Jump to content

Neil a phony??


nicky6
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

Edited by laughedatbytime
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

That's a good idea, but the joke will be lost in Feedback I think. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

That's a good idea, but the joke will be lost in Feedback I think. :unsure:

What joke?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moved another political post that had nothing to do with Neil (and a few responses to it) to SOCN.

 

ReRushed had a good response to someone who replied to it: "Why even bother responding?"

 

Shouldn't the last couple pages be moved to a VH thread in music of the spheres?

 

;)

 

 

 

.

 

No. Because the general point was a comparison between Peart's lyrics, which some people would call more thought provoking, and lyrics like those written by Roth or Hagar (or Scott or Johnson to a degree) which are, ahem, less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moved another political post that had nothing to do with Neil (and a few responses to it) to SOCN.

 

ReRushed had a good response to someone who replied to it: "Why even bother responding?"

 

Shouldn't the last couple pages be moved to a VH thread in music of the spheres?

 

;)

 

 

 

.

 

No. Because the general point was a comparison between Peart's lyrics, which some people would call more thought provoking, and lyrics like those written by Roth or Hagar (or Scott or Johnson to a degree) which are, ahem, less so.

Hey, now. Sammy's the smartest person he knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moved another political post that had nothing to do with Neil (and a few responses to it) to SOCN.

 

ReRushed had a good response to someone who replied to it: "Why even bother responding?"

 

Shouldn't the last couple pages be moved to a VH thread in music of the spheres?

 

;)

 

 

 

.

 

No. Because the general point was a comparison between Peart's lyrics, which some people would call more thought provoking, and lyrics like those written by Roth or Hagar (or Scott or Johnson to a degree) which are, ahem, less so.

Hey, now. Sammy's the smartest person he knows.

 

How sad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

Unsubstantiated is far from the truth.

 

Neil Peart did not act first with respect to Mr Paul.

 

attacking Neil is hurtful to Rush fans, especially the non conservative ones that had to watch conservatives hijack the Rush voice for the past few decades.

 

We could guess that Neil is angry with someone he perceives to be at the opposite end of his beliefs, hijacking his message for political gain, opposite of his very own perception of the world. Given the context as to how his work has been hijacked by the far right, it makes perfect sense that someone on the left would want to make his beliefs crystal clear to those looking to quote him again, especially with a major election coming up.

 

Now if RP tries it again, the media will be able to quote Mr Pearts view on his very own work.

 

Perhaps Neil is in fact acting in a stroke of genius, full well knowing this is the loudest voice he will ever have, on the RS cover, and he wishes to retire knowing that conservatives will stop politicizing his words, as he allegedly is not a Republican?

 

Neil did not act first here.

 

Is there any way we can put this to bed and enjoy the tour? With the thread not ending with an attack on Mr Peart?

 

Many thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, in the early 80's had to choose between seeing Ted Nugent or Van Halen. I picked Ted, wished I gone to Van Halen.

I saw VH in the 70s. Not the greatest experience I've ever had.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

Unsubstantiated is far from the truth.

 

Neil Peart did not act first with respect to Mr Paul.

 

attacking Neil is hurtful to Rush fans, especially the non conservative ones that had to watch conservatives hijack the Rush voice for the past few decades.

 

We could guess that Neil is angry with someone he perceives to be at the opposite end of his beliefs, hijacking his message for political gain, opposite of his very own perception of the world. Given the context as to how his work has been hijacked by the far right, it makes perfect sense that someone on the left would want to make his beliefs crystal clear to those looking to quote him again, especially with a major election coming up.

 

Now if RP tries it again, the media will be able to quote Mr Pearts view on his very own work.

 

Perhaps Neil is in fact acting in a stroke of genius, full well knowing this is the loudest voice he will ever have, on the RS cover, and he wishes to retire knowing that conservatives will stop politicizing his words, as he allegedly is not a Republican?

 

Neil did not act first here.

 

Is there any way we can put this to bed and enjoy the tour? With the thread not ending with an attack on Mr Peart?

 

Many thanks.

Maybe the thread should end when people finally understand, after having it explained to them countless times, that Little Drummer Boy could have said that he didn't approve of Rand using his songs for political purposes and no one would have said a negative word.

 

Maybe if Neil would have attacked Rand Paul's ideas instead of his character and not used puerile, juvenile insults in doing so, the thread would have taken a far different, and actual substantive turn.

 

 

 

Not hard concepts At least they shouldn't be.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, in the early 80's had to choose between seeing Ted Nugent or Van Halen. I picked Ted, wished I gone to Van Halen.

I saw VH in the 70s. Not the greatest experience I've ever had.

 

I saw them on the 1984 tour. Some of the crowd footage from the show I saw was actually in the Panama video. They were a lot of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

Unsubstantiated is far from the truth.

 

Neil Peart did not act first with respect to Mr Paul.

 

attacking Neil is hurtful to Rush fans, especially the non conservative ones that had to watch conservatives hijack the Rush voice for the past few decades.

 

We could guess that Neil is angry with someone he perceives to be at the opposite end of his beliefs, hijacking his message for political gain, opposite of his very own perception of the world. Given the context as to how his work has been hijacked by the far right, it makes perfect sense that someone on the left would want to make his beliefs crystal clear to those looking to quote him again, especially with a major election coming up.

 

Now if RP tries it again, the media will be able to quote Mr Pearts view on his very own work.

 

Perhaps Neil is in fact acting in a stroke of genius, full well knowing this is the loudest voice he will ever have, on the RS cover, and he wishes to retire knowing that conservatives will stop politicizing his words, as he allegedly is not a Republican?

 

Neil did not act first here.

 

Is there any way we can put this to bed and enjoy the tour? With the thread not ending with an attack on Mr Peart?

 

Many thanks.

Maybe the thread should end when people finally understand, after having it explained to them countless times, that Little Drummer Boy could have said that he didn't approve of Rand using his songs for political purposes and no one would have said a negative word.

 

Maybe if Neil would have attacked Rand Paul's ideas instead of his character and not used puerile, juvenile insults in doing so, the thread would have taken a far different, and actual substantive turn.

 

 

 

Not hard concepts At least they shouldn't be.

 

You are correct in that a better quote should have included "the policies of, make it appear that..."

 

We are not yet entirely sure what the context is of his RS comments. Neil may need to elaborate for this reason.

 

You are also aware that Neil did try it the polite way...well if a lawyer can be perceived as polite...and it did not work.

 

There really is only one way to make sure it stops in the future, that was for Neil to be nasty. Also consider how hurtful this could have been to Neil, having his message hijacked.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

Unsubstantiated is far from the truth.

 

Neil Peart did not act first with respect to Mr Paul.

 

attacking Neil is hurtful to Rush fans, especially the non conservative ones that had to watch conservatives hijack the Rush voice for the past few decades.

 

We could guess that Neil is angry with someone he perceives to be at the opposite end of his beliefs, hijacking his message for political gain, opposite of his very own perception of the world. Given the context as to how his work has been hijacked by the far right, it makes perfect sense that someone on the left would want to make his beliefs crystal clear to those looking to quote him again, especially with a major election coming up.

 

Now if RP tries it again, the media will be able to quote Mr Pearts view on his very own work.

 

Perhaps Neil is in fact acting in a stroke of genius, full well knowing this is the loudest voice he will ever have, on the RS cover, and he wishes to retire knowing that conservatives will stop politicizing his words, as he allegedly is not a Republican?

 

Neil did not act first here.

 

Is there any way we can put this to bed and enjoy the tour? With the thread not ending with an attack on Mr Peart?

 

Many thanks.

Maybe the thread should end when people finally understand, after having it explained to them countless times, that Little Drummer Boy could have said that he didn't approve of Rand using his songs for political purposes and no one would have said a negative word.

 

Maybe if Neil would have attacked Rand Paul's ideas instead of his character and not used puerile, juvenile insults in doing so, the thread would have taken a far different, and actual substantive turn.

 

 

 

Not hard concepts At least they shouldn't be.

 

You are correct in that a better quote should have included "the policies of, make it appear that..."

 

We are not yet entirely sure what the context is of his RS comments. Neil may need to elaborate for this reason.

 

You are also aware that Neil did try it the polite way...well if a lawyer can be perceived as polite...and it did not work.

 

There really is only one way to make sure it stops in the future, that was for Neil to be nasty. Also consider how hurtful this could have been to Neil, having his message hijacked.

 

 

.

There's poll material hidden somewhere in this thread. I just have to find it.

 

How about: Which of these artists have greater political insight?

 

Neil Peart

Ted Nugent

Neither, unsubstantiated name calling is not political insight

 

Unsubstantiated is far from the truth.

 

Neil Peart did not act first with respect to Mr Paul.

 

attacking Neil is hurtful to Rush fans, especially the non conservative ones that had to watch conservatives hijack the Rush voice for the past few decades.

 

We could guess that Neil is angry with someone he perceives to be at the opposite end of his beliefs, hijacking his message for political gain, opposite of his very own perception of the world. Given the context as to how his work has been hijacked by the far right, it makes perfect sense that someone on the left would want to make his beliefs crystal clear to those looking to quote him again, especially with a major election coming up.

 

Now if RP tries it again, the media will be able to quote Mr Pearts view on his very own work.

 

Perhaps Neil is in fact acting in a stroke of genius, full well knowing this is the loudest voice he will ever have, on the RS cover, and he wishes to retire knowing that conservatives will stop politicizing his words, as he allegedly is not a Republican?

 

Neil did not act first here.

 

Is there any way we can put this to bed and enjoy the tour? With the thread not ending with an attack on Mr Peart?

 

Many thanks.

Maybe the thread should end when people finally understand, after having it explained to them countless times, that Little Drummer Boy could have said that he didn't approve of Rand using his songs for political purposes and no one would have said a negative word.

 

Maybe if Neil would have attacked Rand Paul's ideas instead of his character and not used puerile, juvenile insults in doing so, the thread would have taken a far different, and actual substantive turn.

 

 

 

Not hard concepts At least they shouldn't be.

 

You are correct in that a better quote should have included "the policies of, make it appear that..."

 

We are not yet entirely sure what the context is of his RS comments. Neil may need to elaborate for this reason.

 

You are also aware that Neil did try it the polite way...well if a lawyer can be perceived as polite...and it did not work.

 

There really is only one way to make sure it stops in the future, that was for Neil to be nasty. Also consider how hurtful this could have been to Neil, having his message hijacked.

 

 

.

So the way to have someone cease and desist doing something is by using non-sequitur ad hominem attacks? What does supposed hatred of women and brown people have to do with a property rights question?

 

Sounds really intellectual to me... :wacko:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

Alrighty. That's cool. Then prove it.

 

Just saying, it's more productive to, say, create a list of reasons why Rand Paul doesn't hate brown people and women, or provide rationale for it...

 

Than it is to just call someone a name because they have that opinion.

 

I'm not saying Neil's right. I'm saying refute his claim rather than attack him.

Mr Drum God provided no evidence for his claims. Because he's got nothing.

 

Rand Paul has been the most outspoken candidate on issues important to the black community such as overzealous policing and restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time, and has stressed outreach to minority views and has criticized his party for their lack of appeal to minorities...He's also the most anti-war candidate with a chance to win in either major party...you'd think Peart would be predisposed to like that. Apparently he hasn't done the first bit of research about it.

 

Which in reality means absolutely nothing, except that Rand Paul is trying to garner votes from a wide variety of demographics. Rand Paul is a politician, and as such, none of us really knows what he truly believes in. The only thing we know for certain, is that his largest donors will benefit financially (at our expense) if he is elected.

Edited by Empty Mindless Spectre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

Alrighty. That's cool. Then prove it.

 

Just saying, it's more productive to, say, create a list of reasons why Rand Paul doesn't hate brown people and women, or provide rationale for it...

 

Than it is to just call someone a name because they have that opinion.

 

I'm not saying Neil's right. I'm saying refute his claim rather than attack him.

Mr Drum God provided no evidence for his claims. Because he's got nothing.

 

Rand Paul has been the most outspoken candidate on issues important to the black community such as overzealous policing and restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time, and has stressed outreach to minority views and has criticized his party for their lack of appeal to minorities...He's also the most anti-war candidate with a chance to win in either major party...you'd think Peart would be predisposed to like that. Apparently he hasn't done the first bit of research about it.

 

Which in reality means absolutely nothing, except that Rand Paul is trying to garner votes from a wide variety of demographics. Rand Paul is a politician, and as such, none of us really knows what he truly believes in. The only thing we know for certain, is that his largest donors will benefit financially (at our expense) if he is elected.

An easy thing to say, which has the benefit of not having to do any thinking to come up with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

Alrighty. That's cool. Then prove it.

 

Just saying, it's more productive to, say, create a list of reasons why Rand Paul doesn't hate brown people and women, or provide rationale for it...

 

Than it is to just call someone a name because they have that opinion.

 

I'm not saying Neil's right. I'm saying refute his claim rather than attack him.

Mr Drum God provided no evidence for his claims. Because he's got nothing.

 

Rand Paul has been the most outspoken candidate on issues important to the black community such as overzealous policing and restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time, and has stressed outreach to minority views and has criticized his party for their lack of appeal to minorities...He's also the most anti-war candidate with a chance to win in either major party...you'd think Peart would be predisposed to like that. Apparently he hasn't done the first bit of research about it.

 

Which in reality means absolutely nothing, except that Rand Paul is trying to garner votes from a wide variety of demographics. Rand Paul is a politician, and as such, none of us really knows what he truly believes in. The only thing we know for certain, is that his largest donors will benefit financially (at our expense) if he is elected.

An easy thing to say, which has the benefit of not having to do any thinking to come up with.

 

I guess you have a good point there. Sorry for being so stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

Alrighty. That's cool. Then prove it.

 

Just saying, it's more productive to, say, create a list of reasons why Rand Paul doesn't hate brown people and women, or provide rationale for it...

 

Than it is to just call someone a name because they have that opinion.

 

I'm not saying Neil's right. I'm saying refute his claim rather than attack him.

Mr Drum God provided no evidence for his claims. Because he's got nothing.

 

Rand Paul has been the most outspoken candidate on issues important to the black community such as overzealous policing and restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time, and has stressed outreach to minority views and has criticized his party for their lack of appeal to minorities...He's also the most anti-war candidate with a chance to win in either major party...you'd think Peart would be predisposed to like that. Apparently he hasn't done the first bit of research about it.

 

Which in reality means absolutely nothing, except that Rand Paul is trying to garner votes from a wide variety of demographics. Rand Paul is a politician, and as such, none of us really knows what he truly believes in. The only thing we know for certain, is that his largest donors will benefit financially (at our expense) if he is elected.

An easy thing to say, which has the benefit of not having to do any thinking to come up with.

 

I guess you have a good point there. Sorry for being so stupid.

I guess a sarcastic response beats having to come up with something to support your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy I gave it 24 hours hoping the thread will go away. It ain't really difficult to understand..there I go stealing someone else's message...

 

Rand Paul....lots of freedom here. Free to steal Neil's property. Free to hijack the meaning of Neil's music. Free to proclaim the stolen message of Neil's music to his own followers against the belief system of the very author of the music. Free to ignore Neil's requests to stop. Free to ignore Neil's lawyers requesting cease and desist. Free to change from playin the tunes to quotin the lyrics when it suits you, although it was made clear to you to stop.

 

Neil Peart...lots of rules and regulations to follow...watch someone broadcast your music to thousands (well more like hundreds); steal your message and steal your music, your baby, something closer to your heart and watch your requests to cease get ignored. Get angry at the man responsible for all this, guess what Neil, as you are on the left, not in the free speech portion of society to express your anger, because only the right gets to be angry and speak freely and attack political figures. Neil you got very precise rules to follow, especially when you are dealing with such a polarizing force on the right. Don't you get it when you are livin on the left? What the hell were you thinkin Neil. This country's "freedoms" are only afforded to a lucky percentage of the populace.

 

Polarize Me ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

He's not a phony. He's a guy who has an opinion. Same as anyone else.

 

Argue the opinion if you don't like it. But don't argue the man.

The man's opinion is based in ignorance of who Rand Paul is and what he believes and should be called out as such.

 

Alrighty. That's cool. Then prove it.

 

Just saying, it's more productive to, say, create a list of reasons why Rand Paul doesn't hate brown people and women, or provide rationale for it...

 

Than it is to just call someone a name because they have that opinion.

 

I'm not saying Neil's right. I'm saying refute his claim rather than attack him.

Mr Drum God provided no evidence for his claims. Because he's got nothing.

 

Rand Paul has been the most outspoken candidate on issues important to the black community such as overzealous policing and restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their time, and has stressed outreach to minority views and has criticized his party for their lack of appeal to minorities...He's also the most anti-war candidate with a chance to win in either major party...you'd think Peart would be predisposed to like that. Apparently he hasn't done the first bit of research about it.

 

Which in reality means absolutely nothing, except that Rand Paul is trying to garner votes from a wide variety of demographics. Rand Paul is a politician, and as such, none of us really knows what he truly believes in. The only thing we know for certain, is that his largest donors will benefit financially (at our expense) if he is elected.

An easy thing to say, which has the benefit of not having to do any thinking to come up with.

 

It's not that we're lazy. It's more like we have a mental firewall with a 'don't give a F' filter. That filter traps all information about fringe politicians who have no chance of getting elected president. It allows more relevent information to pass freely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy I gave it 24 hours hoping the thread will go away. It ain't really difficult to understand..there I go stealing someone else's message...

 

Rand Paul....lots of freedom here. Free to steal Neil's property. Free to hijack the meaning of Neil's music. Free to proclaim the stolen message of Neil's music to his own followers against the belief system of the very author of the music. Free to ignore Neil's requests to stop. Free to ignore Neil's lawyers requesting cease and desist. Free to change from playin the tunes to quotin the lyrics when it suits you, although it was made clear to you to stop.

 

Neil Peart...lots of rules and regulations to follow...watch someone broadcast your music to thousands (well more like hundreds); steal your message and steal your music, your baby, something closer to your heart and watch your requests to cease get ignored. Get angry at the man responsible for all this, guess what Neil, as you are on the left, not in the free speech portion of society to express your anger, because only the right gets to be angry and speak freely and attack political figures. Neil you got very precise rules to follow, especially when you are dealing with such a polarizing force on the right. Don't you get it when you are livin on the left? What the hell were you thinkin Neil. This country's "freedoms" are only afforded to a lucky percentage of the populace.

 

Polarize Me ;)

If this thread goes away, it will be because of the straw fire started by the above post, none of which has anything to do with why anyone is objecting to Little Drummer Boy's silly rant.

Edited by laughedatbytime
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy I gave it 24 hours hoping the thread will go away. It ain't really difficult to understand..there I go stealing someone else's message...

 

Rand Paul....lots of freedom here. Free to steal Neil's property. Free to hijack the meaning of Neil's music. Free to proclaim the stolen message of Neil's music to his own followers against the belief system of the very author of the music. Free to ignore Neil's requests to stop. Free to ignore Neil's lawyers requesting cease and desist. Free to change from playin the tunes to quotin the lyrics when it suits you, although it was made clear to you to stop.

 

Neil Peart...lots of rules and regulations to follow...watch someone broadcast your music to thousands (well more like hundreds); steal your message and steal your music, your baby, something closer to your heart and watch your requests to cease get ignored. Get angry at the man responsible for all this, guess what Neil, as you are on the left, not in the free speech portion of society to express your anger, because only the right gets to be angry and speak freely and attack political figures. Neil you got very precise rules to follow, especially when you are dealing with such a polarizing force on the right. Don't you get it when you are livin on the left? What the hell were you thinkin Neil. This country's "freedoms" are only afforded to a lucky percentage of the populace.

 

Polarize Me ;)

If this thread goes away, it will be because of the straw fire started by the above post, none of which has anything to do with why anyone is objecting to Little Drummer Boy's silly rant.

Looks like a lot of projection, wishful thinking and assumption in that post. All over some of us disappointed by how Neil Peart possibly uncharacteristically expressed himself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...