Neil a phony??

[laughedatbytime]

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

Ooooh, got me there. If you're not making a career out of using your razor like wit, you've missed your calling.

[JohnRogers]

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.

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/91787-neil-peart-gearhead/#entry3441854

Let's talk Neil's cars! And why he hates the planet burning all that fossil fuel.

Edited June 18, 2015 by JohnRogers

[HemiBeers]

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

 

I've noticed something in the almost 11 years of this board, and that's people who make statements proclaiming themselves masters or experts at something are usually....not.

 

I agree. Usually, but not always.

[Lost In Xanadu]

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

 

I've noticed something in the almost 11 years of this board, and that's people who make statements proclaiming themselves masters or experts at something are usually....not.

labt is a great fisherman.... he's a master baiter

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

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

Ooooh, got me there. If you're not making a career out of using your razor like wit, you've missed your calling.

 

You guys are ably demonstrating why many online communities don't allow political discussion -- and why we keep it isolated in a limited access forum.

[laughedatbytime]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

The word allowed DOES have a meaning. If you don't know it, don't use it.

 

Then what's the correct way to say, "people should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime?"

How about "it's actually OK if people change their opinions over a lifetime, n'est-ce pas?"

[Lost In Xanadu]

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

Ooooh, got me there. If you're not making a career out of using your razor like wit, you've missed your calling.

 

You guys are ably demonstrating why many online communities don't allow political discussion -- and why we keep it isolated in a limited access forum.

it was all ok until someone came in, crying about a topic he wasn't interested in.

[ReRushed]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

[JohnRogers]

@ LIX

 

Hey somebody had to toss the grenade eventually. Awesome that it wasn't me!

Edited June 18, 2015 by JohnRogers

[antiquark]

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.

There are a lot of threads, go find one you're interested in... simple as shit.

 

Naaa, it's more fun hanging around in here mocking people that take themselves way too seriously.

Says someone who calls himself the "master of smart ass commentary.

 

perhaps you can call yourself 'master of dumbass commentary'.

 

I've noticed something in the almost 11 years of this board, and that's people who make statements proclaiming themselves masters or experts at something are usually....not.

labt is a great fisherman.... he's a master baiter

He's always prepared, with his worm between his fingers...

[ReRushed]

@ LIX

 

Hey somebody had to toss the grenade eventually. Awesome that it wasn't me!

My last post was the grenade?

[antiquark]

Settle down kids, here's something to soothe the nerves...

 

[JohnRogers]

@ LIX

 

Hey somebody had to toss the grenade eventually. Awesome that it wasn't me!

My last post was the grenade?

No.

[Bard]

Cheese. Grater. :)

 

Someone owe me ten bucks. :D

[Lost In Xanadu]

@ LIX

 

Hey somebody had to toss the grenade eventually. Awesome that it wasn't me!

My last post was the grenade?

No.

You want a piece of me?

http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj598/fdubzou/tumblr_lzjx17tfWF1r7g4vzo1_400.gif

[toscanobarga]

The guy has different views than he did 30 years ago ??!!!!

 

Omigod.

 

I guess nothing in his life has changed since then and I guess the rest of us hold the exact same views on every topic we once had.

 

I get it now

[toscanobarga]

The guy has different views than he did 30 years ago ??!!!!

 

Omigod.

 

I guess nothing in his life has changed since then and I guess the rest of us hold the exact same views on every topic we once had.

 

I get it now

[GabesCavesOfIce]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

[LedRush]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

[ReRushed]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

Rand Paul McCartney?

[Ancient Ways]

If you want a bit more info read his latest blog post. He talks about giving money to homeless people because their situation/condition is related to mental illness more than it is a choice. The cliché is that you get more conservative as you get older but I have found that to not be true in my own case. everyone has similar opportunities but not similar innate gifts to take hold of those opportunities. I like to think that this is where he is coming from but no one knows.

[LedRush]

If you want a bit more info read his latest blog post. He talks about giving money to homeless people because their situation/condition is related to mental illness more than it is a choice. The cliché is that you get more conservative as you get older but I have found that to not be true in my own case. everyone has similar opportunities but not similar innate gifts to take hold of those opportunities. I like to think that this is where he is coming from but no one knows.

 

I don't have an issue with him changing his opinions...generally having a mind open to change is a good thing, and evolving opinions are to be expected. My issue is that he labeled someone a racist and a sexist without reason. And the irony is that Paul's belief's fairly closely align with Peart's old opinions, begging the question if Peart thinks that he used to be a racist and sexist for believing in limited government intervention into personal freedoms but later evolved out of it.

[ReRushed]

If you want a bit more info read his latest blog post. He talks about giving money to homeless people because their situation/condition is related to mental illness more than it is a choice. The cliché is that you get more conservative as you get older but I have found that to not be true in my own case. everyone has similar opportunities but not similar innate gifts to take hold of those opportunities. I like to think that this is where he is coming from but no one knows.

An irritating point is that Neil Peart is quoted as saying "Rand Paul obviously hates brown people," when Rand Paul is very charitable to less fortunate people like his charity in Guatemala. Or that George W. Bush is an "instrument for evil" when his policies on AIDS helped save millions of lives in Africa. Lock step criticisms of people on the Right.

[GabesCavesOfIce]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

[LedRush]

People should be allowed to change their opinions over a lifetime.

Who exactly is disputing this?

 

Anyone who complains that Neil no longer believes stuff he wrote four decades ago.

We are disappointed that he changed his views, not in the fact that one has the right to change one's views. Also, he seems to embrace the politics of big government. A no-no he once believed in. At least he still stands by the message of "The Trees". But for how long?

 

Both sides of the divide believe in big government. One side has social programs, the other with might makes right.

 

Like those mistaking Rand for McCartney.

 

 

.

 

Your framing of political views as consisting of two sides reveals your biases on this issue.

 

I've been defending Neil all day. ..My understanding of American govt is one needs to sing the party tune to get elected. As there are two parties, we have become a divided nation of two distinct ideologies. Neil was singing the line of one of these. People were saying his attack was baseless. I am simply pointing out when Rand states he is publicly against civil rights ( as it was needed since our cities were burning and citizens were dying) that politician has a record open to attack. He would have to work centuries in Guatemala to even that score.

 

As Rand is probably the most liberal of Republicans regarding foreign policy, I would consider choosing him over HC, if that would really stop the inevitable.

 

Paul is not against civil rights...he is against the Federal government controlling the behavior of private individuals. He has been very outspoken against discrimination.

 

And there are many more than two parties, and within the parties there is also a variation of beliefs. Paul is basically a pariah in the GOP for his views.

 

And your framing of Paul's foreign policy beliefs as liberal just further demonstrates that you are incapable of viewing politics outside of false dichotomies.