ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang World Tour 2005 - 2006
Thanks Saint Stonesalot
Wachovia Center Philadelphia, PA - October 12, 2005
© 2005 Sir Stonesalot
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2005 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Band Gets Political - Again Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5
October 5th, 2005 05:50 PM
SmallerBang MEANINGLESS! He doesn't have a college diploma - did he even graduate high school?
October 5th, 2005 05:52 PM
pdog
quote:
SmallerBang wrote:
MEANINGLESS! He doesn't have a college diploma - did he even graduate high school?



You just described me!
October 5th, 2005 05:53 PM
Gazza uh...you dont "graduate high school" in Britain

if you mean did he leave school with qualifications - yes. you wouldnt get into a university without them

so you have to have a university degree to be capable of forming an opinion, now? well fuck me, thats ruled out most of society at a stroke....
October 5th, 2005 05:58 PM
texile alientated by what? a few comments? after a liftime of being a fan - why would that alienate you?
the sudden realization that jagger is not "conservative"...?
what the fuck - and where do you get the idea that the stones were anything but independent-minded and thus likely to express some opinions you may not agree with if you happen to BE a "conservative".......
conservative stones fans have been spoiled by the stones lack of political content for the last 20 years or so......
and its created this delusion that they are, in fact, the oakridge boys of rock and roll....
October 5th, 2005 06:02 PM
Dan Having read the exact quote as shown on the Shidoobee board, I found nothing particularly political other than his comments had to do with his observation on a current event. However I believe he shouldn't speak at all in between the songs. If I wanted to hear him talk I would watch an interview or one of his awful movies.

A few years ago I walked out of a concert in disgust because his "Thanks for coming" didn't sound sincere enough. I just spent $50 on a ticket to see you from a half mile away, you can show a bit more gratitude than that.
October 5th, 2005 06:16 PM
stonedinaustralia some of you have got this whole performer/audience thing arse about

the band are not there to try to cater to the every whim of thousands of people - the band is there to put on its performance whatever that entails - the audience can either take it our leave it

don't know about the rest of the world but in australia audiences are often referred to as "the punters" i.e. you pay your money and you take your chances

and if you didn't get what you think you paid for or if you got something more that you didn't want to pay for, well, that's called bad luck - and there's little to be gained in complaining about that
October 5th, 2005 06:23 PM
the good
quote:
Dan wrote:

A few years ago I walked out of a concert in disgust because his "Thanks for coming" didn't sound sincere enough. I just spent $50 on a ticket to see you from a half mile away, you can show a bit more gratitude than that.



You have to be kidding. This is a joke, right?
October 5th, 2005 06:24 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:
texile wrote:
being a fan - why would that alienate you?
the sudden realization that jagger is not "conservative"...?



Actually he is. IMO. The First Conservative was an anarchist....and the first anarchist was a conservative.
October 5th, 2005 06:35 PM
Dan And anyone with half a brain and the ability to critically analyze his comments would be able to come to the conclusion that we don't really know if he is a conservative or liberal. Hence the "Neo" qualifier. Most people don't know the difference but there is one.

In the Rolling Stone magazine interview he also said he didn't agree with the Democrats position on the middle east either or something to that effect.
October 5th, 2005 06:55 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
the good wrote:


=As for your fears about the powers of a right leaning court, no one is going to go back to segregation (something instituted by Southern democrats, by the way), the country is nowhere near ready to ban all abortions, and XXX porn will never be banned. But conversely, the American people are not prepared to have a few left wing judges make law from the bench and tell them that 12 year olds can have abortions on demand, that gay marriage is constitutional, or that school childern should have access to pornography under the penumbra of first amendment freedom of speech rights.



And your last ConLaw class was? OK now


Cazart!!


Friggin' right wingers can't be Stones fans...they must have never gotten the lyrics...or have no idea what it is to be an American Conservative in this day and age
October 5th, 2005 07:04 PM
pdog
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
The First Conservative was an anarchist....and the first anarchist was a conservative.



The first liberal was Jesus.. and the first Jesus was Jewish!

Happy Newish Jew Year to all my Jew brothers and sisters too!
Belated!
October 5th, 2005 07:11 PM
texile i don't jagger is either.......he's too practical and tight-ass for liberalism yet too amoral for conservatism - and non-commital for both.
October 5th, 2005 09:14 PM
the good
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:


And your last ConLaw class was? OK now


Cazart!!


Friggin' right wingers can't be Stones fans...they must have never gotten the lyrics...or have no idea what it is to be an American Conservative in this day and age



MR Jizz: the courts are not legislative bodies. But I can understand why lefties like you want them to be. Because you can't win any elections.Unless they take place on TV

Regarding your "point" about right wingers and the Stones, as I have pointed out, its music, MR Jizz. Its entertainment, MR Jizz. It is silly to think one's politics must define their listening habits. The only thing more idiotic would be saying that Britain was responsible for starting WWII. Wait...
October 5th, 2005 09:31 PM
monkey_man
quote:
the good wrote:
MR Jizz: the courts are not legislative bodies. But I can understand why lefties like you want them to be. Because you can't win any elections.Unless they take place on TV


The right doesn't have any problems with judicial activism when it comes from the SC and involves elections
October 5th, 2005 09:45 PM
Riffhard
quote:
monkey_man wrote:

The right doesn't have any problems with judicial activism when it comes from the SC and involves elections




Yeah but monkeyman the SC was not legislating from the bench. They were doing their job. Namely weighing the legality of the Fla. recount for constitutionality. Even the most ardent leftists at the New York Times had to admit that the election was won fair and square by Bush in 2000. Mind you it took the NYTs three full years before they announced ther truth,and they managed to print it/bury it on page A-34. LOL! Ofcourse,the editorial page stll speculated that the fix was in,but the jouralists at the NYTs had to print the truth! Must have killed them to print it. I guess that's why the story was buried. So predictable.


Riffhard
October 5th, 2005 09:56 PM
the good
quote:
monkey_man wrote:

The right doesn't have any problems with judicial activism when it comes from the SC and involves elections



Well, that case involved settling a dispute in a federal election. From my standpoint, that's not an instance of judicial activism. But I'm sure many on the left would would disagree.
October 5th, 2005 10:39 PM
sirmoonie What one half of you fucking idiots don't get is that a conservative judge has jack fucking zip to do with "conservative" politics, whatever the fuck that means anymore.

What another half of you fucking idiots, not necessarily by any means a different half, don't get is that, mantra notwithstanding, legislating from the bench is an infrequent practice, seldom done EXCEPT where it is necessary, and in any case is practiced equally in occurence by both "sides," although one "side" seems to make more press when doing so.

If you want to see some real attempts to legislate from the bench, read oral argument in today's Supreme Court assisted-suicide case. Then shut the fuck up, dumb ass motherfuckers.
October 5th, 2005 11:13 PM
Riffhard Correct moonie,but I would gladly point to at least a half a dozen times in the last two years alone where the infamous 9th circut court of appeals has tried very hard to "legislate" from the bench. Hello,Michael Newdow!! This fucking court is a joke and they DO try and legislate a very liberal agenda from the bench. Same goes for the 11th.

You cannot tell me that you have not noticed this moonie? Take a look at the way they handled the gay marriage issue. They were trying to write shit into the consuitution that was never there by any stretch of the imagination. So much so that Bush threatened to ammend the consttution just shut them out of process! I could give two shits about gay marriage,but there is no doubt that they were very "liberal" in their reading of the constitution,and constitutional law.


Read the link and weep http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/06/state1755EDT7903.DTL


That's just one case of many that I could have posted.

Riffy
October 6th, 2005 12:10 AM
sirmoonie
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Correct moonie,but I would gladly point to at least a half a dozen times in the last two years alone where the infamous 9th circut court of appeals has tried very hard to "legislate" from the bench. Hello,Michael Newdow!! This fucking court is a joke and they DO try and legislate a very liberal agenda from the bench. Same goes for the 11th.

You cannot tell me that you have not noticed this moonie? Take a look at the way they handled the gay marriage issue. They were trying to write shit into the consuitution that was never there by any stretch of the imagination. So much so that Bush threatened to ammend the consttution just shut them out of process! I could give two shits about gay marriage,but there is no doubt that they were very "liberal" in their reading of the constitution,and constitutional law.


Read the link and weep http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/05/06/state1755EDT7903.DTL


That's just one case of many that I could have posted.

Riffy



Then post other ones, for there will be no weeping on the one you did post. The difference between you and I will always be that I go research it and you rely on articles written by the liberal media.

I truly understand its controversial nature (any attempt to remove me of my fine arsenal will be met with force), but passages like these from Silveira v. Lockyer lead me to conclude that there was little if any judicial activisim at play in that decision (on which the Supreme Court denied cert, BTW).

=========
"The Second Amendment states in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. CONST. amend. II. As commentators on all sides of the debate regarding the amendment's meaning have acknowledged, the language of the amendment alone does not conclusively resolve the question of its scope. . . . What renders the language and structure of the amendment particularly striking is the existence of a prefatory clause, a syntactical device that is absent from all other provisions of the Constitution, including the nine other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Our analysis thus must address not only the meaning of each of the two clauses of the amendment but the unique relationship that exists between them."
=========
"We also agree that the entire subject of the meaning of the Second Amendment deserves more consideration than we, or the Supreme Court, have thus far been able (or willing) to give it. This is particularly so because, since Hickman was decided, there have been a number of important developments with respect to the interpretation of the highly controversial provision: First, as we have noted, there is the recent Emerson decision in which the Fifth Circuit, after analyzing the opinion at length, concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller does not resolve the issue of the Amendment's meaning. The Emerson court then canvassed the pertinent scholarship and historical materials, and held that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to possess arms -- the first federal court of [*24] appeals ever to have so decided."
===========

Anyway, relax, all Courts, including the 9th Circuit, seriously consider status quo before leaping of the edge. Our right to bust a cap in someone's ass will never be infringed and/or denied.
October 6th, 2005 12:29 AM
Riffhard
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:



Our right to bust a cap in someone's ass will never be infringed and/or denied.





LOL! You and I much more alike than we are different my friend! I am aware that these courts act with a checks and balances proviso. My point here is that courts like the 9th and the 11th are filled with liberal judges that try mightily to push there own agenda. That's why I like Roberts and judges like him. I expect a judge to view the Constitution as the bedrock upon which all laws are conceived. I do not believe that it is a "living breathing" document. That is just a liberal's way of saying that it can be changed on whim.

The Mass Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was leagal even after the state had voted on a referendum banning it. The will of the people was ignored because the court decided that the law was unconstitutional. That is legislating from the bench! There was nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about the referendum. The court just veiwed it that way through their own liberal bias. Thus the very court that was trying to argue the constitutional laws of the referendum ignored the referendom statute that the constitution provides! They were making the law by ignoring the constitutional rights of the voters of Mass. That is my only point.


Riffy
October 6th, 2005 01:06 AM
corgi37 But the big question is:

Why DO YOU care if faggots or dykes marry?

Is it to protect the sanctity of marriage?

The same sanctity MICK JAGGER, who's band you like, had defamed many, many times by sleeping with every one except my Mum?

So, what kind of conservative are you? Moral or monetary? Or, just so long as you guys make yourselves feel better by invading tin-pot countries (that still offer surprises to you), building bigger pick up trucks and winning the "World Series" in Baseball (did China play? Did Russia? Bekass Faso? Brazil?) and chugging down pissy Bud, re-making crappy tv shows into movies. That make you feel better?

Seems a bit of double standard. Cant have ya cake and eat it too. But, really, for people to walk out because of what Jagger said, i mean, who ya kidding?

I assume your rage was just as strong when Highwire came out!

[Edited by corgi37]
October 6th, 2005 02:17 PM
the good [quote]sirmoonie wrote:
What one half of you fucking idiots don't get is that a conservative judge has jack fucking zip to do with "conservative" politics, whatever the fuck that means anymore.


Well, foul language notwithstanding, your wrong Sir Moonie. A strict interpretation of the constitution carries with it implications for any number of political issues, such as granting any type of marriage (including gay marriage ) as a civil right. That's the connection between "conservative" in the judicial sense and conservative in the political sense. They are connected.
October 6th, 2005 02:23 PM
glencar It doesn't sound like either version of Mick's remarks would offend any rational conservative. For the record, GWB dropped the ball on this nomination. What's with this constant parade of stealth nominees? We need paper trails, people!
October 6th, 2005 02:36 PM
glencar Did someone mention Ann Coulter?

THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANS
October 5, 2005


I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.

To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon — or on John Kerry — while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.
October 6th, 2005 02:40 PM
sirmoonie
quote:
the good wrote:
[quote]sirmoonie wrote:

Well, foul language notwithstanding, your wrong Sir Moonie. A strict interpretation of the constitution carries with it implications for any number of political issues, such as granting any type of marriage (including gay marriage ) as a civil right. That's the connection between "conservative" in the judicial sense and conservative in the political sense. They are connected.


In a bunch of examples, ike the single one you mentioned above, and that I'm sure you've collected from someone ELSE's commentary, they are connected by happenstance. Law of averages. I'll show you dozens of instances where "conservative" politics, especially George Walker Bush III's brand of bizarre "conservative" politics, is in direct conflict with stict construction of the Constitution. I already gave one. You would have to been demented, ignorant or gay to find any statistical correlation between true acts of judicial activism or overreaching and any the goals of any political party.
October 6th, 2005 03:05 PM
monkey_man Hard to believe Ann Coulter is talking some sense. I'm in agreement with her that this nomination is a ruse. No self respecting Dem or Republican can vote to confirm this woman. My guess is that they are holding out for Gonzalez. They are going to need a ringer in there one way or another because apparently there are 22 indictments on the way in the Valarie Plame case (with Rove at the center of them).
October 6th, 2005 03:07 PM
pdog If I was GWB's friend I'd have a good job!
October 6th, 2005 03:09 PM
monkey_man
quote:
pdog wrote:
If I was GWB's friend I'd have a good job!


If you were GWB's friend you'd have a medal of freedom!
October 6th, 2005 03:29 PM
the good
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:

In a bunch of examples, ike the single one you mentioned above, and that I'm sure you've collected from someone ELSE's commentary, they are connected by happenstance. Law of averages. I'll show you dozens of instances where "conservative" politics, especially George Walker Bush III's brand of bizarre "conservative" politics, is in direct conflict with stict construction of the Constitution. I already gave one. You would have to been demented, ignorant or gay to find any statistical correlation between true acts of judicial activism or overreaching and any the goals of any political party.



There are certainly exceptions, and I am not suggesting any causal relationship, but have have to be kidding that there is no correlation between political beliefs and acts of judicial activism. That actually would be a great study to conduct. I guess the real problem would be coming up with an agreed upon definition of judicial "activism".
October 6th, 2005 03:46 PM
SmallerBang The issue here is political activism by the Rolling Stones being forced upon paying customers, lest you forget.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)