Neil a phony??

[Geddy's Soul Patch]

Since Rands comments in 2010 on civil rights, he hasn't backtracked? He hasn't tried to redefine his comments or image? His current interpretation on civil rights is clear? Its one thing to have a nice theory of limited govt, but in the real world some take significant advantage of others who are less fortunate, which required intervention, as 80% of Republicans in congress agreed with at the time.

 

Yes calling him a racist is unfortunate, but to say a liberal going after Rand Paul on domestic issues is "baseless" is way out there.

 

No one said a liberal going after Paul on domestic issues is baseless. What I said is Peart calling Paul a racist and a sexist is baseless. This is such a simple concept, but it is clear that neither you nor JBs have any interest in understanding or addressing it.

 

If he really said that...I can come up with an example of how lefties might be angry at RP...

 

Supporting policies on the guise of limited govt, policies that significant hurt those of a specific race or gender will be viewed by those that are hurt in that manner (I.e. Respond with "baseless" anger)

 

A female employee is virtuously powerless to stand up to her employer that denies her of readily available and legal healthcare. To hide behind limited govt while irrevocably hurting the powerless causes anger to those harmed and to their families.

 

Notre Dame is a private college, yet earns significant revenue broadcasting its games on spectrum owned by we the people yet leased to the networks. ND is openly fighting women's rights.

 

This private university has entered a public domain. Hiring employees in the general public via public recruiting, subject to EEOC laws. Yet a strange court is ruling that this is all private. If so, great, get ND off my TV and hobby lobby out of open to the public stores.

 

To deny basic healthcare to women based on a false claim that these are private companies/schools...or to come up with a convenient ltd govt theory that causes irrevocable harm against those less fortunate. This type of "theory" has obviously angered some on the left. Perhaps NEP is one of them.

 

OK, so you support the $15 minimum wage, which will have a terrible effect on the working poor, which disproportionately affects minorities. Because of this, I must assume that your position on this matter is merely a ruse for you to spread your racist vitriol, so I have a strong basis in publicly naming you a racist. Wow, what an intelligent and nuanced way to think...

 

I support minimum wage indexed (1968) for inflation. This would help the working poor.

 

Just supporting Neil here. I was accused/baited for "not understanding" so i gave an example of where this leftist anger could be coming from.

 

I've been a fan of NEP for many years thinking he was a conservative libertarian, now I'm a fan of him as a self described bleeding heart libertarian, if RS is to be believed.. I hardly see any difference. I loved Rush and still do.

 

Its unfortunate he used the racist word. But Pauls policies directly hurt women and minorities, according to the POV of the people that are actually doing the hurting, if polls are to be believed.

 

Perhaps Neil should have paid his local congressman to accuse Rand of being born in Kenya, cuz that's how attacks are lobbied from the right? Neil didn't use code, that was his mistake.

 

 

.

Rand Paul's policies hurt minorities? As far as I'm concerned, every policy that the left advocates for (as well as many policies advocated for by the right) harm the smallest minority that exists, the individual. Edited June 19, 2015 by Geddy's Soul Patch

[Lorraine]

Everybody's a phony. - Holden Caulfield

 

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread to discover if someone else has made this point. Life being sort of short and all.

 

Yes. It was made on page one.

[toymaker]

Everybody's a phony. - Holden Caulfield

 

I haven't read all 15 pages of this thread to discover if someone else has made this point. Life being sort of short and all.

 

Yes. It was made on page one.

 

I see that now. Oh well.

[Bard]

If this is a taste of SOCN then I'm glad I'm not in there. Religion used to be the opiate of the masses and now it's politics. The parties are 95% similar and decisions are not made on right and wrong but on deals doing each other favors and holding to a party line. Unfortunately, political office attracts the kind of people who have no business holding political office.

 

Number one rule of internet participation. Try to avoid politics and religion at all costs.

 

Quite a silly rule if you use the Internet to argue on political forums.

 

Using the internet to keyboard jockey political platforms is a waste of time.

[toymaker]

If this is a taste of SOCN then I'm glad I'm not in there. Religion used to be the opiate of the masses and now it's politics. The parties are 95% similar and decisions are not made on right and wrong but on deals doing each other favors and holding to a party line. Unfortunately, political office attracts the kind of people who have no business holding political office.

 

Number one rule of internet participation. Try to avoid politics and religion at all costs.

 

Quite a silly rule if you use the Internet to argue on political forums.

 

Using the internet to keyboard jockey political platforms is a waste of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoH8E9MlB7s

[D3strukt]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

[toymaker]

Neilaphony n. 1. any production of sound that resembles Neil Peart's drumming. 2. hearing things the way Neil Peart hears them.

[HemiBeers]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

 

Well I tried to fart bomb it, but it keeps coming back like a zombie.

[laughedatbytime]

Also, and once again, it's disappointing to see an otherwise intelligent and talented man reiterating the myth after supporting the right of the individual to stand against a collective.

 

That is a great point and I agree with you 100%. The individual against the collective was and still is a common theme in Neil’s lyrics. He also seems to be in favor of big government. I don’t get it.

I believe he would differentiate between a songwriter fighting the record company for artistic control and a person obtaining government subsidized tax credits to offshore jobs to China.

 

 

 

 

Fixed ;)

 

 

.

Doesn't fixed in this context mean improved? Because by that definition it's not fixed.

[laughedatbytime]

Since Rands comments in 2010 on civil rights, he hasn't backtracked? He hasn't tried to redefine his comments or image? His current interpretation on civil rights is clear? Its one thing to have a nice theory of limited govt, but in the real world some take significant advantage of others who are less fortunate, which required intervention, as 80% of Republicans in congress agreed with at the time.

 

Yes calling him a racist is unfortunate, but to say a liberal going after Rand Paul on domestic issues is "baseless" is way out there.

 

No one said a liberal going after Paul on domestic issues is baseless. What I said is Peart calling Paul a racist and a sexist is baseless. This is such a simple concept, but it is clear that neither you nor JBs have any interest in understanding or addressing it.

 

If he really said that...I can come up with an example of how lefties might be angry at RP...

 

Supporting policies on the guise of limited govt, policies that significant hurt those of a specific race or gender will be viewed by those that are hurt in that manner (I.e. Respond with "baseless" anger)

 

A female employee is virtuously powerless to stand up to her employer that denies her of readily available and legal healthcare. To hide behind limited govt while irrevocably hurting the powerless causes anger to those harmed and to their families.

 

Notre Dame is a private college, yet earns significant revenue broadcasting its games on spectrum owned by we the people yet leased to the networks. ND is openly fighting women's rights.

 

This private university has entered a public domain. Hiring employees in the general public via public recruiting, subject to EEOC laws. Yet a strange court is ruling that this is all private. If so, great, get ND off my TV and hobby lobby out of open to the public stores.

 

To deny basic healthcare to women based on a false claim that these are private companies/schools...or to come up with a convenient ltd govt theory that causes irrevocable harm against those less fortunate. This type of "theory" has obviously angered some on the left. Perhaps NEP is one of them.

 

OK, so you support the $15 minimum wage, which will have a terrible effect on the working poor, which disproportionately affects minorities. Because of this, I must assume that your position on this matter is merely a ruse for you to spread your racist vitriol, so I have a strong basis in publicly naming you a racist. Wow, what an intelligent and nuanced way to think...

 

I support minimum wage indexed (1968) for inflation. This would help the working poor.

 

Just supporting Neil here. I was accused/baited for "not understanding" so i gave an example of where this leftist anger could be coming from.

 

I've been a fan of NEP for many years thinking he was a conservative libertarian, now I'm a fan of him as a self described bleeding heart libertarian, if RS is to be believed.. I hardly see any difference. I loved Rush and still do.

 

Its unfortunate he used the racist word. But Pauls policies directly hurt women and minorities, according to the POV of the people that are actually doing the hurting, if polls are to be believed.

 

Perhaps Neil should have paid his local congressman to accuse Rand of being born in Kenya, cuz that's how attacks are lobbied from the right? Neil didn't use code, that was his mistake.

 

 

.

Wouldn't Paul's policies have to actually be utilized to directly hurt women and minorities?

Not to mention that they wouldn't actually hurt women and minorities. That's kind of important too.

[laughedatbytime]

I support minimum wage indexed (1968) for inflation. This would help the working poor.

Not so much. Inventors working on processes to mechanize work done by unskilled laborers, sure, they'd be helped.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

 

Because despite the efforts of a couple of people to get it moved or closed, it has mostly stayed about Neil's comments, and it has also remained mostly civil. You are free to not come in here and read it if it bothers you that much.

[Faithless Mover]

Who is this Randy Paul?

[Ancient Ways]

If this is a taste of SOCN then I'm glad I'm not in there. Religion used to be the opiate of the masses and now it's politics. The parties are 95% similar and decisions are not made on right and wrong but on deals doing each other favors and holding to a party line. Unfortunately, political office attracts the kind of people who have no business holding political office.

 

If you were trying to cram the most clichés possible into a post then you were successful. Other than that SOCN is none the poorer for your absence.

Doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Rick N. Backer]

Yuck. Rush and politics. All this because of a Peart sound byte?

 

Blaggh.

 

Have you read the lyrics to their songs at all?

 

I remember a bass teacher of mine in the early 80s asking, when he was teaching me to pick up Free Will by ear, "do these guys write any songs about chicks?" They really don't, other than the debut. You can't have it both ways. Either their lyrics are thought provoking, and thus discussion worthy, or they're not. I love Roth era Van Halen. But I'm guessing a fan site of theirs wouldn't need a SOCN.

[laughedatbytime]

Yuck. Rush and politics. All this because of a Peart sound byte?

 

Blaggh.

 

Have you read the lyrics to their songs at all?

 

I remember a bass teacher of mine in the early 80s asking, when he was teaching me to pick up Free Will by ear, "do these guys write any songs about chicks?" They really don't, other than the debut. You can't have it both ways. Either their lyrics are thought provoking, and thus discussion worthy, or they're not. I love Roth era Van Halen. But I'm guessing a fan site of theirs wouldn't need a SOCN.

Who are you kidding, these meaningless, trivial threads suck. I hate to have to wade through them to get to the important stuff, like counting down the days till the new 5.1 rerelease of Cold Fire occurs, or when the 1978 Cincinnati bootleg of Best I Can will be available, or whether Neils cymbals sounded heavy enough on the remastering of Presto.

[The Analog Cub]

Yuck. Rush and politics. All this because of a Peart sound byte?

 

Blaggh.

 

Have you read the lyrics to their songs at all?

 

I remember a bass teacher of mine in the early 80s asking, when he was teaching me to pick up Free Will by ear, "do these guys write any songs about chicks?" They really don't, other than the debut. You can't have it both ways. Either their lyrics are thought provoking, and thus discussion worthy, or they're not. I love Roth era Van Halen. But I'm guessing a fan site of theirs wouldn't need a SOCN.

Who are you kidding, these meaningless, trivial threads suck. I hate to have to wade through them to get to the important stuff, like counting down the days till the new 5.1 rerelease of Cold Fire occurs, or when the 1978 Cincinnati bootleg of Best I Can will be available, or whether Neils cymbals sounded heavy enough on the remastering of Presto.

 

something something Feedback

[Bard]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

 

Well I tried to fart bomb it, but it keeps coming back like a zombie.

 

LOL, okay, THAT was funny,. :)

[Bard]

Yuck. Rush and politics. All this because of a Peart sound byte?

 

Blaggh.

 

Have you read the lyrics to their songs at all?

 

I remember a bass teacher of mine in the early 80s asking, when he was teaching me to pick up Free Will by ear, "do these guys write any songs about chicks?" They really don't, other than the debut. You can't have it both ways. Either their lyrics are thought provoking, and thus discussion worthy, or they're not. I love Roth era Van Halen. But I'm guessing a fan site of theirs wouldn't need a SOCN.

 

You'd be surprised, then. Nearly any active rock message board has a politico forum.

 

I actually have a theory about lyrics. They really don't matter. Whether it's Van Halen, Rush, Maiden, Genesis, Pete Gabriel, AC/DC, the Beatles, the Doors, it really doesn't matter. Sure, the lyrics are great for diehard fans to absorb and analyze and reflect upon.

 

But the vox are most important in the context of how they mesh with the instrumentation. The harmonies and the melodies are what counts with the vox, not exactly what they're saying. Hell, when I first started seeing Rush eons ago, before I knew any of the lyrics they'd put out to date, I didn't WTF Geddy was singing about...or David lee Roth...or Bon Scott. Sometimes it's friggin' hard to tell wtf they're saying, LOL. There are STILL VH diehards who debate exactly WTF Dave is saying in certain lines in Everybody Wants Some, LOL.

 

Point being...I don't really care what they're singing about. As long as the vox flow with the instruments, they could be singing about androgynous octopi for all I care. :)

 

That's why it's more important that Jim Morrison hits the right notes than it is for him to tell me about the decline of western civilization. Though the latter obviously has its place. :)

[Tony R]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

 

Grow up.

[RUSHHEAD666]

This thread is horrible, Why isn't it in f***ing SOCN?

 

Grow up.

 

HAHAHAHA!!!! I haven't read any of this shit. That's funny Tony.

 

I thought I had a lot of time on my hands.

 

"Too Much Time On My Hands"

 

Love

 

STYX

 

NEIL RULES!

[RUSHHEAD666]

Any other drummers with chronic arthritis would have quit by now.

 

NO RESPECT!!

 

I LOVE YOU NEIL!

 

Signed,

 

RODNEY DANGERFIELD PEART

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Since Rands comments in 2010 on civil rights, he hasn't backtracked? He hasn't tried to redefine his comments or image? His current interpretation on civil rights is clear? Its one thing to have a nice theory of limited govt, but in the real world some take significant advantage of others who are less fortunate, which required intervention, as 80% of Republicans in congress agreed with at the time.

 

Yes calling him a racist is unfortunate, but to say a liberal going after Rand Paul on domestic issues is "baseless" is way out there.

 

No one said a liberal going after Paul on domestic issues is baseless. What I said is Peart calling Paul a racist and a sexist is baseless. This is such a simple concept, but it is clear that neither you nor JBs have any interest in understanding or addressing it.

 

If he really said that...I can come up with an example of how lefties might be angry at RP...

 

Supporting policies on the guise of limited govt, policies that significant hurt those of a specific race or gender will be viewed by those that are hurt in that manner (I.e. Respond with "baseless" anger)

 

A female employee is virtuously powerless to stand up to her employer that denies her of readily available and legal healthcare. To hide behind limited govt while irrevocably hurting the powerless causes anger to those harmed and to their families.

 

Notre Dame is a private college, yet earns significant revenue broadcasting its games on spectrum owned by we the people yet leased to the networks. ND is openly fighting women's rights.

 

This private university has entered a public domain. Hiring employees in the general public via public recruiting, subject to EEOC laws. Yet a strange court is ruling that this is all private. If so, great, get ND off my TV and hobby lobby out of open to the public stores.

 

To deny basic healthcare to women based on a false claim that these are private companies/schools...or to come up with a convenient ltd govt theory that causes irrevocable harm against those less fortunate. This type of "theory" has obviously angered some on the left. Perhaps NEP is one of them.

This may be difficult to understand, but if someone is suffering, that is not a moral claim against someone else. You act like healthcare is somehow different from other products, it's really not. If a homeless man comes to my door and asks if he can sleep in my bed for the night, am I wrong to deny him access to my home? No of course not, because it's private property, much like products of the medical industry.

 

The cases in front of the court are plaintiffs denying acces to healthcare, such as hobby lobby and ND, claiming to be private businesses, not enterprises that exist in the public domain. Not healthcare as a product. Many Americans believe that is strictly a discussion between a woman and her doctor, NOT her employer.

 

I was actually first defending Neil's right to be angry at the right, if RS is to be believed. The right is again trying to take religious beliefs and cram them down the throats of all americans, something that should horrify all libertarians.

 

The right wing views for the purpose of this thread are irrelevant. This is about Neils right as a now free citizen of the United States to express his opinion that certain right wing views are harmful to him and his family, as he percieves it. Is he free to do that? He believes Rands policies are harmful and detrimental to women and people of color, IF RS is to be believed.

 

I have been a fan of Neil over many artists that are extreme lefties, Young, Vedder, Petty, Yorke, Springsteen...the list can go on and on. I always thought Neil was a conservative. The question is whether our friends on the right can tolerate those that disagree with them and exist in a community of differing viewpoints. Thus was the brilliance of Ronald Reagan, the art of compromise in order to acheive progress for our country.

[laughedatbytime]

Since Rands comments in 2010 on civil rights, he hasn't backtracked? He hasn't tried to redefine his comments or image? His current interpretation on civil rights is clear? Its one thing to have a nice theory of limited govt, but in the real world some take significant advantage of others who are less fortunate, which required intervention, as 80% of Republicans in congress agreed with at the time.

 

Yes calling him a racist is unfortunate, but to say a liberal going after Rand Paul on domestic issues is "baseless" is way out there.

 

No one said a liberal going after Paul on domestic issues is baseless. What I said is Peart calling Paul a racist and a sexist is baseless. This is such a simple concept, but it is clear that neither you nor JBs have any interest in understanding or addressing it.

 

If he really said that...I can come up with an example of how lefties might be angry at RP...

 

Supporting policies on the guise of limited govt, policies that significant hurt those of a specific race or gender will be viewed by those that are hurt in that manner (I.e. Respond with "baseless" anger)

 

A female employee is virtuously powerless to stand up to her employer that denies her of readily available and legal healthcare. To hide behind limited govt while irrevocably hurting the powerless causes anger to those harmed and to their families.

 

Notre Dame is a private college, yet earns significant revenue broadcasting its games on spectrum owned by we the people yet leased to the networks. ND is openly fighting women's rights.

 

This private university has entered a public domain. Hiring employees in the general public via public recruiting, subject to EEOC laws. Yet a strange court is ruling that this is all private. If so, great, get ND off my TV and hobby lobby out of open to the public stores.

 

To deny basic healthcare to women based on a false claim that these are private companies/schools...or to come up with a convenient ltd govt theory that causes irrevocable harm against those less fortunate. This type of "theory" has obviously angered some on the left. Perhaps NEP is one of them.

This may be difficult to understand, but if someone is suffering, that is not a moral claim against someone else. You act like healthcare is somehow different from other products, it's really not. If a homeless man comes to my door and asks if he can sleep in my bed for the night, am I wrong to deny him access to my home? No of course not, because it's private property, much like products of the medical industry.

 

The cases in front of the court are plaintiffs denying acces to healthcare, such as hobby lobby and ND, claiming to be private businesses, not enterprises that exist in the public domain. Not healthcare as a product. Many Americans believe that is strictly a discussion between a woman and her doctor, NOT her employer.

 

I was actually first defending Neil's right to be angry at the right, if RS is to be believed. The right is again trying to take religious beliefs and cram them down the throats of all americans, something that should horrify all libertarians.

 

The right wing views for the purpose of this thread are irrelevant. This is about Neils right as a now free citizen of the United States to express his opinion that certain right wing views are harmful to him and his family, as he percieves it. Is he free to do that? He believes Rands policies are harmful and detrimental to women and people of color, IF RS is to be believed.

 

I have been a fan of Neil over many artists that are extreme lefties, Young, Vedder, Petty, Yorke, Springsteen...the list can go on and on. I always thought Neil was a conservative. The question is whether our friends on the right can tolerate those that disagree with them and exist in a community of differing viewpoints. Thus was the brilliance of Ronald Reagan, the art of compromise in order to acheive progress for our country.

Wow...a lot of silliness here...where to start?

 

Maybe with the fact that the little drummer boy was engaging in a personal attack rather than policy criticism? No one feels that Neil has to refrain from criticism of Rand Paul, but to say he hates women and brown people because he doesn't like his policies is not worthy of someone who claims to be a thinking person, it's akin to the rantings of a Ted Nugent.

 

Secondly, the mischaracterization involved with the health care discussion is laughable, though useful in pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Not including something in a plan of health insurance and not denying health care are (and it shouldn't be necessary to have to point this out) two different things. The irony is that the same people who screech "health care should be between women and their doctor and not their employer and it's no business of the government either have absolutely no compunction against mandating employers to include certain things in their health plans, which is bizarre on a couple of different levels. And as far as cramming religious beliefs down the throats of Americans, I'll concede the narrow point that it shouldn't be for only religious reasons that employers can choose not to include things in health insurance coverage, it should be ALL employers for any reason they damned well please. But not mandating that private employers be required to do something is perfectly consistent with libertarianism; mandating such is, and rightly so, anathema to them.

[Ancient Ways]

Yuck. Rush and politics. All this because of a Peart sound byte?

 

Blaggh.

 

Have you read the lyrics to their songs at all?

 

I remember a bass teacher of mine in the early 80s asking, when he was teaching me to pick up Free Will by ear, "do these guys write any songs about chicks?" They really don't, other than the debut. You can't have it both ways. Either their lyrics are thought provoking, and thus discussion worthy, or they're not. I love Roth era Van Halen. But I'm guessing a fan site of theirs wouldn't need a SOCN.

 

You'd be surprised, then. Nearly any active rock message board has a politico forum.

 

I actually have a theory about lyrics. They really don't matter. Whether it's Van Halen, Rush, Maiden, Genesis, Pete Gabriel, AC/DC, the Beatles, the Doors, it really doesn't matter. Sure, the lyrics are great for diehard fans to absorb and analyze and reflect upon.

 

But the vox are most important in the context of how they mesh with the instrumentation. The harmonies and the melodies are what counts with the vox, not exactly what they're saying. Hell, when I first started seeing Rush eons ago, before I knew any of the lyrics they'd put out to date, I didn't WTF Geddy was singing about...or David lee Roth...or Bon Scott. Sometimes it's friggin' hard to tell wtf they're saying, LOL. There are STILL VH diehards who debate exactly WTF Dave is saying in certain lines in Everybody Wants Some, LOL.

 

Point being...I don't really care what they're singing about. As long as the vox flow with the instruments, they could be singing about androgynous octopi for all I care. :)

 

That's why it's more important that Jim Morrison hits the right notes than it is for him to tell me about the decline of western civilization. Though the latter obviously has its place. :)

I enjoy instrumental music which is kind of what you're describing. Songs with a melody but no lyrics. However, I personally enjoy knowing the lyrics. There is something deep in your brain happening when you hear a song you haven't listened to in over 20 years and you still the lyrics and the phrasing. It's like a scent that brings back a memory from a long time ago.