| August 9th, 2005 10:42 AM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
The Wick wrote:
Latent (or maybe even overt) racism well noted.
Replace "racism" with "religious hate" or "ethnic stereotypes" and there's nothing latent. No wonder... 
|
| August 9th, 2005 10:43 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
What will be interesting is whether Mick says anything on stage. My bet is he won't. I think the song will, as someone said, ruffle feathers, create controversy, get the Stones some publicity. But I doubt Mick wants the type of backlash from his fans (and others) that the Dixie Chicks received.
I, too, wish they had kept their politics to themselves, but hey, it is what it is!
On with the show... |
| August 9th, 2005 10:45 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
The Wick wrote:
What he said was that he comes from the school that doesn't believe in other countries' ELECTIONS, he didn't say that just because some conservatives don't like it, he has lost his right to comment on the world. What I find amazing is that people are criticizing him for his right to say whatever the hell he wants.
Good post.
In the middle of all the right-wing indignation and just as silly liberal wankery over the Stones supposedly sticking it to Bush and co, theres still quite a few of us left completely bemused by the whole fuss(in 2005 for Gods sake) over a bloody rock song and who basically dont give a flying fuck about some singer's personal opinions as long as he doesnt advocate something that all decent people can agree is beyond the pale, like murder, racism, child abuse etc..
Since when did politicians become some kind of beloved protected species anyway? I mean, who fucking cares? Does anyone think Bush or Rice are going to have sleepless nights because a 62 year old English singer has a swipe at them on a record most people arent going to listen to anyway?
get a fucking grip, folks |
| August 9th, 2005 10:49 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
[quote]Nasty Habits wrote:
I don't get it, Maxy - it sounds like the same old strategy to me, and one they haven't deployed in too long.
It's an unnecessary risk to take. This paticular issue is bigger than the Black and Blue/ Some Girls issue(s) and frankly, they don't have the clout they had in the 70's.
To become overtly political at this stage in their cushy lives is more than a little puzzling. Especially when we were just joking around a few weeks ago how they felt the need to be change the Some Girls lyrics on the NS tour.
Perhaps it'll turn out to not be a mistake at all. I hope so. It's a risk they didn't need to take IMHO. |
| August 9th, 2005 10:54 AM |
|
|
| blackandblue |
Does anyone think Bush or Rice are going to have sleepless nights because a 62 year old English singer has a swipe at them on a record most people arent going to listen to anyway?
If you mean with this 62 year old Eglish singer Mick Jagger the answer is yes! |
| August 9th, 2005 10:55 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
blackandblue wrote:
Does anyone think Bush or Rice are going to have sleepless nights because a 62 year old English singer has a swipe at them on a record most people arent going to listen to anyway?
If you mean with this 62 year old Eglish singer Mick Jagger the answer is yes!
Thr righties must immediately plan huge boycotts around the empty stadiums and arenas!!!! |
| August 9th, 2005 10:56 AM |
|
|
| exile |
quote:
voodoopug wrote:
If you want Political correctness....I hear that Macca puts on a great show these days.
THAT...was very fucking funny pug! |
| August 9th, 2005 10:58 AM |
|
|
| throbby |
This Drudge Report story is so overblown "Jagger Rocks Bush". I mean, c'mon, like anyone in the White House gives two shits about a Stones song and what it might or might not be saying. I'm sure GWB will lose no sleep tonight pondering Mick's geopolitcal point of view.
I do applaud Mick for writing and singing what's on HIS mind without cringing in fear of the "speech police". Too many others seem to be censoring themselves these days.
|
| August 9th, 2005 10:59 AM |
|
|
| blackandblue |
quote:
jb wrote:
Thr righties must immediately plan huge boycotts around the empty stadiums and arenas!!!!
Are they righties or lefties:
Rik is a great friend.
Joey is a great friend.
Pug is a great friend.
Gypsy is a great friend.
Lady Jane is a great friend.
Martha is a great friend.
Egon is a great friend.
Jumacfly is a great friend.
ListenToThe Lion is a great friend. |
| August 9th, 2005 11:02 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
throbby wrote:
This Drudge Report story is so overblown "Jagger Rocks Bush". I mean, c'mon, like anyone in the White House gives two shits about a Stones song and what it might or might not be saying. I'm sure GWB will lose no sleep tonight pondering Mick's geopolitcal point of view.
I do applaud Mick for writing and singing what's on HIS mind without cringing in fear of the "speech police". Too many others seem to be censoring themselves these days.
The righties listen to Drudge as their god , much like Fox News and Ann Coulter....I evensaw some douche bags on another forum for ABC News happy about the liberal Peter jennings dying!!! They hate us for our freedom.............LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Edited by jb] |
| August 9th, 2005 11:03 AM |
|
|
| exile |
Im far from being a lefty...
But just because you dont agree with a certain war in Iraq then you are labeled a lefty communist c**t.
...all this publicity has got the boards running HOT! 
|
| August 9th, 2005 11:07 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
blackandblue wrote:
Are they righties or lefties:
Rik is a great friend.
Joey is a great friend.
Pug is a great friend.
Gypsy is a great friend.
Lady Jane is a great friend.
Martha is a great friend.
Egon is a great friend.
Jumacfly is a great friend.
ListenToThe Lion is a great friend.
I have not, nor plan to reveal my political affiliation on this board.....I am a friend to nearly all stones fans! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:10 AM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
exile wrote:
...all this publicity has got the boards running HOT!
Hmmm... Global warming? 
|
| August 9th, 2005 11:10 AM |
|
|
| jb |
[quote]voodoopug wrote:
I have not, nor plan to reveal my political affiliation on this board.....I am a friend to nearly all stones fans!
[/quote
The "Ranchers" must be in a tizzy!!!! Howe cazn their justify going to a show now when their seet neo-con beliefs have beem attacked!!! They must be principled like their hero W~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:16 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Perhaps it'll turn out to not be a mistake at all. I hope so. It's a risk they didn't need to take IMHO. "
Without risk there is no reward
Bushie43's Presidency will end like Richard Nixon's Presidency .
Word ......................to your Joey .
The Joey ( He : Got Game !!!! ...... and you ?!?! )
[Edited by Joey] |
| August 9th, 2005 11:18 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
I dont call myself a liberal or conservative because it limits my ability to reason issues without personal prejudice.IE One side is always right the other always wrong...Thats what politics does to you... |
| August 9th, 2005 11:19 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Ain't that the truth! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:23 AM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Hello, my name is Max Lugar and today on "Cooking with Beer" I will be making a mountain out of a molehill!
I still don't see how this is going to ruffle the paying customers. As if people base the idea of going to see the Stones on their latest album. And if it does and Jagger doesn't care, good for him! It would be nice to think that he's still petulant and mean spirited enough to bite the wallets that pay him.
Do you really think that matters of political affliliation are more important than matters of gender or race?
|
| August 9th, 2005 11:27 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
From Drudge:
Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered in Jerusalem
Tue Aug 09 2005 00:09:33 ET
Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reports.
The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is ``a much grander affair'' than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find Monday.
``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''
A gospel that was thought to be ``pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,'' he said.
The discovery puts a new spotlight on what is called the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a trip that religious law required ancient Jews to make at least once a year, said archeologist Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, who excavated the pool.
``Jesus was just another pilgrim coming to Jerusalem,'' he said. ``It would be natural to find him there.''
The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.
Developing...
------------
FYI jb -- Drudge is just a clearing house for news from a variety of sources -- he rarely places any editorial on his main page. Lefties love to bad mouth him, but I doubt many have ever been there -- too much information for y'all I guess! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
I dont call myself a liberal or conservative because it limits my ability to reason issues without personal prejudice.IE One side is always right the other always wrong...Thats what politics does to you...
There's alot of "right wing conservative" types against the occupation and alot of "liberals" who vote to keep the money flowing into Iraq. Things aren't so cut and dried. |
| August 9th, 2005 11:31 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
Hello, my name is Max Lugar and today on "Cooking with Beer"
Wait! What's wrong with that?
I'm not making a mountain of a mole hill. It doesn't bother me. Re-read my first post in this thread. I'm simply saying it's not a wise business decision in the current climate. That's my take on it. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so becasue I'm looking forward to a huge album and very successful tour. Not some stupid ass political BS.
"Do you really think that matters of political affliliation are more important than matters of gender or race?"
No, not at all. I'm saying war is.
|
| August 9th, 2005 11:36 AM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
From Drudge:
Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered in Jerusalem
Tue Aug 09 2005 00:09:33 ET
Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reports.
The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is ``a much grander affair'' than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find Monday.
``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''
A gospel that was thought to be ``pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,'' he said.
The discovery puts a new spotlight on what is called the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a trip that religious law required ancient Jews to make at least once a year, said archeologist Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, who excavated the pool.
``Jesus was just another pilgrim coming to Jerusalem,'' he said. ``It would be natural to find him there.''
The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.
Developing...
------------
FYI jb -- Drudge is just a clearing house for news from a variety of sources -- he rarely places any editorial on his main page. Lefties love to bad mouth him, but I doubt many have ever been there -- too much information for y'all I guess!
I go every day!!! He livew in NOIrht Bay Viliage Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love his site!!! But donm't tell me he does not promote the repuiblican line!!!!!!!!!!! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:39 AM |
|
|
| The_Worst |
quote:
The Wick wrote:
I find this argument about Jagger being a hypocrite ridiculous. What he said was that he comes from the school that doesn't believe in commenting on other countries' ELECTIONS, he didn't say that just because some conservatives don't like it, he has lost his right to comment on the world. What I find amazing is that people are criticizing him for his right to say whatever the hell he wants. I make no bones about my extremely liberal bias, but I sure as hell wouldn't question some conservative singing about what they want like Toby Keith. Even though I find him to be a total tool, I still think he has ever right to sing about sticking boots up asses (his own would be the best choice). I might criticize the lyrics for various reasons, but his right to say this is undeniable. I have been hugely critical of SOL and in listening to the album, I won't say it is good just because he has put in Neocon. Yet, at least it shows that Jagger hasn't totally sold out and can still ruffle a few feathers. I just wish we had more of this kind of Jagger. Not a political band: Street Fighting Man, Sympathy, Undercover, Highwire, Blinded by Rainbows. These songs all had in some cases, overtly political messages and in other ones, more subtle ones. They're not overtly political like other bands, but to say that they are not political is missing the mark. By the way, JB, you're spot on.
[Edited by The Wick]
Thw Wick,
Do not misunderstand me...Mick has the right to say WHATEVER he wants to. That's what makes America great. I also have the right to say WHATEVER I want to as well and what I'm saying is that I think it sucks that Mick has had to bring politics into the Stones. Apparently Keith Richards would prefer there weren't political lyrics in the Stones songs either!! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:40 AM |
|
|
| exile |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
There's alot of "right wing conservative" types against the occupation and alot of "liberals" who vote to keep the money flowing into Iraq. Things aren't so cut and dried.
Thats VERY true.......... |
| August 9th, 2005 11:45 AM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
These are troubled times and the last thing roughly 50% of this country wants to hear is a lecture by millionaire Englishmen.
Well, I'd say it's more than 50% - I don't want to hear Mick Jagger lecture me on American politics either. However, if he gets in a few good lines I will laugh at them same as I laugh at the Daily Show, or more to the point, the hilarious if hardly liberal to any degree observations about the lower classes in Hang Fire.
What would you rather have, a Mick Jagger who says what he wants, does what he wants, fucks who he wants and fears no consequences or a Mick Jagger who respects the sanctity of marriage, obeys the rules like a good conscientious citizen and censors a potentially good song from an album because its content might cost him some money in the long run?
And it it's a bad business decision, who cares? No amount of backlash is going to leave the band broke.
And I now see your point is about the war vs. gender/race issues instead of political affiliation. Sorry to have misinterpreted you.
[Edited by Nasty Habits] |
| August 9th, 2005 11:52 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
[quote]Nasty Habits wrote:
What would you rather have, a Mick Jagger who says what he wants, does what he wants, fucks who he wants and fears no consequences...."
"I" want all those things mostly.
But by bad business decision I wasn't really talking about what "I" can deal with.
Not everyone is as enlightened as dear sweet Saint MACKY! |
| August 9th, 2005 11:55 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Piss in a tempest. This will get the Stones a bit of publicity for like one or two weeks in media that likes to whine about how unfair it is to bash George Walker Bush III. Then it will be long gone and forgotten.
All we care is about whether its a good song or not, and whether they play it on tour. And maybe we care a little bit about watching Bush geeks squirm around trying to resolve their love of a retard, with their love of the Rolling Stones.
Do the real right thing, dudes! Pick the Rolling Stones ALWAYS! |
| August 9th, 2005 12:05 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Well, I never made an argument about free speech; of course the Stones can write and sing about whatever they want. I question the wisdom of doing something like this. All of the earlier "political" songs that were mentioned, like Undercover, Street Fighting man, etc, were not NEARLY as overt as this song. And as far as being as hypocrisy goes, it breaks my heart to say this, because I love Mick so much, but he is the one who accepted a Knighthood from a British government that has been the staunchest supporter of the Neo Con policy. Maybe if he feels so strongly, he should give it back ( Like Lennon did). |
| August 9th, 2005 12:06 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
[quote]Nasty Habits wrote:
What would you rather have, a Mick Jagger who says what he wants, does what he wants, fucks who he wants and fears no consequences...."
"I" want all those things mostly.
But by bad business decision I wasn't really talking about what "I" can deal with.
Not everyone is as enlightened as dear sweet Saint MACKY!
Well, true enough.
But I agree with Moonie. This will all be gone in two weeks and no one will remember it. If they play it on tour I'll be impressed (shocked, actually) and we can go over all this territory again then.
You may be a saint, but you'll never make a saint of Mick, and if Baddie McBaddenstein wants to be bad by waggling his tongue at whoever he waggles it at in this song no one has heard then I guess we should just all say God Bless Him.
"While some on principles baptized to strict party platform ties (social clubs in drag disguise). Outsiders they can freely criticize, tell nothing except who to idolize and then say 'God bless him.'"
|
| August 9th, 2005 12:10 PM |
|
|
| The Wick |
quote:
the good wrote:
And as far as being as hypocrisy goes, it breaks my heart to say this, because I love Mick so much, but he is the one who accepted a Knighthood from a British government that has been the staunchest supporter of the Neo Con policy. Maybe if he feels so strongly, he should give it back ( Like Lennon did).
The Good,
There is probably not a single thing I agree with you on politically, but it is hard to argue against the knighthood point. Still, us liberals absolutely love that he is putting a song like this out. One point about some of the conservatives on the board lauding Keith Richards for his apparent silence on politics: him flaring up over the knighthood wasn't too silent was it? He was making a political point in addition to being pissed off. |
