Neil a phony??

[liquidcrystalcompass]

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.

I get more information from SOCN than I do from any news source. I guess that tells you the sad state of news these days. Regardless, most of the mainstays in SOCN aren't there for party agendas. There are a few on both sides that are however.

[liquidcrystalcompass]

I don't really think Neil is a phony I just think he's a confused man and doesn't even know it.

[HemiBeers]

A wise man once said 'it is what it is, and whatever'. I think the whatever part of that statement applies to this thread.

[HemiBeers]

Attention Delta passengers. This is your co-pilot Neil speaking. We're heading into the final stage of our career flight. You can expect some turbulance and uncomfortable opinions just ahead so please remain in your seat with your seatbelt fastened. We thank you for flying Delta. But if this flight didn't meet your expectations, we really don't give a F. Have a great rest of your day. Bubbye, bubbye, bubbye, bubbye, etc.

[tas7]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

[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.

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.

 

labt, I am defending Neils right to speak freely. Of course he picked his words poorly. Politically angry people often do, including me. I am trying to explain the anger on the left of religious beliefs being jammed down our throats.

 

If hobby lobby or ND CHOOSES to enter the public domain, their actions should be determined in a secular world. Their determination to impose their beliefs as a public employer, public football team, public broadcaster, public store, in whatever multitude of public enterprises they CHOSE to enter publicly, that's where I am GUESSING Neils anger is coming from.

 

When a woman gets a job, earns healthcare, it is HER money being spent, she has earned it, she pays taxes on it. Her medical care is between her and her Dr. I am guessing this is why Neil would say RP does not like women.

 

So it appears that no, Neil is not able to speak freely as a US citizen if he believes a politicians views are harmful to his family.

 

 

 

Edit...

BTW I agree with you, I am against the insurance mandate as well.

.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Gabrielgil513

[Lost In Xanadu]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

Is there a TRF rule we are missing? Does every thread have to appeal to everyone? I don't give a flying f*ck about the SPAM threads, but should I go in there to post how boring I think they are? I think a more adult thing to do is ignore it,

[tas7]

Yes Coach Cheesehead, I bow down to your great maturity.

[Lost In Xanadu]

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.

 

labt, I am defending Neils right to speak freely. Of course he picked his words poorly. Politically angry people often do, including me. I am trying to explain the anger on the left of religious beliefs being jammed down our throats.

 

If hobby lobby or ND CHOOSES to enter the public domain, their actions should be determined in a secular world. Their determination to impose their beliefs as a public employer, public football team, public broadcaster, public store, in whatever multitude of public enterprises they CHOSE to enter publicly, that's where I am GUESSING Neils anger is coming from.

 

When a woman gets a job, earns healthcare, it is HER money being spent, she has earned it, she pays taxes on it. Her medical care is between her and her Dr. I am guessing this is why Neil would say RP does not like women.

 

So it appears that no, Neil is not able to speak freely as a US citizen if he believes a politicians views are harmful to his family.

 

 

 

Edit...

BTW I agree with you, I am against the insurance mandate as well.

.

I pretty much agree with this. People do have a freedom of speech, and one of the great things about freedom of speech is that people are free to react to statements people make. Especially public figures.

 

I don't think that is the point of the thread though. I think it comes down to is he a hypocrite for these comments? He said he doesn't want any political figure using their music, regardless of party affiliation. Then he goes and make a political comment that is against one side. Those 2 actions are hypocritical.

[tas7]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

[Lost In Xanadu]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

why would that be? There are many artists that have done/said things I may not agree with, but it doesn't make me hate their music. Axl Rose is a dink, but I still like GnR's music. I don't agree with James Taylor on a lot of political things, but I still like his music. It's possible to look at the 2 things independently, it's what separates us from the animals :)

[goose]

hey according to the rolling stone article all of Neil's cars are Silver except for a yellow Lambo.

 

I know no one really cares about such minutiae, so i thought I'd add to this thread about useless shit.

It's more compassionate to spend $200,000+ on a silver car. Studies show that feeds more poor people.

[goose]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

I vote we start with T4E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

[goose]

 

 

When a woman gets a job, earns healthcare, it is HER money being spent, she has earned it, she pays taxes on it.

.

Except that she - and anyone else that uses health care - is spending other people's money, too, without their consent.

[ReRushed]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

why would that be? There are many artists that have done/said things I may not agree with, but it doesn't make me hate their music. Axl Rose is a dink, but I still like GnR's music. I don't agree with James Taylor on a lot of political things, but I still like his music. It's possible to look at the 2 things independently, it's what separates us from the animals :)

John Lennon is my favorite songwriter and singer. I think he was manipulated politically, became a mouthpiece, and stated some positions I totally disagree with. I still love the man's music. Sometimes musicians and artists say stupid things that contradict what their music seemingly projects. Debate, discuss, argue, it's what fans do.

[Lost In Xanadu]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

I vote we start with T4E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

dumbass :P

 

I know I said my love for you could never die, but you are really pushing it...

[goose]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

why would that be? There are many artists that have done/said things I may not agree with, but it doesn't make me hate their music. Axl Rose is a dink, but I still like GnR's music. I don't agree with James Taylor on a lot of political things, but I still like his music. It's possible to look at the 2 things independently, it's what separates us from the animals :)

John Lennon is my favorite songwriter and singer. I think he was manipulated politically, became a mouthpiece, and stated some positions I totally disagree with. I still love the man's music. Sometimes musicians and artists say stupid things that contradict what their music seemingly projects. Debate, discuss, argue, it's what fans do.

Artists are great at making art, but generally poor at framing public policy. The inverse is true of politicians as well.

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/131120170406-newday-must-see-moment-leno-bush-paintings-00003709-story-top.jpg

[Lost In Xanadu]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

why would that be? There are many artists that have done/said things I may not agree with, but it doesn't make me hate their music. Axl Rose is a dink, but I still like GnR's music. I don't agree with James Taylor on a lot of political things, but I still like his music. It's possible to look at the 2 things independently, it's what separates us from the animals :)

John Lennon is my favorite songwriter and singer. I think he was manipulated politically, became a mouthpiece, and stated some positions I totally disagree with. I still love the man's music. Sometimes musicians and artists say stupid things that contradict what their music seemingly projects. Debate, discuss, argue, it's what fans do.

I like some Ted Nugent, I like some U2, I like nearly everything Sting and Rush... If I had to agree with everything all of them believe in, I would explode... or seriously limit which artists I like... to like nobody because there's almost nobody that I agree with all of the time. Maybe if TonyR became a famous musician....

[goose]

Well maybe it's time to burn all your Rush albums.

I vote we start with T4E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

dumbass :P

 

I know I said my love for you could never die, but you are really pushing it...

[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.

 

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 actually agree with you in that I don't necessarily want a musician to offer me his or her views on societal issues, particularly if I get the sense that he or she doesn't really have a good understanding of them. And everyone is free to enjoy music for whatever reason they like, obviously. However, if you don't care at all what the lyrics of a song are about I actually feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a smart @ss way. I mean that for me, some songs, often songs about love, can really capture the way you feel perfectly. Paul McCartney's Maybe I'm Amazed reminds me of my wife. The first time I heard Halo Effect, I immediately thought of a girl I dated off and on in college for two years.

 

And I suspect Peart would be saddened to hear that a fan thinks that, other than his amazing drumming, he contributes nothing of lasting impact to any of the band's songs. But to each his own :cheers:

[Lost In Xanadu]

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 actually agree with you in that I don't necessarily want a musician to offer me his or her views on societal issues, particularly if I get the sense that he or she doesn't really have a good understanding of them. And everyone is free to enjoy music for whatever reason they like, obviously. However, if you don't care at all what the lyrics of a song are about I actually feel sorry for you. I don't mean that in a smart @ss way. I mean that for me, some songs, often songs about love, can really capture the way you feel perfectly. Paul McCartney's Maybe I'm Amazed reminds me of my wife. The first time I heard Halo Effect, I immediately thought of a girl I dated off and on in college for two years.

 

And I suspect Peart would be saddened to hear that a fan thinks that, other than his amazing drumming, he contributes nothing of lasting impact to any of the band's songs. But to each his own :cheers:

Look at the Pass. That song literally had me in tears after a friend decided to take his own life. The words captured how I was feeling... sad, mad all wrapped up into one ball of confusion.

[HemiBeers]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

 

:clap:

 

The great thing about this forum is it provides an avenue to criticize stupid things that Neil says as well as the inane blowhard reactions to what Neil says.

[Lost In Xanadu]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

 

:clap:

 

The great thing about this forum is it provides an avenue to criticize stupid things that Neil says as well as the inane blowhard reactions to what Neil says.

If you choose not to discuss, you still have made a choice

[ReRushed]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

 

:clap:

 

The great thing about this forum is it provides an avenue to criticize stupid things that Neil says as well as the inane blowhard reactions to what Neil says.

Does anyone else see the irony in these posts?

[Rick N. Backer]

Can we have a poll and vote this the most boring Rush thread ever.

 

:clap:

 

The great thing about this forum is it provides an avenue to criticize stupid things that Neil says as well as the inane blowhard reactions to what Neil says.

 

As well as a place to talk about what your favorite song on Test For Echo is, and why, for 22 pages.