PDA

View Full Version : Ben Stein: Thankful for America



savafan
08-08-2005, 01:15 PM
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8437

by Mary Ellen Burke
Posted Aug 5, 2005

“Every morning, I get up, get out of bed, and get on my knees and thank God for waking up in America,” declared Ben Stein at the Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington, D.C.

The actor, comedian, and writer reflected upon America’s increasing prosperity, which is often criticized by the liberal media and Hollywood elites. Stein praised America’s role as the leading engine of free enterprise and free trade for the whole world.

“Free men and women are able to live up to their full potential,” said Stein, “and we continue to see the astonishing power of letting hardworking men and women use their minds and their backs and their hands to do the work that suits their abilities and not do to whatever the state hands out to them.”

Once filled with patriotic actors, Hollywood now makes excuses for American principles. Following a recent trend to mesh entertainment with partisan politics, many actors devote their money and efforts to promote liberal organizations like Rock the Vote.

Stein pointed to movie stars of the past such as James Stewart, Clark Gable, and Charlton Heston-- who all fought in World War II before beginning their acting careers. Yet very few, if any, current American idols are willing to fight in Iraq.

“How many of today’s incredibly buff, muscular, well-toned, super-healthy muscle men stars do you think volunteer to fight terrorists in any part whatsoever” Stein asked a group of 200 students. He considers American soldiers to be the real stars.

“The real stars are wearing body armor on top of their battle dress uniforms in 130 degree heat and they do not have stunt doubles to come in for them when the going gets rough and the bullets and the shrapnel start flying,” said Ben. “They are the real stars, fighting terrorism and trying to free a nation.”

Stein considers America “the light of the world” with a “nation of heroes.” But he claims the media powers distort the past and present reality and college professors place Americans on an equal scale with terrorists. Stein says they are plagued by “moral blindness and historical myopia.”

“They have tried to make America seem like the villain on its own stage,” said Stein. “They have robbed us of our certainty that we are the good guys.”

He calls for young Americans to follow the example of Martin Luther King Junior, fighting back with truth and love.

“Do not let the haters have the floor,” pleaded Stein. “The fact that the haters talk so loud does not make them right.”

remdog
08-08-2005, 01:25 PM
I always liked Ben Stein. :clap:

Rem

registerthis
08-08-2005, 01:31 PM
America CAN and SHOULD be the things that Stein mentions, but our policies contradict Ben's utopic view of our world and the U.S. presence in it. The truth is, we are NOT the light of the world to many--we are viewed as oppressors, bullies and arrogant. Our foreign policy is primarily self-serving, and our environmental and energy policies reek of short-sightedness and capitulation towards mega-coporations.

This doesn't mean that our nation doesn't have many, many positives. I thank God that I live here, as well. there isn't a nation I would rather call home. But we have such a fabulous opportunity to truly be a morally righteous and upstanding example to the world, and we are NOT that. Patriotic ramblings sound good and make the heart flutter, but they cannot wish away the reality that for many the U.S. is viewed as anything BUT the nation Ben Stein describes.

RedsBaron
08-08-2005, 01:44 PM
I realize that World War II was a far different war than the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so the circumstances of military service are different. I do respect those from privileged backgrounds who did choose to serve during WWII. The James Stewarts and Clark Gables of WWII have no parallel in today's Hollywood community, and, aside from Pat Tillman, there are few if any current professional athletes who parallel the WWII service of people such as Bob Feller and Warren Spahn, or the Korean War service of Ted Williams (Ted didn't volunteer, but he served admirably). For that matter, few of the children of today's political leaders, Democrat and Republican alike, are in the service, in contrast to the John F. Kennedys and George H.W. Bushes of WWII.
I note this not to condemn anyone (it would be hypocritical of me to do so), but just to note my admiration of the generation which preceded my own.

westofyou
08-08-2005, 01:47 PM
Stein pointed to movie stars of the past such as James Stewart, Clark Gable, and Charlton Heston-- who all fought in World War II before beginning their acting careers. Yet very few, if any, current American idols are willing to fight in Iraq.

Both Stewart and Gable were big stars at the time, they didn't pospone their career start, just their careers.

Marion Morrison says Hi Ben.

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2005, 02:05 PM
“They have tried to make America seem like the villain on its own stage,” said Stein. “They have robbed us of our certainty that we are the good guys.”

It's a lot easier to be patriotic when your country is under attack. I didn't hear many complaints when we went into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden.

The problem started when Bush set his sights on Iraq. Last time I checked, the "good guys" don't attack nations that don't pose a threat.

America's own actions are responsible for robbing us of our certainty that we're the good guys.

Stein is basically chastising Hollywood for daring to question the current administration.

Maybe he's still bitter about "All the King's Men."

RedsBaron
08-08-2005, 02:09 PM
Both Stewart and Gable were big stars at the time, they didn't pospone their career start, just their careers.

Marion Morrison says Hi Ben.
Stewart and Gable still took a risk with their careers; staying off the screen for several years, as they did, could have harmed their careers. More importantly, they both took real risks with their lives. Neither opted for safe promotional jobs behind the lines. Both Stewart and Gable flew combat missions in the Europrean theater. Stewart remained in the air reserve after the war and I believe eventually attained the rank of general in the reserve.

westofyou
08-08-2005, 02:12 PM
Stewart and Gable still took a risk with their careers; staying off the screen for several years, as they did, could have harmed their careers. More importantly, they both took real risks with their lives. Neither opted for safe promotional jobs behind the lines. Both Stewart and Gable flew combat missions in the Europrean theater. Stewart remained in the air reserve after the war and I believe eventually attained the rank of general in the reserve.

Yes I know, but the writer of the article is tossing off her interpertation of Steins speech and this tid bit was wrong, thus making me ponder what else in the article was wrong.

Caveat Emperor
08-08-2005, 02:20 PM
The internal contradiction within Ben Stein's point is interesting, considering what an intelligent individual he is.

Part of the problem with America today is that the burden of fighting the wars (that everyone is so eager to start) isn't shouldered evenly by everyone. What has resulted is a massive outbreak of "Rah Rah" jingoism that has people confused into believing that slapping a $1 yellow ribben sticker on the back of their car is sufficient in the "Support our Troops" department. There are loud calls for supporting the war on terror, supporting military campaigns in the middle east and afghanistan, yet very little in the way of collective commitment to the effort.

I didn't see a call for taxes to be raised so that everyone could share in the burden of protecting our country and supplying the troops (who are heroes) with the very best and top-of-the-line equipment to enable them to better perform their duty. I don't see a citizenry engaging in self-sacrafice for the betterment of the national cause, such as fighting terrorism and promoting democracy abroad. In WW2, the generation Stein speaks so highly of, massive amounts of individuals followed the call to serve (albeit in a draft, much different than we have today), but millions of others grew gardens, conserved scrap metal, reduced fuel and electrical consumption, quit their jobs to work in factories and generally did whatever was required in order to help the war cause.

The problem isn't that America is evil or that America is the same as the terrorists, the problem is that America is speaking out both sides of it's mouth. We profess a desire to spread democracy and freedom around the world, but only to the point where it does not interfere with our continued growth and prosperity or has some tangible benefit to us as a nation. We look the other way in places where we have an economic interest in seeing the status-quo maintained (China), and we outright ignore places that have no econimic or strategic interest in anything whatsoever (Africa). We aren't interested in a real committment to lifting up the world; we are interested in a selective insertion of American values in select places.

Further, the wealthy and influential members of our society that make these decisions are the ones who never seem to be enlisted on the front lines of combat. There is a reason why the overwhelming number of soldiers being killed in Iraq are from rural areas. Ben Stein is derriding Hollywood celebrities for not going to fight, but just expand "Hollywood Celebrities" to "Affluent Americans" and the statement still works.

I'm 23, and I ask every one of my friends (usually around the same age as I am) the same question when I hear that they support the war in Iraq: If you believe this is the right thing for our country to do, then why aren't you at a recruitment center and signing up to do your part? Or, conversely, what are you doing buying a new copy of NCAA Football when you could send that money to the troops to aid the war effort?

Being a nation of heroes doesn't just apply to the fighting men and women overseas. If people are going to protest loudly over those who aren't supporting the effort, then I had better see more than just a flag sticker on the back of their car.

(Rant over. :thumbup: )

savafan
08-08-2005, 02:24 PM
It was a good rant.

Rojo
08-08-2005, 05:29 PM
When his country called, it looks like Mr. Stein didn't answer the phone either.Ben Stein Bio (http://www.benstein.com/bio.html)

RedFanAlways1966
08-08-2005, 05:55 PM
When his country called, it looks like Mr. Stein didn't answer the phone either.Ben Stein Bio (http://www.benstein.com/bio.html)

I did not read where Ben Stein calls for people to serve. I do read where Ben comments on how the Hollywood-types are different in their philosophies today vs. those of WWII. Is he wrong with that comment?

Did Ben get called? Did Ben get drafted? I don't know. Perhaps Ben could not pass a physical to be enlisted? I don't know. But I will not call him out for not answering when his country called. Not fair, not fair, not fair. Perhaps another read of the above-story will clear that up for those who seemed to miss the point of the story. Poor Ben... doesn't he realize that some people get mad when he has the nerve to compliment his own country and the people who volunteered for service?

Caveat Emperor
08-08-2005, 06:34 PM
Poor Ben... doesn't he realize that some people get mad when he has the nerve to compliment his own country and the people who volunteered for service?

A compliment and a dollar buys you a Double Cheeseburger at Mickey D's, and not much more. While I'm sure soldiers appreciate the sentiment, they'd much rather have more troops on the ground or better equipment to fight insurgents with.

And, having read quite a bit of what Ben Stein has written and stated, I have no doubt in my mind that he would issue an even longer rant than I did if someone had the audacity to ask him to contribute a little more to the war effort (via higher taxes) than just a canned comment of support for the military.

His criticism of those who denegrate the war effort or refuse to participate are unfounded, in my opinion, until more people on his side start paying more than lip service to their cause of wanting to fight this battle.

REDREAD
08-08-2005, 06:55 PM
We look the other way in places where we have an economic interest in seeing the status-quo maintained (China), and we outright ignore places that have no econimic or strategic interest in anything whatsoever (Africa). We aren't interested in a real committment to lifting up the world; we are interested in a selective insertion of American values in select places.


IMO, it shouldn't be America's mission to spread American values everywhere. I certainly don't agree with the US looking the other way at the slave factories in China, but I don't want any Americans dying to "bring democracy" to Africa or whatever.

We have enough problems at home, and frankly we don't have the resources or money to continue trying to "Fix" the world. We have a massive debt that grows larger by the day, and many other problems. Let's get our own house in order before we go on any more "crusades".

Caveat, I'm not saying you are proposing this, but I don't like the idea that America has an obligation to protect the entire world.

Rojo
08-08-2005, 08:17 PM
Poor Ben... doesn't he realize that some people get mad when he has the nerve to compliment his own country and the people who volunteered for service?

Oh spare me. This wasn't about complimenting the troops, it was about bashing celebrities who oppose the war. He's a sickening little man.

remdog
08-08-2005, 08:25 PM
"“Free men and women are able to live up to their full potential,” said Stein, “and we continue to see the astonishing power of letting hardworking men and women use their minds and their backs and their hands to do the work that suits their abilities and not do to whatever the state hands out to them.”

I fail to find that sickening.

Rem

Rojo
08-08-2005, 08:42 PM
"“Free men and women are able to live up to their full potential,” said Stein, “and we continue to see the astonishing power of letting hardworking men and women use their minds and their backs and their hands to do the work that suits their abilities and not do to whatever the state hands out to them.”

I fail to find that sickening.

Rem

Yep, those are some pretty words.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2005, 08:51 PM
"“Free men and women are able to live up to their full potential,” said Stein, “and we continue to see the astonishing power of letting hardworking men and women use their minds and their backs and their hands to do the work that suits their abilities and not do to whatever the state hands out to them.”

I fail to find that sickening.

Rem

Not sickening. Hollow.

Falls City Beer
08-08-2005, 08:55 PM
The internal contradiction within Ben Stein's point is interesting, considering what an intelligent individual he is.

Part of the problem with America today is that the burden of fighting the wars (that everyone is so eager to start) isn't shouldered evenly by everyone. What has resulted is a massive outbreak of "Rah Rah" jingoism that has people confused into believing that slapping a $1 yellow ribben sticker on the back of their car is sufficient in the "Support our Troops" department. There are loud calls for supporting the war on terror, supporting military campaigns in the middle east and afghanistan, yet very little in the way of collective commitment to the effort.

I didn't see a call for taxes to be raised so that everyone could share in the burden of protecting our country and supplying the troops (who are heroes) with the very best and top-of-the-line equipment to enable them to better perform their duty. I don't see a citizenry engaging in self-sacrafice for the betterment of the national cause, such as fighting terrorism and promoting democracy abroad. In WW2, the generation Stein speaks so highly of, massive amounts of individuals followed the call to serve (albeit in a draft, much different than we have today), but millions of others grew gardens, conserved scrap metal, reduced fuel and electrical consumption, quit their jobs to work in factories and generally did whatever was required in order to help the war cause.

The problem isn't that America is evil or that America is the same as the terrorists, the problem is that America is speaking out both sides of it's mouth. We profess a desire to spread democracy and freedom around the world, but only to the point where it does not interfere with our continued growth and prosperity or has some tangible benefit to us as a nation. We look the other way in places where we have an economic interest in seeing the status-quo maintained (China), and we outright ignore places that have no econimic or strategic interest in anything whatsoever (Africa). We aren't interested in a real committment to lifting up the world; we are interested in a selective insertion of American values in select places.

Further, the wealthy and influential members of our society that make these decisions are the ones who never seem to be enlisted on the front lines of combat. There is a reason why the overwhelming number of soldiers being killed in Iraq are from rural areas. Ben Stein is derriding Hollywood celebrities for not going to fight, but just expand "Hollywood Celebrities" to "Affluent Americans" and the statement still works.

I'm 23, and I ask every one of my friends (usually around the same age as I am) the same question when I hear that they support the war in Iraq: If you believe this is the right thing for our country to do, then why aren't you at a recruitment center and signing up to do your part? Or, conversely, what are you doing buying a new copy of NCAA Football when you could send that money to the troops to aid the war effort?

Being a nation of heroes doesn't just apply to the fighting men and women overseas. If people are going to protest loudly over those who aren't supporting the effort, then I had better see more than just a flag sticker on the back of their car.

(Rant over. :thumbup: )

First rate post. I really mean that. Not only for the refreshing depth of thought but also the great effort that you put into it.

remdog
08-08-2005, 09:56 PM
Yep, those are some pretty words.


Not sickening. Hollow

It's good to know that you two find the idea of people being free to make their own choices to be so shallow.

Rem

oneupper
08-08-2005, 11:55 PM
or the Korean War service of Ted Williams (Ted didn't volunteer, but he served admirably).

RB. nice post. I just wanted to add that Williams served in Korea AND WWII.

He missed baseball in 1943-45, and practically all of 52-53 (just 101 AB between the two). Right the middle of his prime years.

Imagine what stats he could have compiled if he had played for 5 more seasons.

RedsBaron
08-09-2005, 07:29 AM
RB. nice post. I just wanted to add that Williams served in Korea AND WWII.

He missed baseball in 1943-45, and practically all of 52-53 (just 101 AB between the two). Right the middle of his prime years.

Imagine what stats he could have compiled if he had played for 5 more seasons.
Thanks. You are correct of course about Teddy Ballgame's total military service. In WWII, Ted saw no combat, although several current or future MLB players did endure combat service, including Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, Hank Bauer and Hank Sauer. Ted was criticized for not immediately enlisting after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and he later wrote of still being bitter about being criticized for playing in 1942, noting that many other stars, including Joe DiMaggio, also played in '42. Quaker Oats also dumped Ted's endorsement deal with it, causing Ted to "never eat a Quaker Oat again." Ted enlisted in the USAAF after 1942.
Ted didn't volunteer for service in the Korean War, and was unhappy to be recalled to active duty, but he did serve, flying several missions along side John Glenn and nearly dying on one mission as he crashed landed his plane which had been hit by enemy fire.
Someone once wrote that "Ted Williams is who John Wayne wants to be when he grows up."

oneupper
08-09-2005, 09:28 AM
It's amazing how some of these players bounced back to form from 1, 2, 3 years of not playing ball and picked up their careers from right where they were before the war(s).

Nowadays, miss a year and one's never sure if you can get your game back.

RedsBaron
08-09-2005, 12:19 PM
It's amazing how some of these players bounced back to form from 1, 2, 3 years of not playing ball and picked up their careers from right where they were before the war(s).

Nowadays, miss a year and one's never sure if you can get your game back.
Some players absolutely were able to pick up where they left off. Ted Williams returned and, in his first season back, was the AL MVP in 1946 for the pennant winning Red Sox, with near triple crown numbers of .342 38 123. Bob Feller, in his first full season back (1946), won 26 games and struck out 348 hitters, a career high. Hank Greenberg returned in time to lead the Tigers to a World Series win in 1945 and then lead the AL in HRs and RBI in 1946.
However, some superstars never quite got to their pre-war level. Even though Joe DiMaggio won the AL MVP award in 1947 (the award should've gone to Ted Williams), for the most part DiMaggio wasn't never quite the player he was from 1936 through 1942.
Some guys definitely had Hall of Fame careers derailed by WWII military service. My favorite example is Cecil Travis, a shortstop with Washington. From 1934 through 1941, Travis hit .319, .318, .317, .344, .335, .292, .322 and .359. Only 28 years old, he was HOF bound, but when he returned after the war, he only lasted three seasons, hitting .241, .252 and .216. Travis reportedly suffered frostbite during the war, although I understand he later denied reports to that effect.
Of course, there were probably some guys with HOF worthy talent whom none of us know about, because they perished in the hedgerows of Normandy or over the skies of Berlin or on the beach at Iwo Jima or in the hull of a sinking ship in the Pacific, without ever having the opportunity to wear a major league uniform.

Rojo
08-09-2005, 02:13 PM
It's good to know that you two find the idea of people being free to make their own choices to be so shallow.

Speaking for myself, I don't find it shallow. In fact, its almost impossible to disagree with that quote. But pretty words can't hide the intent of his speech, which was to rouse his audience by slamming celebrities and hiding behind our troops while doing it.

And that ain't pretty.

RedFanAlways1966
08-09-2005, 02:46 PM
But pretty words can't hide the intent of his speech, which was to rouse his audience by slamming celebrities and hiding behind our troops while doing it.

And that ain't pretty.

I don't see it that way, Rojo. I, on the otherhand, see multi-millionaires slamming our leaders and hiding behind their money and fame while doing it. I see Sean Penn types hanging out with a brutal mass-murderer like Saddam Hussein while his new buddy violates numerous UN sanctions. I see musicians like The Dixie Chicks slamming our leaders while using a stage that was supposed to be for music not political banter.... and getting booed by a lot of PAYING customers. That too is not pretty.

registerthis
08-09-2005, 02:55 PM
I see musicians like The Dixie Chicks slamming our leaders while using a stage that was supposed to be for music not political banter....
So I guess you get mad and write angry letters to the editor every time you see Toby Keith sing about sticking his boots up the rear end of a Muslim? I mean, that IS the type of political banter that should be left of fof the stage, right? :rolleyes:

RedFanAlways1966
08-09-2005, 04:33 PM
So I guess you get mad and write angry letters to the editor every time you see Toby Keith sing about sticking his boots up the rear end of a Muslim? I mean, that IS the type of political banter that should be left of fof the stage, right? :rolleyes:

To be honest, register, I could not tell you about any Keith songs. But are these type of songs on his CDS or other recordings? If so, then I'd assume that you might hear him sing it at his concert. If you know of a Dixie Chicks song that goes into a "talking" (not to be confused with singing) rant about a terrible Pres. Bush, then do share.

So I ask... does Toby Keith have these songs in recorded fashion? And do the Dixie Chicks have retail recordings of hate-rants against Pres. Bush? I think anyone can understand the difference. Did Toby's fans boo him for singing one of these songs that his fans are aware of? Or does he make up songs ont he spot? I really do not know. And I hope you understand the glaring differences between what Keith does and what The Chicks do. One sings and records his poitical views, the other does not. The one that doesn't uses the stage (meant for singing and playing) to share their politics... in talking fashion.

And what is this comment about letters to editors? Not sure where you got that. I don't have time for that. I am too busy trying to teach my fellow RZ brethern about the RIGHT way. :)

registerthis
08-09-2005, 05:02 PM
So I ask... does Toby Keith have these songs in recorded fashion? And do the Dixie Chicks have retail recordings of hate-rants against Pres. Bush? I think anyone can understand the difference. Did Toby's fans boo him for singing one of these songs that his fans are aware of? Or does he make up songs ont he spot? I really do not know. And I hope you understand the glaring differences between what Keith does and what The Chicks do. One sings and records his poitical views, the other does not. The one that doesn't uses the stage (meant for singing and playing) to share their politics... in talking fashion.
Oh, come on, RFA. I have a hard time believing that you even typed this with a straight face. So political rants are -OK- so long as they are sung to a melody, but if they are spoken...then that is abuse of the musical stage? :laugh:

OK, well, using your argument...would it offend you to find out that Toby Keith was making patriotic pro-Bush rants IN BETWEEN SONGS during his concerts? Would it offend you to hear him encourage people to support Bush and to support the war outside of the context of his songs?

registerthis
08-09-2005, 05:02 PM
I see Sean Penn types hanging out with a brutal mass-murderer like Saddam Hussein while his new buddy violates numerous UN sanctions.
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

Rojo
08-09-2005, 05:09 PM
In April I went to see Merle Haggard and Bob Dylan at the Paramount Theater in Oakland. As "the Hagg" took stage I was anticipating the reaction to the audience to songs like "Okie from Muskogee" and "Fightin Side of Me". After all, this area is probably the most liberal place in the country and stridently opposed to the war. Plus, he specifically runs down San Francisco in "Okie"! But the crowd was enthusiastic and even gracious when he launched into those songs. Sure, his politics aren't great but he's a musical legend and, hey, different strokes....

I guess what I find a little disgusting is the pretty clumsy framing job war supporters are trying to foist on us. Trying to make it about supporting or not supporting the troops does a disservice to the brave people who serve now and a disservice to those who may be called upon to do it in the future.

princeton
08-09-2005, 05:26 PM
Haggard's been vocal against the war

Falls City Beer
08-09-2005, 06:20 PM
It's good to know that you two find the idea of people being free to make their own choices to be so shallow.

Rem

I find it shallow.

You can put poison in chocolate and wrap it in gold foil, but it's still poison.

He's a chickenhawk and a liar. Anyone who supports this war is either completely deluded, self-deluded, or a liar. I'd say someone of Stein's educational background knows the very truths of this war and chooses to ignore them. That makes him a liar and a hollow jingoist (maybe that's a tautology--maybe there is no such thing as "non-hollow jingoism," but you get my point).

RedsBaron
08-09-2005, 06:24 PM
Whether or not a performer expressing his or her political views during a performance would offend me would depend upon the performer and the setting. For example, anyone at all familiar with Bruce Springsteen or Merle Haggard or Toby Keith should know that they can be vocal about their political views and that their views are often set forth in their songs. To act surprised and to be offended would be like Claude Rains being shocked to find gambling going on at "Rick's" in "Casablanca."
However, I can recall that Linda Ronstadt suffered an adverse reaction when she expressed her views during a concert a year or so ago. While I recall that the audience overreacted badly, I believe this may have resulted in part because of the setting and people not expecting her to inject her political beliefs during the performance.
I guess if I went to a concert expecting to hear a relaxing routine of music standards, I wouldn't be all that happy if the performer interjected into the performance his or her views, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, whereas if I went to a concert by The Hag or The Boss, I should know what I'm getting into before hand and would have no reason to complain.
Incidentally, I was reading an article by Nat Hentoff in today's Wall Street Journal, page D8, about the release of a three CD boxed set of Bing Crosby's radio shows. Hentoff wrote that he interviewed Crosby in 1976, a year before Bing died. At that time, Crosby was critical of performers who took strong public political positions, saying: "I never thought it was proper for a performer to use his influence to get anyone to vote one way or another."
To Hentoff's surprise, Bing then stated that he had been very much against the war in Vietnam, adding: "I didn't know what to do about it. So I didn't say anything."

Rojo
08-09-2005, 06:28 PM
Haggard's been vocal against the war

He did sing a sort-of anti-war song toward the end. But he didn't really say one way or the other. But, let's face it, he couldn't not sing those two songs.

westofyou
08-09-2005, 06:31 PM
But, let's face it, he couldn't not sing those two songs.

From now on all my friends are gonna be strangers.

princeton
08-09-2005, 06:35 PM
He did sing a sort-of anti-war song toward the end. But he didn't really say one way or the other. But, let's face it, he couldn't not sing those two songs.

I heard him on NPR about a year ago, and he sounded pretty disgusted. Maybe not to Rojo levels, but disgusted.

I also found this report on a blog:

This afternoon on Fox News, John Gibson was interviewing country singer Merle Haggard about his new song, "And that's the news". After listening to the lyrics Gibson asked Haggard if he was questioning the legitimacy of the Iraqi war, Merle denied the charge,saying that he was wanting to speak up for the common American soldier serving in Iraq. But then Haggard admitted that after listening to Tony Blair explain why he took Britian to war, he was convinced that Blair was lying. Furthermore he wondered why American boys were still dying when the war had been declared over. An off balance Gibson then explained that the Iraqi invasion was undertaken because "America had been attacked." and Iraq had been involved in that attack. The slow-talking Haggard replied that there was no evidence linking Iraq to the World Trade Center massacre, and anyway wasn't it Afghanistan that was supposed to be responsible for the attack. Gibson then stated that both Iraq and Afghanistan had been involved in the World Trade Center massacre and we had to go after them, one after the other.

Rojo
08-09-2005, 06:52 PM
That was the song and he ended with it.

registerthis
08-09-2005, 06:57 PM
Gibson then stated that both Iraq and Afghanistan had been involved in the World Trade Center massacre and we had to go after them, one after the other.
I just can't believe that ANYONE is repeating this line of horse pooey anymore. Even the Bush Administration has given up on this one.

RedFanAlways1966
08-10-2005, 09:10 AM
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

Have many times have you posted this picture here, register? I am not sure if you think it is cute or you really believe that picture proves some point. You might think it justifies your position on these matters. You might think it makes our current leadership look bad.

Let me explain though.... it shows a lack of understanding about world politics on your part. Do you know who Democratic President James E. Carter signed The Panama Canal away to back in the late 1970's? It was Omar Torrijos, then leader of Panama. Do you know who Torrijos' right-hand man was? His name was Manuel Noriega. I am sure you know the rest about Noriega.

Should we hold Pres. Carter in contempt for negotiating with Panama and Noriega? No. Times change and so do people and governments. I could cite hundreds of other examples in the last 100 years in which our gov't, both Dems and Repubs, have been friendly with types who became enemies later on. That is how the world works.

Perhaps you would be better served to read about Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in the 1970's and early 1980's. You probably will not take my words to heart. Read up on those relationships. Come back and tell us what you have learned. It would make a lot more sense than one picture that you love to show. It might also make you appear better educated on world politics.

GAC
08-10-2005, 09:34 AM
Anyone who supports this war is either completely deluded, self-deluded, or a liar.

Why do you feel you need to insult and demean people in order to get your point across? Why can't you differ without doing so?

Gee, if you can use such a broad stroke to paint everyone who supports the war (and in your caustic and insulting manner), I guess it's OK then to label those who oppose the war as a bunch of airhead, weak-knee'd, whacko, unpatriotic elitists who hate America.

It doesn't really gain or add much to the intellectual level of the discussion does it when either side addresses the other that way. ;)

GAC
08-10-2005, 09:44 AM
I wonder how the new Rolling Stone single is gonna do. Heard on the radio this morning that ol' Keith is already worried about what it might do in the states - not only on their tour, but because he lives here. But hey! How long has it been since they've had a hit single?

Ya gotta love the BBC! :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4137698.stm

Stones 'slate Bush' in album song

A track on the Rolling Stones' upcoming album A Bigger Bang reportedly attacks interventionist supporters of President George Bush known as neo-conservatives.

Sweet Neo-Con is one of 16 songs on the new Stones album.

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite," Sir Mick Jagger sings in Sweet Neo Con, one of 16 tracks featured on the September release.

"It is direct," Jagger is quoted as saying in US magazine Newsweek.

Jagger reportedly added that bandmate Keith Richards, who lives in the US, was "a bit worried" about a backlash.

The song was not featured on a 12-track advance CD sent out by the veteran British rockers to music critics.

Contentious

Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are considered by some to be leading neo-conservatives.

However, the term is a contentious one in the US.

The BBC's Mark Mardell has described neo-cons as "full-blooded 21st Century nationalists" who "insist America's mission is to bring democracy to the world".

The Rolling Stones are currently rehearsing in Toronto for their 40-date world tour, which begins in Boston on 21 August.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 10:25 AM
Have many times have you posted this picture here, register? I am not sure if you think it is cute or you really believe that picture proves some point. You might think it justifies your position on these matters. You might think it makes our current leadership look bad.
No, I think it's ironic that Sean Penn is slammed for hanging out with "brutal mass-murderer types" like Saddam Hussein, while our own Secretary of Defense is pictured hanging out with...well, brutal mass-murderer types like Saddam Hussein. That's all...draw whatever implications you would like from that.


Let me explain though.... it shows a lack of understanding about world politics on your part.
Oh, does it? Please, enlighten me!


Do you know who Democratic President James E. Carter signed The Panama Canal away to back in the late 1970's? It was Omar Torrijos, then leader of Panama. Do you know who Torrijos' right-hand man was? His name was Manuel Noriega. I am sure you know the rest about Noriega.
I certainly do, I am also all-too-painfully familiar with the U.S. policies in panama, Nicaragua, and the majority of Central America during the late 70s and 1980s. It's a tremendous pockmark on our nation's history, yet it is rarely discussed. Did you know the U.S. and reagan Administration was censured by the U.N. World Court as a result of our actions in Nicauragua? And did you know the Reagan Administration essentially held the U.S. to be above international law when they told the U.N. to kiss our red, white and blue behinds? Yes, RFA, I am very much aware of our nation's policies in Central America. Thanks for bringing them up though.


Should we hold Pres. Carter in contempt for negotiating with Panama and Noriega? No. Times change and so do people and governments. I could cite hundreds of other examples in the last 100 years in which our gov't, both Dems and Repubs, have been friendly with types who became enemies later on. That is how the world works.
No, I'm sorry, I don't accept this as an answer, it provides way too many free passes to government officials who barter with the wrong crowd merely because it serves our self interest. Do you think Hussein just suddenly became evil after the war with Iran? Do you not think Rumsfeld--and the Reagan Administration--knew what Hussein was doing, and what he was capable of? They knew full WELL what Hussein was all about. the difference was, Hussein was open to investments by U.S. and other western oil and energy firms into Iraq's burgeoning oil market, whereas Iran was not. Energy policy makes for strange bedfellows, doesn't it? If you don't believe it, I highly suggest you read "Arming Iraq: How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine" by Mark Phythian.

To excuse our dealings with and support of evil, corrupt regimes and dictators around the world as merely being a case of times and governments changing overlooks way too many truths.


Perhaps you would be better served to read about Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in the 1970's and early 1980's. You probably will not take my words to heart. Read up on those relationships. Come back and tell us what you have learned. It would make a lot more sense than one picture that you love to show. It might also make you appear better educated on world politics.
That's OK, RFA, I think I did enough research and study on the Iran-Iraq situation during my days as a poli sci student at OSU. But thank you for your enlightening take on the subject.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 10:29 AM
The BBC's Mark Mardell has described neo-cons as "full-blooded 21st Century nationalists" who "insist America's mission is to bring democracy to the world".
I'd say that's a rather apt description. Only change I would make would be "insist America's mission is to bring AMERICAN democracy to the world."

We simply cannot fathom why our version of laissez-faire capitalism and Americanized democracy wouldn't function well in all nations of the world.

westofyou
08-10-2005, 12:03 PM
It's a tremendous pockmark on our nation's history,

Nice imagery considering the subject.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 12:07 PM
Nice imagery considering the subject.
Tee-hee. Thank you. :D

Caveat Emperor
08-10-2005, 12:13 PM
We simply cannot fathom why our version of laissez-faire capitalism and Americanized democracy wouldn't function well in all nations of the world.

Or, for that matter, why the other nations of the world don't WANT us remaking them in our own image.

It is, for lack of a better phrase, "Economic Colonialism" with corporations and trade agreements replacing the provisional governors and quartered troops of old. We seek to create lands that are free not so much for their people to vote and better themselves but, rather, free to work for our companies, produce goods for our nation, and (possibly, if the standards of living ever become high enough) buy our products.

It isn't the history of American politics in Central America and the Middle East that people need to read but, rather, a history of the British Empire.

westofyou
08-10-2005, 12:17 PM
"Economic Colonialism"

I'd like to sell the world a Coke and count the cash each night.....

Rojo
08-10-2005, 01:56 PM
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 02:00 PM
"War is a force that gives us meaning"

M2
08-10-2005, 02:13 PM
The run-up to Iraq reminded of this pre-WWI gem from Rupert Brooke:

PEACE

Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping,
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary,
Leave the sick hearts that honour could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
And all the little emptiness of love!

Oh! we, who have known shame, we have found release there,
Where there's no ill, no grief, but sleep has mending,
Naught broken save this body, lost but breath;
Nothing to shake the laughing heart's long peace there
But only agony, and that has ending;
And the worst friend and enemy is but Death.

Brooke signed up for the war and figured out what a load of bollocks he'd bought into shortly before he got killed by the Germans. Read Wilfred Owen if you want to hear what war sounds like from someone who's seen through the hype.

RedsBaron
08-10-2005, 02:27 PM
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
I'm not advocating war anywhere, but if the above position had been followed by FDR and other American leaders, Hitler would have achieved his ambitions. If Truman had followed that position, Stalin would have achieved his ambitions.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 02:35 PM
I'm not advocating war anywhere, but if the above position had been followed by FDR and other American leaders, Hitler would have achieved his ambitions. If Truman had followed that position, Stalin would have achieved his ambitions.
I think WWII is an unfortunate exception. There, Hitler posed a legitimate threat to world security and the lives of a great many people--unlike, say, Saddam Hussein.

People such as Stalin and hitler, for whom "containment" is not an option, must usually be met by forth, however unfortunate it is. i would argue, though, that such situations are exceedingly rare and overwhelmingly obvious.

Rojo
08-10-2005, 05:08 PM
I'm not advocating war anywhere, but if the above position had been followed by FDR and other American leaders, Hitler would have achieved his ambitions. If Truman had followed that position, Stalin would have achieved his ambitions.

My thoughts too as I read it. As registerthis mentioned, however, the WWII is a very rare exception and Butler couldn't have anticipated it.

Falls City Beer
08-10-2005, 06:38 PM
Why do you feel you need to insult and demean people in order to get your point across? Why can't you differ without doing so?

Gee, if you can use such a broad stroke to paint everyone who supports the war (and in your caustic and insulting manner), I guess it's OK then to label those who oppose the war as a bunch of airhead, weak-knee'd, whacko, unpatriotic elitists who hate America.

It doesn't really gain or add much to the intellectual level of the discussion does it when either side addresses the other that way. ;)

When you stop insulting, I'll stop insulting. Deal?

RedFanAlways1966
08-10-2005, 07:04 PM
I think WWII is an unfortunate exception. There, Hitler posed a legitimate threat to world security and the lives of a great many people--unlike, say, Saddam Hussein.

People such as Stalin and hitler, for whom "containment" is not an option, must usually be met by forth, however unfortunate it is. i would argue, though, that such situations are exceedingly rare and overwhelmingly obvious.

There is always an exception it seems. Perhaps that is why no one here posts that picture of Stalin sitting with Churchill and FDR near the end of WWII.

Gee... maybe the Kuwaitis have a differing opinion on Saddam? Or the Kurds? Or the Shiites? Maybe the continual violations of UN sanctions after Gulf War I was a problem? Perhaps all of these things are just exceptions too...

Do tell us when that picture you like to post was taken. Saddam took power in 1969. Also remind us who overtook an American embassy in 1979. Who was seen as the biggest enemy of the U.S. in the late 1970's and early 1980's (other than Cold War Russia... the country that used to be led by Stalin, the one sitting by Churchill and FDR)? So why would the U.S. befriend Saddam in those days? Jeff Spicoli said it best, "I don't know."

Remember those wars against England in the late 1700's and early 1800's? I am starting to wonder if we should still dislike them for that. Once an enemy, always an enemy. Once a friend, always a friend.

registerthis
08-10-2005, 07:11 PM
Gee... maybe the Kuwaitis have a differing opinion on Saddam? Or the Kurds? Or the Shiites? Maybe the continual violations of UN sanctions after Gulf War I was a problem? Perhaps all of these things are just exceptions too...
If you are prepared to equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler or Stalin, go right ahead. I'm not prepared to make that comparison.

paintmered
08-10-2005, 07:22 PM
.....and I thought this thread was about Ben Stein.

:confused:


It never ceases to amaze me how every single political thread gets reduced to the same argument as every other poltical thread.

Jaycint
08-10-2005, 07:36 PM
.....and I thought this thread was about Ben Stein.

:confused:


It never ceases to amaze me how every single political thread gets reduced to the same argument as every other poltical thread.

Amazing isn't it?

Falls City Beer
08-10-2005, 08:17 PM
The run-up to Iraq reminded of this pre-WWI gem from Rupert Brooke:

PEACE

Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping,
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary,
Leave the sick hearts that honour could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
And all the little emptiness of love!

Oh! we, who have known shame, we have found release there,
Where there's no ill, no grief, but sleep has mending,
Naught broken save this body, lost but breath;
Nothing to shake the laughing heart's long peace there
But only agony, and that has ending;
And the worst friend and enemy is but Death.

Brooke signed up for the war and figured out what a load of bollocks he'd bought into shortly before he got killed by the Germans. Read Wilfred Owen if you want to hear what war sounds like from someone who's seen through the hype.

Great selection. I'll add one from a vet of the second World War--Randall Jarrell (perhaps the most unheralded American poet of the 20th century).

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

savafan
08-10-2005, 11:20 PM
Amazing isn't it?

Nope, it's sad. And it always seems to be the same people.

Falls City Beer
08-10-2005, 11:43 PM
Nope, it's sad. And it always seems to be the same people.

It's discussion. It happens. The high-horse act gets just as tiresome.

savafan
08-10-2005, 11:44 PM
It's discussion. It happens. The high-horse act gets just as tiresome.

I'm not high. And don't call me a horse either...my parents couldn't afford good dental work.

Falls City Beer
08-10-2005, 11:50 PM
I'm not high. And don't call me a horse either...my parents couldn't afford good dental work.

Whatever. I'm not going to get in a passive-aggressive tug of war with you. Next time, go private.

savafan
08-10-2005, 11:53 PM
Whatever. I'm not going to get in a passive-aggressive tug of war with you. Next time, go private.

Dude, I was joking with you.

registerthis
08-11-2005, 01:16 AM
I just get tired of being told how unpatriotic dissent is, and I should support our troops and this war and why do I hate America, etc.

That's what gets tiresome. If someone's going to congratulate Ben Stein on that pseudo-patriotic rant, I'm going to call them out on it.

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 01:35 AM
I just get tired of being told how unpatriotic dissent is, and I should support our troops and this war and why do I hate America, etc.



I agree entirely with you on this with the exception of the troops part. Are you saying that we shouldn't support the troops? Or that you are tired of people on here implying that you don't support them? After all, it's not like they had a say on whether or not they got to take a trip to the scenic middle east. I'm pretty sure you meant that you were sick of people implying that you don't support the troops because you don't support the war itself. Just trying to clarify...

Mutaman
08-11-2005, 03:09 AM
Sure, his politics aren't great but he's a musical legend and, hey, different strokes....

.

Actually, Muskogee is probably the only place in the country where Merle hasn't smoked reefer. There's nothing wrong with his politics. Just made a mistake with one of his songs ("The Fighting Side of Me") about 40 years ago.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 08:57 AM
If you are prepared to equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler or Stalin, go right ahead. I'm not prepared to make that comparison.

You are pretty good at changing the suject and putting words in the mouths of others. But this is what I expect when you cannot justify things you have said. Par for the course. It is what Michael Moore does.

Keep on posting that picture. It says a lot. But not about our leaders.

Caveat Emperor
08-11-2005, 09:59 AM
I just get tired of being told how unpatriotic dissent is, and I should support our troops and this war and why do I hate America, etc.

That's the problem with the rhetoric coming out of the neoconservative party (they stopped being Republicans the minute they abandoned principles of fiscal conservativism and limited government): it is all hedged in absolutes.
"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."
"If you do not support this war, you are an unpatriotic coward."
"If we do not do X, the terrorists will come and get us."
"We have mandate from the entire American population because 51% of the population agree with what we are saying."
"Stop disagreeing with us on appointed judicial and international positions and just rubber stamp everything we do because we are in charge"

Their language never leaves room for a middle or compromise ground and it is specifically designed to marginalize opposing or dissenting voices. It is disheartening because the foundation of democracy is that meeting for mutually acceptable solutions benefits all voices, not just the vocal few dragging the country in one direction or another.

registerthis
08-11-2005, 10:12 AM
I agree entirely with you on this with the exception of the troops part. Are you saying that we shouldn't support the troops? Or that you are tired of people on here implying that you don't support them? After all, it's not like they had a say on whether or not they got to take a trip to the scenic middle east. I'm pretty sure you meant that you were sick of people implying that you don't support the troops because you don't support the war itself. Just trying to clarify...
Yes, you got it. "Support the troops" is such a vague saying...I'm not even sure what it means. I "support our troops" by wanting to bring them home alive and, so long as they are in a dangerous situation, by equipping them and defending them properly. But a lot of people use the phrase "Support Our Troops" as a synonym for "Support the War." That's what I don't agree with.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 10:12 AM
That's the problem with the rhetoric coming out of the neoconservative party (they stopped being Republicans the minute they abandoned principles of fiscal conservativism and limited government): it is all hedged in absolutes.
"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."
"If you do not support this war, you are an unpatriotic coward."
"If we do not do X, the terrorists will come and get us."
"We have mandate from the entire American population because 51% of the population agree with what we are saying."
"Stop disagreeing with us on appointed judicial and international positions and just rubber stamp everything we do because we are in charge"

Their language never leaves room for a middle or compromise ground and it is specifically designed to marginalize opposing or dissenting voices. It is disheartening because the foundation of democracy is that meeting for mutually acceptable solutions benefits all voices, not just the vocal few dragging the country in one direction or another.

And many of the same things can be said for the ultra-liberal people in this great country. And both sides are good at accusing the other of things. If people think only one side does it, then these people are mistaken and blind to facts (not you, Caveat). It is also the nature of politics. Will those making these accusations admit to the fact that their own do the same thing? Probably not. Once again... it is politics.

Some of the ultra-liberal sayings: our president (they just called him Bush or W) is a criminal. Afghanistan will definitely be the next Vietnam. The whole world hates us and we are doomed like the once great Roman Empire. So on and so forth.

It works both ways (it always does in politics). Never make the assumption that it is just one side.

registerthis
08-11-2005, 10:17 AM
You are pretty good at changing the suject and putting words in the mouths of others. But this is what I expect when you cannot justify things you have said. Par for the course. It is what Michael Moore does.
"Putting words into the mouths of others"? I don't have to do that, I'll let "the others" speak for themselves:


There is always an exception it seems. Perhaps that is why no one here posts that picture of Stalin sitting with Churchill and FDR near the end of WWII.

Gee... maybe the Kuwaitis have a differing opinion on Saddam? Or the Kurds? Or the Shiites? Maybe the continual violations of UN sanctions after Gulf War I was a problem? Perhaps all of these things are just exceptions too...

zombie-a-go-go
08-11-2005, 10:33 AM
Okay, people - I've already banned one person due to their comments on this thread.

When composing your post, consider whether or not it could be construed, however tenuously, as a personal attack or insult to another person (or group of people) on this board.

Because I like banning people. I love it. It's better than chocolate. And I'll use any excuse I can to do it. So unless you enjoy being banned as much as I'll enjoy banning you, I suggest that you keep your snide comments confined to PMs, where I can't see them.

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2005, 11:01 AM
Afghanistan will definitely be the next Vietnam.

I believe we said "IRAQ will be the next Vietnam," not Afghanistan.

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 11:13 AM
I think the world would be in a lot better shape if those 100,000+ troops in Iraq would have been sent 1500 miles to the east in the first place. Where the real threat was. Just my opinion of course...

registerthis
08-11-2005, 11:28 AM
I think the world would be in a lot better shape if those 100,000+ troops in Iraq would have been sent 1500 miles to the east in the first place. Where the real threat was. Just my opinion of course...
Hear, hear.

Try going after the guy who actually HAS the nukes...and is crazy enough to use them.

Happened to catch a documentary of Mr. Kim Jong-Il on the History Channel a couple weeks ago, man what a nut. Strangely, the guy has a real affinity for Disney movies and sports cars. :confused:

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 11:39 AM
Hear, hear.

Try going after the guy who actually HAS the nukes...and is crazy enough to use them.

Happened to catch a documentary of Mr. Kim Jong-Il on the History Channel a couple weeks ago, man what a nut. Strangely, the guy has a real affinity for Disney movies and sports cars. :confused:

Actually I was referring to Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan. We should have focused solely on cleaning up the terrorist Disneyworld over there and actually capturing the top leadership of Al-Qaeda. But I agree with you, if we just wanted to play cowboy with a country then North Korea poses a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did.

I saw that same documentary, it's funny to see some of the odd little quirks that world leaders have.

Puffy
08-11-2005, 11:42 AM
Hear, hear.

Try going after the guy who actually HAS the nukes...and is crazy enough to use them.

Happened to catch a documentary of Mr. Kim Jong-Il on the History Channel a couple weeks ago, man what a nut. Strangely, the guy has a real affinity for Disney movies and sports cars. :confused:

I saw this movie called Team America on him as well - he is one whack job! I couldn't believe some of the stuff he says and does. Man, just weird.

:evil:

registerthis
08-11-2005, 11:53 AM
Actually I was referring to Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan. We should have focused solely on cleaning up the terrorist Disneyworld over there and actually capturing the top leadership of Al-Qaeda. But I agree with you, if we just wanted to play cowboy with a country then North Korea poses a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did.
Ah, I see...yes, I suppose N. Korea would be a little more than 1500 miles away, wouldn't it? <sigh> It's that kind of day....

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 11:59 AM
Ah, I see...yes, I suppose N. Korea would be a little more than 1500 miles away, wouldn't it? <sigh> It's that kind of day....

LOL, no problem, it's your birthday so you get a pass, haha. Happy bday by the way. :birthday:

registerthis
08-11-2005, 12:49 PM
LOL, no problem, it's your birthday so you get a pass, haha. Happy bday by the way. :birthday:
Thanks, Jay! Cheers. :)

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2005, 12:55 PM
I saw this movie called Team America on him as well - he is one whack job! I couldn't believe some of the stuff he says and does. Man, just weird.

In the extras on the Team America DVD, Trey Parker and Matt Stone talk about how they modeled the palace in the movie after photographs of Kim Jong Il's real palace. They said the movie palace wasn't all that different from the real one. :eek:

zombie-a-go-go
08-11-2005, 01:05 PM
You know, that Kim Jong Il is one helluva golfer.

Puffy
08-11-2005, 01:07 PM
You know, that Kim Jong Il is one helluva golfer.

No, your thinking of Michelle Wie.

zombie-a-go-go
08-11-2005, 01:11 PM
No, your thinking of Michelle Wie.

Which one's the girl, again?

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Which one's the girl, again?

Michelle Wie is hot. Just sayin...

Puffy
08-11-2005, 01:25 PM
Michelle Wie is hot. Just sayin...

And 15.

Ugh, it sucks getting old.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 01:44 PM
I believe we said "IRAQ will be the next Vietnam," not Afghanistan.

I do not remember what you said, Johnny. However, a lot of liberals were saying that Afghanistan would be the next Vietnam. Oh yes, they said it and they said it a lot in those days following 9-11. Some even protested. I find it hard to believe that you have forgotten this, but there has been a lot of other things happen since then and it is understandable.

Not only did a lot of liberals (not all... I try to refrain from labeling an entire group as others here do) say that it would be America's next Vietnam, they said we would get bogged down and killed lilke Russia back in the 1980's. When that did not happen, as these certain liberals predicted, they started saying it about Iraq. As ironic as it seems, the invasion of Iraq helped save face for their ridiculous and false predictions about Afghanistan. Why? Because it gave them something else to complain about and something else to predict. And they hoped everyone would forget about their erroneous predictions regarding Afghanistan (which you have forgotten).

I can do an internet search and find lots of errorneous predictions regarding Afghanistan. But I do not need to waste my time b/c I trust my own memory. I do not easily forget untrue stuff that flies from the mouths of others too quickly. And what will be the response to my words in this post? WMD in Iraq... that was untrue too. See... that is the only defense for what I have written regarding those errors that flew from the mouths of the liberals who said it. Deflect and change subject. I am not bothered by it though. It just tells me that there is no credible argument against the above-words. And that is okay.

Does anyone else remember the predictions coming from the pacifist-camp regarding Afghanistan once we starting dropping bombs on Taliban locations? The next Vietnam and the next 1980's Russia.

princeton
08-11-2005, 02:02 PM
I do not remember what you said, Johnny. However, a lot of liberals were saying that Afghanistan would be the next Vietnam. Oh yes, they said it and they said it a lot in those days following 9-11. Some even protested. I find it hard to believe that you have forgotten this, but there has been a lot of other things happen since then and it is understandable.

Not only did a lot of liberals (not all... I try to refrain from labeling an entire group as others here do) say that it would be America's next Vietnam, they said we would get bogged down and killed lilke Russia back in the 1980's. When that did not happen, as these certain liberals predicted, they started saying it about Iraq. As ironic as it seems, the invasion of Iraq helped save face for their ridiculous and false predictions about Afghanistan. Why? Because it gave them something else to complain about and something else to predict. And they hoped everyone would forget about their erroneous predictions regarding Afghanistan (which you have forgotten).

I can do an internet search and find lots of errorneous predictions regarding Afghanistan. But I do not need to waste my time b/c I trust my own memory. I do not easily forget untrue stuff that flies from the mouths of others too quickly. And what will be the response to my words in this post? WMD in Iraq... that was untrue too. See... that is the only defense for what I have written regarding those errors that flew from the mouths of the liberals who said it. Deflect and change subject. I am not bothered by it though. It just tells me that there is no credible argument against the above-words.

I must say that the logic in this post probes new depths.

it's like a kid falling on a pair of scissors and stabbing himself in the chest, yet feeling that his mom was an idiot for telling him not to run with scissors because he'd poke his eye out

RedsBaron
08-11-2005, 02:05 PM
As for Afghanistan or Iraq being "the next Vietnam," while most people can recall the statement that "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" ( I realize I didn't get the quote quite right :) ), some people unfortunately remember the past so well that they expect it to be repeated.
In the 1960s, American policy makers, remembering too well the lessons of Munich and appeasement, choose to "support any friend" and "oppose any foe", and intervened in Vietnam. Well, every crisis was not Munich and every war was not World War II.
Since the Vietnam War, some people, prinicipally on the political left but including some isolationists on the political right, have made the argument every time America has intervened militarily anywhere that the conflict would be "another Vietnam." This wasn't the case with Desert Storm in 1991 and this wasn't the case in Afghanistan either (Yes, I heard those arguments made before each war).
However, inaccurate analogies have also been made by supporters of the Iraqi War as well. George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech attempted to suggest that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were modern day threats equivalent to the World War II Axis of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Iraq, Iran and North Korea are or were evil enough, and the prospect of any of those states having nuclear and/or biological weapons is no small worry, but they do not pose the same threat of world domination that the Axis Powers did 65 years ago.
There is much to learn from history, but history rarely repeats itself the same way.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 02:10 PM
I must say that the logic in this post probes new depths.

it's like a kid falling on a pair of scissors and stabbing himself in the chest, yet feeling that his mom was an idiot for telling him not to run with scissors because he'd poke his eye out

Personal attack? Hmmmm. Takes a lot of logic to attack at the level you must feel that you are at...

Wanna PM? I anxiously await your knowledge and logic. Come on...

No sense in gettin' personal, oh logical one. PM me. That is where the stuff you wrote belongs.

princeton
08-11-2005, 02:24 PM
Personal attack? Hmmmm. Takes a lot of logic to attack at the level you must feel that you are at...

Wanna PM? I anxiously await your knowledge and logic. Come on...

No sense in gettin' personal, oh logical one. PM me. That is where the stuff you wrote belongs.

I pm'd you as requested.

maybe we can discuss the difference between saying "X's most recent post is very illogical" and saying "X is an idiot"

Rojo
08-11-2005, 03:11 PM
Deflect and change subject.... Does anyone else remember the predictions coming from the pacifist-camp regarding Afghanistan once we starting dropping bombs on Taliban locations? The next Vietnam and the next 1980's Russia.

Do I need to add anything?

registerthis
08-11-2005, 03:22 PM
Do I need to add anything?
Nope, that pretty much says it all.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 03:52 PM
A feeding frenzy? I must have said something RIGHT. :laugh:

registerthis
08-11-2005, 04:04 PM
A feeding frenzy? I must have said something RIGHT. :laugh:Nope.

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 04:08 PM
Nope.

Yep. That one-liner (one-worder?) stuff is kinda easy to do. :D

registerthis
08-11-2005, 04:10 PM
Yep. That one-liner (one-worder?) stuff is kinda easy to do. :DYep.

;)

Rojo
08-11-2005, 04:31 PM
A feeding frenzy? I must have said something RIGHT. :laugh:

Your post was such a train wreck that it begged comment.

zombie-a-go-go
08-11-2005, 04:41 PM
Your post was such a train wreck that it begged comment.

This thread, as a whole, isn't much better.

Rojo
08-11-2005, 05:38 PM
This thread, as a whole, isn't much better.

A heard is only as fast as the least of its members.

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 05:53 PM
A heard is only as fast as the least of its members.

"Herd". Just sayin... ;)

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 06:01 PM
Your post was such a train wreck that it begged comment.

Sure it was... from your perspective. And to hear you say this is complimentary from my perspective. But I am a simpleton who voted the RIGHT way. I am not considered an elitist or anything of the sort.

But if it makes you guys feel better to have your cute little elitist-feeding-frenzy on me, then I am glad to oblige. Fire away, Rojo, fire away.

:)

Puffy
08-11-2005, 06:04 PM
But I am a simpleton who voted the RIGHT way. I am not considered an elitist or anything of the sort.



So, if you voted the RIGHT way, that would mean I voted the WRONG way in your book. And by that very saying aren't you being elitist?

Mutaman
08-11-2005, 06:17 PM
Back to more imprtant stuff: The politics of Merle Haggard:

From a 2001 interview:

Q: "People say your conservatism is a longing for an idealized past".

A: "I'm not a conservative; I'm a liberal! I used to open my shows with, "Welcome, friends, neighbors, and conservatives."

Rojo
08-11-2005, 06:20 PM
Sure it was... from your perspective.

Or from a logician's.

Anyhow, if drawing conclusions from the facts before me makes me an "elitist", so be it.

RedsBaron
08-11-2005, 06:34 PM
I think Hag has been all over the map politically. I believe he was friendly with Reagan, which would be understandable given that Reagan issued Haggard a pardon, if memory serves me right.
In a way, Haggard reminds me of Johnny Cash, who was sometimes claimed by the left and the right, but who really went his own way, regardless of labels-what was the line Kris Kristofferson wrote and later said applied to Cash-"He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction." I wouldn't call Haggard a doctrinaire liberal or conservative.
I would call Haggard a musical genius, a blue collar poet. I don't know if any country artist has ever surpassed his ability to both compose and then sing a song.

RedsBaron
08-11-2005, 06:44 PM
Haggard has an "editorial" on his web site, written in June 2003, in which he defends both the Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith.
I do know he has opposed the American intervention in Iraq.

Mutaman
08-11-2005, 11:51 PM
[QUOTE]I think Hag has been all over the map politically. I believe he was friendly with Reagan, which would be understandable given that Reagan issued Haggard a pardon, if memory serves me right.

Reagan did pardon Merle.


In a way, Haggard reminds me of Johnny Cash, who was sometimes claimed by the left and the right, but who really went his own way, regardless of labels-what was the line Kris Kristofferson wrote and later said applied to Cash-"He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction." I wouldn't call Haggard a doctrinaire liberal or conservative.

No contradiction about Kris. The older he gets, the more liberal he gets. He called Reagan "A Hood Ornament"


I would call Haggard a musical genius, a blue collar poet. I don't know if any country artist has ever surpassed his ability to both compose and then sing a song.

Well there was this guy, Hank Whats his name.

RedsBaron
08-12-2005, 07:55 AM
[QUOTE=RedsBaron]

Reagan did pardon Merle.



No contradiction about Kris. The older he gets, the more liberal he gets. He called Reagan "A Hood Ornament"



Well there was this guy, Hank Whats his name.
Kristofferson has always been quite left-of-center on virtually every political and cultural issue. Johnny Cash though was never one that seemed that easy to pigeonhole, and was a guy with an amazingly diverse set of friends.
Yeah, I didn't forget about Hank Williams, who was certainly the equal (actually more than the equal) of Merle Haggard as a composer. I just never thought that Hank was that good of a singer, not nearly as good as Hag. For that matter, Kristofferson is a good writer; I just don't care for him as a singer, but then I could say the same about Bob Dylan.

PickOff
08-12-2005, 07:09 PM
And many of the same things can be said for the ultra-liberal people in this great country. And both sides are good at accusing the other of things. If people think only one side does it, then these people are mistaken and blind to facts (not you, Caveat). It is also the nature of politics. Will those making these accusations admit to the fact that their own do the same thing? Probably not. Once again... it is politics.

Some of the ultra-liberal sayings: our president (they just called him Bush or W) is a criminal. Afghanistan will definitely be the next Vietnam. The whole world hates us and we are doomed like the once great Roman Empire. So on and so forth.

It works both ways (it always does in politics). Never make the assumption that it is just one side.

Of course there is extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. Does this mean we can ignore the extremists altogether? Does this mean that we should not consider the power that the extremists have when weighing the two? No.

The further point is that the examples in the post:

"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."
"If you do not support this war, you are an unpatriotic coward."
"If we do not do X, the terrorists will come and get us."
"We have mandate from the entire American population because 51% of the population agree with what we are saying."
"Stop disagreeing with us on appointed judicial and international positions and just rubber stamp everything we do because we are in charge"

indicates authoritarianism. While the examples you gave for the left indicate rebellion against percieved authoritarianism.

Big Donkey
08-13-2005, 03:21 AM
[QUOTE=Mutaman]
Kristofferson has always been quite left-of-center on virtually every political and cultural issue. Johnny Cash though was never one that seemed that easy to pigeonhole, and was a guy with an amazingly diverse set of friends.
Yeah, I didn't forget about Hank Williams, who was certainly the equal (actually more than the equal) of Merle Haggard as a composer. I just never thought that Hank was that good of a singer, not nearly as good as Hag. For that matter, Kristofferson is a good writer; I just don't care for him as a singer, but then I could say the same about Bob Dylan.

Ooh, let me in on this discussion. Being a HUGE fan of these country artists mentioned, and as someone who manages to squeeze in their songs on my show every chance I get, I like to think I am at least somewhat knowledgeable on them. First off, my own opinion agrees that Haggard is tops when it comes to singing and composition both in country history, though I acknowledge Hank Williams' timelessness and all the doors he opened in the genre. He was tops, till the Hag came along, in my opinion. Just wanted to get that out there.

Regarding the politics now... the assessment has been pretty spot on so far, especially on Kristofferson, there doesn't seen much to argue about on him. Haggard and Cash both went their own ways in many ways... I think the fact that they both were strongly patriotic is what's perceived by many as "conservatism" based on how that issue looks in today's politics. For what I'm worth (which isn't much ;)), I would say while the Hag and Man In Black both toed their own lines, they tended to be more on the liberal side than conservative on most issues. But not all.

On a somewhat related note... has anyone else noticed the "liberal" artists of Nashville have really gotten blackballed off of mainstream country radio over the years? Just something I've pondered at my station... you don't hear much from the Hag, Rodney Crowell, Rosanne Cash, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Marty Stuart, etc. these days. And it ain't because they aren't making new music; they certainly are. Even Vince Gill, as mainstream big as he was in the last 10-15 years, doesn't get much of his new stuff played. It's still high quality, honestly.

RedsBaron
08-13-2005, 09:26 AM
[QUOTE=RedsBaron]

Ooh, let me in on this discussion. Being a HUGE fan of these country artists mentioned, and as someone who manages to squeeze in their songs on my show every chance I get, I like to think I am at least somewhat knowledgeable on them. First off, my own opinion agrees that Haggard is tops when it comes to singing and composition both in country history, though I acknowledge Hank Williams' timelessness and all the doors he opened in the genre. He was tops, till the Hag came along, in my opinion. Just wanted to get that out there.

Regarding the politics now... the assessment has been pretty spot on so far, especially on Kristofferson, there doesn't seen much to argue about on him. Haggard and Cash both went their own ways in many ways... I think the fact that they both were strongly patriotic is what's perceived by many as "conservatism" based on how that issue looks in today's politics. For what I'm worth (which isn't much ;)), I would say while the Hag and Man In Black both toed their own lines, they tended to be more on the liberal side than conservative on most issues. But not all.

One a somewhat related note... has anyone else noticed the "liberal" artists of Nashville have really gotten blackballed off of mainstream country radio over the years? Just something I've pondered at my station... you don't hear much from the Hag, Rodney Crowell, Rosanne Cash, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Marty Stuart, etc. these days. And it ain't because they aren't making new music; they certainly are. Even Vince Gill, as mainstream big as he was in the last 10-15 years, doesn't get much of his new stuff played. It's still high quality, honestly.
Good post.
I agree with your comments about Hag and Cash (actually I agree with most of the post). I can remember that Cash refused a request from President Nixon to sing "Okie From Muskogee" at a White House performance. Cash explained that "Okie" was Haggard's song, not his, but I think Cash just didn't want to sing it, Presidential request or not.
I don't know that "liberal" country artists have really been "blackballed" off country radio. I think everyone you listed is at least in his or her 40s. Country radio play, along with videos, seems to be driven by physical appearance and youth these days. There is some really terrible music out there today, performed by artists who have limited talent, getting a lot of play because the artists are cute and/or young.
People such as Haggard, Marty Stuart, Emmylou Harris, Ricky Skaggs et al, also tend to perform a more traditional style of country music, which doesn't get much play.
On of my favorites, Martina McBride, is coming out with a new traditional sounding CD of nearly two dozen country standards, "Timeless." I won't be at all surprised if it doesn't do that well, despite Martina being a 4 time CMA female vocalist of the year winner.

RedsBaron
08-13-2005, 10:07 AM
Big Donkey's post also mentioned that Haggard and Cash may be perceived by some to be conservative because they werew both strongly patriotic. That's probably true, but unfortunate. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on patriotism. At the same time, I've read articles where people asserted that because Haggard wrote songs such as "Irma Jackson" that advocated racial tolerance, that meant he was a liberal; I don't believe that liberals have a monopoly on racial tolerance either.

westofyou
08-13-2005, 12:14 PM
On a somewhat related note... has anyone else noticed the "liberal" artists of Nashville have really gotten blackballed off of mainstream country radio over the years?

Texas Country trumps Nashville, give me Willie, Waylon, Shaver, Townes, Steve Earle, Charlie Robinson, Todd Snider just to name a few.

RedsBaron
08-13-2005, 02:51 PM
There may be no bigger icon in country music than Johnny Cash. A year or so ago CMT had a program on the 40 most influential male artists in country music history (that wasn't the exact title) and Cash was chosen no. 1, ahead of even Hank Williams ( I think Haggard was no. 6 or so).
Despite his icon status, in the last couple of decades of his life Cash received little radio play until his final album, which was so great, and which produced probably the greatest country video of all time ("Hurt"), that even mainstream country radio had to notice. Before that Cash had been producing great albums and winning awards, without hardly any airplay. He even took out an ad giving the bird to the Nashville establishment.
I don't think Cash's politics had anything to do with his lack of radio airplay. Rather, I think he was regarded as too old and yesterday's news, as country radio chased the next big (and young and photogenic) thing.
Why do Dolly Parton and Emmylou Harris get no radio airplay, while Grechten Wilson is everywhere?

Mutaman
08-13-2005, 02:56 PM
"The Night Hank Williams Came To Town"

Harry Truman was our president
A coke an burger cost you thirty cents
I was still in love with Mavis Brown
On the night Hank Williams came to town.

"I Love Lucy" debuted on TV
That was one big event we didn't see
'Cause no one stayed at home for miles around
It was the night Hank Williams came to town.

Mama ironed my shirt and daddy let me take the truck
I drove on out to Grapevine and picked old Mavis up
We hit that county line for one quick round
On the night HANK WILLIAMS came to town.

A thousand people sweltered in the gym
Then I heard someone whisper; "Hey, that's him"
That's when the crowd let out this deafening sound
It was the night Hank Williams came to town.

On and on he sang into the night
'Jambalaya', 'Cheatin' heart', 'I saw the light'
How'd they get Miss Audrey in that gown
On the night Hank Williams came to town.

Mavis had her picture made with Hank outside his car
She said; "He sure is humble for a Grand Ole Opry Star."
Mavis said: "Why don't we hang around
It ain't often that Hank Williams comes to town."

While Hank signed his autograph on Beaulah Rice's fan
Mavis got acquainted with the Driftin' Cowboys Band
The effect on all our lives was quite profound
On the night Hank Williams came to town.

westofyou
08-13-2005, 03:00 PM
A long time ago

No shoes on my feet

I walked ten miles of train track

To hear Hank Williams sing

His body was worn
But his spirit was free
And he sang every song
Looking right straight at me

Just a tramp on your street
You must understand
You got my soul at your feet
And my heart in your hand

No I don't have to pick
And I don't have to choose
I don't have to win
And I don't have to lose

And if I make any pay
I just throw it away
I don't count on tomorrow
I just live for today

Still you opened yourself
And you held me inside
You made a stray dog like me
Feel welcome tonight

I'm just a tramp on your street

Mutaman
08-13-2005, 03:52 PM
Speaking of Nashville, I think Hank and Merle have a lot more in common with the Clash and the Sex Pistols than they do with Toby Keith and Garth Brooks.

Big Donkey
08-13-2005, 11:40 PM
Texas Country trumps Nashville, give me Willie, Waylon, Shaver, Townes, Steve Earle, Charlie Robinson, Todd Snider just to name a few.

Preach it, brother. I'm a HUGE fan of the "Texas roadhouse" sound. I always thought Billy Joe Shaver was one of the most underappreciated acts around.

westofyou
08-13-2005, 11:55 PM
Preach it, brother. I'm a HUGE fan of the "Texas roadhouse" sound. I always thought Billy Joe Shaver was one of the most underappreciated acts around.

My wife is a HUGE fan of his son, in fact a photo she took was the cover of BJ's last Cd.

redsrule2500
08-13-2005, 11:58 PM
Impressive, didn't know his views until now.