BODY COUNT (1972)
http://sites.netscape.net/fab9131944
Life After Paul McCartney, etc.
paramucho
<waro...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 20:05:08 EST i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
>>
>> I vote for the Left-Of-Center party, not for
>> the Greens etc.
>>
>
>Shame. The Greens are very important to support worldwide.
IMVHO Education is the only long term solution for all the problems we
face. Thus its the left-of-center mainstream party for me.
>> The Beatles were probably politically fairly conservative in 1963.
>
>I wouldn't say so, Ian. They were apolitical at that point. Isn't
>there a record somewhere that shows they never voted until after
>the Beatles broke up?
That's accurate too, it's just that I see "apolitical" as being
inherently conservative in Britain and Australia. The U.S. is
different because the right wing is more activist than "conserving".
>> John later went left, then went a bit like me.
>
>Conservative fiscally?
Fiscally I'm just a slob -- a wastral in the true sense. Lennon was a
bit naive in that sense. I think a substantial part of him was classic
New Rich.
>George used to like
>> guns and sherrifs and stuff, but then went Spiritual-Left.
>
>I'm not so sure he ever liked sheriffs and guns.
>But I get your point. In America, the saying goes,
>after you get a certain amount of money, you become
>Republican.
I think he was as a kid from interviews I've read.
>Paul went
>> Animal-Rights left.
>
>Are you talking Left (American style) or Left (as in Aussie Right)?
I wouldn't really know. PETA is something I've never looked at. I'm
not sure that PETA represents his own personal views entirely.
>Paul's work supporting PETA is an embarassment. It's become
>*the* right wing conservative weirdo group, especially in view
>of fur's return to high fashion and a well-rounded diet's return
>to the general population - who are aware of vegetables and
>fruits being irradiated and "Natural" and "Organic" becoming
>meaningless buzz words on food labels.
>
>Ringo I don't know. Maybe he's not sure either,
>> although he's the one who says that it's still about Peace And Love.
>>
>
>Isn't it? He certainly seems the mellowest of the Threetles.
>Maybe sobriety has benefited him more than he admits.
Maybe he doesn't vote.
>> BTW: I wouldn't take my demographic data too literally. I don't. It's
>> more the general notion of the Political Middle that I wanted to
>> illustrate.
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>
>When Bill Clinton consulted Dick Morris, he found that
>"triangulation" between the more prominent opinions on
>either end of the political spectrum could get him elected.
>"W" used this same strategy.
You can be some of the things to some of the people some of the time,
and guess what, you can be all things to all people too...
That's what Australia's left-of-center party did and Blair followed
that model. Either Blair or Clinton had a ex-pat Australian on their
team.
The right wing are too died in the wool in Britain and Australia to
tolerate the necessary changes in the progra. That's different in
activist right America as "W" showed.
>Obla di obla da...
Que sera!
Ian
BballJunky
>not sure that PETA represents his own personal views entirely.
PETA is a ridiculous organization. If you want to help animals give money or
time to your local animal shelters. PETA is a political group, much like the
NRA. You don't have to solicit billions to change minds on issues....you
change peoples minds. These organizations are more about getting people
elected to office than truly furthering their cause through education. Freddy
Tom
That doesn't count.
Leroy
> Yes, it was no forgery...or did you know that? Your sarcasm is a rather
odd
> type that seems to miss the target more often than not. It was
> concilliatory, but hell, it don't have to be.
also said -
Leroy
"musicman" <rca...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3B91DBF5...@gte.net...
> The U.S. has been bankrupt ever since the "Great Society" and the war in
> Vietnam.
>
> dlarsson wrote:
The difference is, the war in Vietnam ended.
Mister Charlie
Leroy
> Yes? So?
Mister Charlie
If I knew you would be so taken with my words, I would have written more of
them.
>
>
>
Sixties Gen
The Vietnam War bankrupted us spiritually, as well as financially, and
we've never recovered from either. The Great Society was a noble
initiative that was shafted almost from the beginning by monies
diverted to fighting in Vietnam. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke
out against taking money from the poor in the United States, and using
it to fight another people of color in Vietnam, while using
disproportionate numbers of African Americans to fight in the war...he
was killed.
all black
"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4734803e.0109...@posting.google.com...
> "Leroy" <ler...@communityweb.net> wrote in message
news:<tp4njg8...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "musicman" <rca...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B91DBF5...@gte.net...
> > > The U.S. has been bankrupt ever since the "Great Society" and the war
in
> > > Vietnam.
> > >
> > > dlarsson wrote:
> > the usual.
> >
> > The difference is, the war in Vietnam ended.
>
> The Vietnam War bankrupted us spiritually, as well as financially, and
> we've never recovered from either.
oh right, so the US is really not the wealthiest and most powerful military
nation in the world?
The Great Society was a noble
> initiative that was shafted almost from the beginning by monies
> diverted to fighting in Vietnam. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke
> out against taking money from the poor in the United States, and using
> it to fight another people of color in Vietnam, while using
> disproportionate numbers of African Americans to fight in the war...he
> was killed.
you've got to be kidding if you're trying to:
a) intimate that the vietnam war was fought along racial lines " another
people of colour"
b) suggest that MLK was killed because of that pronouncement.
if not, please carry on...:)
Sixties Gen
Did Bennett really say that? It sounds like a sound-bite too good to be true.
What a pompous ass he is.
Leroy
> > we've never recovered from either.
> oh right, so the US is really not the wealthiest and most powerful
military
> nation in the world?
nick
What if we are? We can't print Monopoly money forever without solid
backing for it. That is how we set off the inflation of the 1970s, losing a
war and not saving the cities while running the printing presses overtime to
pay for them both.
"Ah well, this country is being shot straight to hell anyways (it's gotta
happen sometime; we're gonna fall as fast we've risen)..."
ScootchF (mfr...@voicenet.com), a coupla weeks back
Let me clue you in on something: we are losing our manufacturing base,
and our office Neros are fiddling (it was a lyre in those days, but) because
they don't believe they can be replaced by an online secretary in Calcutta.
It's just a matter of time. We're in trouble.
60s, again:
> The Great Society was a noble
> > initiative that was shafted almost from the beginning by monies
> > diverted to fighting in Vietnam.
No amount of money would've made that misguided experiment work, and
we're still funding it. This was King's mistake more than LBJ's, and it's
poured money down the drain with no possibility of making people successful.
You can care all you want, but if the money you put in doesn't generate more
money coming out, it's time to admit it's been a failure.
60s and nick continue:
< < When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke
> > out against taking money from the poor in the United States, and using
> > it to fight another people of color in Vietnam, while using
> > disproportionate numbers of African Americans to fight in the war...he
> > was killed.
>
> you've got to be kidding if you're trying to:
>
> a) intimate that the vietnam war was fought along racial lines " another
> people of colour"
No, but it's a safe bet that the powers that were felt more free to act
when they knew that the guys being dropped in a rice paddy were either
ghetto kids or poor white trash. It factors in, somehow - they just didn't
matter.
For that matter, neither did the Vietnamese. A farmer tried to collect
$1500 from us after we defoliated his land; a bureaucrat's answer was that
the whole country wasn't worth that much.
nick:
> b) suggest that MLK was killed because of that pronouncement.
I guess in part it comes down to whether James Earl Ray had help, and
we'll argue that one until we're all dead. I'd say 60s is overstating it;
certainly some powerful people were delighted that he was shot, after he
announced his opposition to the war. But it's more likely that it came down
to whether the people have any right to challenge government's power to go
to war than for any racial reasons. It wouldn't make sense to pursue the
racial angle on the domestic scene: he was all but finished as a force to
rally people.
Jonah Lomu
> > > The Vietnam War bankrupted us spiritually, as well as financially, and
> > > we've never recovered from either.
> Sixties Gen
>
> > oh right, so the US is really not the wealthiest and most powerful
> military
> > nation in the world?
> nick
>
> What if we are? We can't print Monopoly money forever without solid
> backing for it. That is how we set off the inflation of the 1970s, losing
a
> war and not saving the cities while running the printing presses overtime
to
> pay for them both.
>
> "Ah well, this country is being shot straight to hell anyways (it's gotta
> happen sometime; we're gonna fall as fast we've risen)..."
> ScootchF (mfr...@voicenet.com), a coupla weeks back
>
> Let me clue you in on something: we are losing our manufacturing base,
so is the rest of the world.
either you manufacture in asia, or you get out of the business.
> and our office Neros are fiddling (it was a lyre in those days, but)
because
> they don't believe they can be replaced by an online secretary in
Calcutta.
> It's just a matter of time. We're in trouble.
>
> 60s, again:
heres hoping (only in as much as it may garner some much needed humility)
> > you've got to be kidding if you're trying to:
> >
> > a) intimate that the vietnam war was fought along racial lines " another
> > people of colour"
>
> No, but it's a safe bet that the powers that were felt more free to act
> when they knew that the guys being dropped in a rice paddy were either
> ghetto kids or poor white trash. It factors in, somehow - they just didn't
> matter.
the aussies were treated the same way by the poms in WW 1&2, and we were the
same colour.
go figure.
robertandrews
>It wouldn't make sense to pursue the racial angle on the domestic scene: he
was all but finished as a force to rally people.
No he wasn't. King could have accomplished much more had he lived. I'd
have loved to see him rally both whites & blacks against the confederate
flag, or speak out against racists like Helms & hateful simpletons like
Quayle.
Leroy
confederate flag, or speak out against racists like Helms & hateful
simpletons like Quayle."
You forgot to add swastikas and Dolphie Hitler. This time.
Your tunnel vision and Julia Stiles' could complement each other - or
cancel. You two could meet like a matter/antimatter explosion. No flash of
light and galaxies this time, though - just a pile of dust where you'd been
standing.
robertandrews
>Your tunnel vision and Julia Stiles' could complement each other . . .
Thanks for the compliment, but I don't know her. Any relation to Julia
(Ocean) Childs? And can she bake a wild honey pie?
Sixties Gen
That is exactly what I'm saying. Two very prominent African-American
leaders of the Sixties were harassed and arrested for promoting civil
rights and black power. However, once they made the connection that
the United States acted the same way against people of color overseas
as it did in the U.S., for the purpose of spreading the
military-industrial complex, and they began to speak out about the
connections between oppression in this country and the third
world...they were killed. Their names, Malcolom X and Martin Luther
King Jr.
Vietnam was a colony of the French, then taken over by the Japanese
during World War II. France tried to reassert their authority over
Vietnam as a colonial power in the early 50s, heavily supported by the
U.S. Then when the French failed, the United States took over in this
colonial war to subjugate people of color.
Suggest you read, "Vietnam And America: A Documented History" by
Gettleman, Franklin, Young, and Franklin.
Leroy
King & Malcolm were killed by the military-industrialist complex for
exposing their evil plan to oppress anybody in the world who wasn't white. I
think I saw this in Executive Action, but the martyred saint in that one was
JFK.
Too far, 60s. Some people hated demonstrators just for demonstrating,
with no politics attached to that hatred. We had extreme racists who hated
King for being an outspoken black, others who saw him as a communist
sympathiser for his anti-war role. Any of a number of motives could have led
to his murder.
Malcolm X? Get serious! He said himself that he was finished - too
moderate for the radicals, too radical for the moderates. He made one very
dangerous enemy: The Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm denounced him as a
fraud at the center of a personality cult, exempting himself and his inner
circle from the life of self denial he preached. The allegations of Mr.
Muhammad's adultery were only the tip of the iceberg - the man was corrupt,
and Malcolm said it loud. No need for a CIA hit here.
> ...Then when the French failed, the United States took over in this
> colonial war to subjugate people of color.
Uh, it couldn't have had anything to do with East-West geopolitics, could
it? USians were famous for that. There's a great staging point for troop
deployments all over East Asia called Cam Ranh Bay, or however they spell
it; there's oil in the Spratley Islands, or nearabouts that Vietnam, China
and the Philippines have all squabbled over. But no, it's that we wanted to
subjugate a people ten thousand miles away. As colonials, we had to be the
most harebrained of all time!
No, 60s. We didn't take them seriously enough to even try to figure out
how the Vietnamese mind worked - we just saw commies and acted accordingly.
Land. Resources. Red Menace. We didn't care one iota about the people
themselves.
dlarsson
> Vietnam.
.. and we were beginning to turn that around in the 90s during
the Clinton-Gore administration .. running budget surpluses
for the first time - and paying down the national debt.
One of the essential differences in the 2000 election
was do we continue to reduce the national debt down to
a zero-sum situation (Gore) .. or.. do we pay government
handouts to wealthy segments of the population and
help Dick Cheny and the Oil Industry get rich ... while
this revivial of "Reganomics" budget policies reverses the
surpluses and puts the U.S. right back into the
bankruptcy hole that it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
well the right-wingers were stupid enough to do the latter
- Derek
Sixties Gen
So, essentially, you agree with me...but for all the wrong reasons.
Leroy
"Sixties Gen" <sixti...@yahoo.com> wrote
> So, essentially, you agree with me...but for all the wrong reasons.
Works for me.
Steve
I thought Quayle couldn't speak from anything except his ass.
~Steve~
TwasTiseye5
>
>I thought Quayle couldn't speak from anything except his ass.
>~Steve~
Ewww, bad breath.
~Susan~
http://artists3.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Steve_Hawk/
BballJunky
>
>I thought Quayle couldn't speak from anything except his ass.
>~Steve~
....and from the stench, it's obvious where you speak from. Freddy
Mister Charlie
"BballJunky" <bball...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010904200700...@mb-ba.aol.com...
um....what's left, Freddy? Orifice wise I mean.
(PS: They're right)