Discussion:
Interview with Bruce Springsteen: Vote For Change
(too old to reply)
dlarsson
2004-09-23 05:08:36 UTC
Permalink
"WE'VE BEEN MISLED"
Springsteen talks about his conscience, and the nature of an artist and his
audience

By JANN S. WENNER
Rolling Stone Magazine



Do you see these Vote for Change concerts reaching undecided voters, or are
they more to rally the energy of people who have made up their minds?
I always felt that the musician's job, as I experienced it growing up, was
to provide an alternative source of information, a spiritual and social
rallying place, somewhere you went to have a communal experience.
I don't know if someone is going to run to the front of the stage and shout,
"I'm saved" or "I'm switching," but I'm going to try. I will be calling
anyone in a bow tie to come to the front of the stage, and I'll see what I
can do.


In a practical sense, what are you accomplishing?

First of all, we have a large group of musicians - Dave Matthews, the Dixie
Chicks, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., John Fogerty, James Taylor and many others - who
are coming together as a rallying point for change. I think the concerts are
going to be an energizing experience for all who come. Of course, I've met a
few people who, in a very friendly way, said they are not coming.
Basically, the concerts are raising money specifically for America Coming
Together to do very practical things: voter education, to go out and
mobilize voters, to go door-to-door, to assist voters getting to the polls.
They're the real foot soldiers who are going to get out the progressive
vote. That's probably the concerts' most important result.


Why did you stay away from being actively involved in partisan politics for
so long?

I didn't grow up in a very political household. The only politics I heard
was from my mother. I came home from grade school, where someone asked me if
I was Republican or Democrat, and I asked my mom, "Well, what are we?" She
said, "We're Democrats, 'cause Democrats are for the working people." I was
politicized by the Sixties, like most of the other people of that generation
at that time. I can remember doing a concert when I was probably in my very
late teens, helping to bus people down to Washington for an anti-war
demonstration.
But still, basically, I wanted to remain an independent voice for the
audience that came to my shows. We've tried to build up a lot of credibility
over the years, so that if we took a stand on something, people would
receive it with an open mind. Part of not being particularly partisan was
just an effort to remain a very thoughtful voice in my fans' lives.
I always liked being involved actively more at a grass-roots level, to act
as a partisan for a set of ideals: civil rights, economic justice, a sane
foreign policy, democracy. That was the position I felt comfortable coming
from.


Did it make you more credible if you avoided endorsing an individual?

It makes people less likely to marginalize you or pigeonhole you. Taking a
definite stand on this election has probably provided some extra definition
to the work I've been doing over the years. Our band is in pretty much what
I think of as the center. So if I wrote, say, "American Skin," which was
controversial, it couldn't easily be dismissed, because people had faith
that I was a measured voice. That's been worth something, and it's something
I don't want to lose. But we have drifted far from that center, and this is
a time to be very specific about where I stand.
Because you scrupulously avoided commercial use of your music, you built a
reputation for integrity and conscience. You must be aware of the potency of
that. I tried to build a reputation for thoughtfulness - that was the main
thing I was aiming for. I took the songs, the issues and the people I was
writing about seriously. I wanted it to be an entertaining but thoughtful
presentation. If there was a goal, it was as simple as that.


Now you're asking your audience to think even more about and explore what
else you're saying in your songs.

There are a portion of your fans who do quite a bit of selective listening.
That's the way that people use pop music, and that's part of the way it
rolls. The upside is that there has been an increased definition about the
things I've written about and where I stand on certain issues. That's been a
good thing.
I think that a more complicated picture of who you are as an artist and who
they are as an audience emerges. The example I've been giving is that I've
been an enormous fan of John Wayne all my life, although not a fan of his
politics. I've made a place for all those different parts of who he was. I
find deep inspiration and soulfulness in his work.
Your audience invests a lot in you, a very personal investment. There is
nothing more personal, in some ways, than the music people listen to. I know
from my own experience how you identify and relate to the person singing.
You have put your fingerprints on their imagination. That is very, very
intimate. When something cracks the mirror, it can be hard for the fan who
you have asked to identify with you.
Pop musicians live in the world of symbology. You live and die by the symbol
in many ways. You serve at the behest of your audience's imagination. It's a
complicated relationship. So you're asking people to welcome the complexity
in the interest of fuller and more honest communication.
The audience and the artist are valuable to one another as long as you can
look out there and see yourself, and they look back and see themselves.
That's asking quite a bit, but that is what happens. When that bond is
broken, by your own individual beliefs, personal thoughts or personal
actions, it can make people angry. As simple as that. You're asking for a
broader, more complicated relationship with the members of your audience
than possibly you've had in the past.


What do you stand to lose or gain from this as an artist?

As an artist and a citizen, you're gaining a chance to take part in moving
the country in the direction of its deepest ideals. Artists are always
speaking to people's freedoms. The shout for freedom and its implications
was implicit in rock & roll from its inception. Freedom can only find its
deepest meaning within a community of purpose. So as an individual I'm
getting to take a small part in that process.
As an artist, I'd like to have a broader understanding with all the
different segments of my audience and have a deeper experience when we come
out and play for people. I think that's something that could be gained, and
that's something worth doing. I tend to think a relatively small amount of
people might get turned off by it, 'cause I've tried to do this as
thoughtfully as possible, and because any relationship worth something can
take some rough-and-tumble. We'll see.


This has obviously been on your mind for a while. How did you come to this
decision?

I knew after we invaded Iraq that I was going to be involved in the
election. It made me angry. We started to talk about it onstage. I take my
three minutes a night for what I call my public-service announcement. We
talked about it almost every night on our summer tour.
I felt we had been misled. I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and
had frightened and manipulated the American people into war. And as the
saying goes, "The first casualty of war is truth." I felt that the Bush
doctrine of pre-emption was dangerous foreign policy. I don't think it has
made America safer.
Look at what is going on now: We are quickly closing in on what looks an
awful lot like the Vietnamization of the Iraq war. John McCain is saying we
could be there for ten or twenty years, and John Kerry says four years. How
many of our best young people are going to die between now and that time,
and what exactly for? Initially I thought I was going to take my acoustic
guitar and play in some theaters, find some organizations to work for and do
what I could. I was going to lend my voice for a change in the
administration and a change in the direction of the country.
Sitting on the sidelines would be a betrayal of the ideas I'd written about
for a long time. Not getting involved, just sort of maintaining my silence
or being coy about it in some way, just wasn't going to work this time out.
I felt that it was a very clear historical moment.


So there wasn't a moment of doubt in your mind about what the right thing to
do was?

It was something that gestated over a period of time, and as events unfolded
and the election got closer, it became clearer. I don't want to watch the
country devolve into an oligarchy, watch the division of wealth increase and
see another million people beneath the poverty line this year. These are all
things that have been the subtext of so much of my music, and to see the
country move so quickly to the right, so much further to the right than what
the president campaigned on - these are the things that removed whatever
doubt I may have had about getting involved.


Are you expecting to have your motives severely criticized?

That's just a part of what happens. You understand you're going to be
attacked in different ways. That just comes with it. That wasn't any
concern.


Do you think there is a climate of trying to intimidate artists and creative
people?

People are always trying to shut up the people they don't agree with -
through any means necessary, usually. There certainly was an attempt to
intimidate the Dixie Chicks. What happened to them was a result of war
fever - simple as that, war fever. They've handled it incredibly. They are
very smart, tough women, and they did not back down. But it's one of those
sad paradoxes that in theory we're fighting for freedom, and the first thing
people are willing to throw out is freedom of speech at home and castigate
anybody who is coming from a different point of view.
A lot of people think that you have no right as an artist to comment on this
or play a role in politics. I don't know if a lot of people think that. It
is something that is said. It's sort of part of the "Punch and Judy" show
that goes on when people disagree with what you're saying.


How much do you follow this election?

I think that Senator Kerry has long played it close to the vest, and that's
his style. However, the presidency is like the heavyweight championship:
They don't give it to you, you have to take it. He has a slow, deliberate
style that may not make for an electrifying campaigner, but it may make for
a very good president. But, of course, you have to get there.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this election is that the machinery
for taking something that is a lie and making it feel true, or taking
something that is true and making it feel like a lie - the selling machinery
has become very powerful. Senator Kerry has to make people pay attention to
the man behind the curtain. He has to take the risk and rip the veil off the
administration's deceptions. They are a hall of mirrors and a house of
cards.
For Senator Kerry, the good news is he has the facts on his side. The bad
news is that often in the current climate it can feel like that doesn't
matter, and he has to make it matter.


What do you think of how the election is being covered and conducted through
the press?

The press has let the country down. It's taken a very amoral stand, in that
essential issues are often portrayed as simply one side says this and the
other side says that. I think that Fox News and the Republican right have
intimidated the press into an incredible self-consciousness about appearing
objective and backed them into a corner of sorts where they have ceded some
of their responsibility and righteous power.
The Washington Post and New York Times apologies about their initial
reporting about Iraq not being critical enough were very revealing. I am a
dedicated Times reader, and I've found enormous sustenance from Paul Krugman
and Maureen Dowd on the op-ed page. There has been great reporting, but
there has also been some self-consciousness in some of the reporting about
the policy differences in this election.
This is going to be an issue after the election. I don't know if it began
with the Iraq War, but shortly thereafter there was an enormous amount of
Fox impersonators among what you previously thought were relatively sane
media outlets across the cable channels. It was very disheartening. The job
of the press is to tell the truth without fear or favor. We have to get back
to that standard.
The free press is supposed to be the lifeline and the blood of democracy.
That is the position of responsibility that those institutions have. Those
things are distorted by ratings and by money to where you're getting one
hour of the political conventions. No matter how staged they are, I think
they're a little more important than people eating bugs. I think that for
those few nights, the political life of the nation should take priority, and
the fact that it so casually does not means something is wrong. If you want
to watch people eating bugs, that's fine, I can understand that, too, but
let's do it on another night.
Real news is the news we need to protect our freedoms. You get tabloid news,
you get blood-and-guts news, you get news shot through with a
self-glorifying facade of patriotism, but people have to sift too much for
the news that we need to protect our freedoms. It should be gloriously
presented to the people on a nightly basis. The loss of some of the
soberness and seriousness of those institutions has had a devastating effect
upon people's ability to respond to the events of the day.


Do you think the press is leading us away from a fair and objective reading
of this election?

It's gotten very complicated, and I think it's blurred the truth. Whether
you like the Michael Moore film or not, a big part of its value was that it
showed how sanitized the war that we received on television at night is. The
fact that the administration refused to allow photographs of the flag-draped
coffins of returning dead, that the president hasn't shown up at a single
military funeral for the young people who gave their lives for his policies,
is disgraceful. You have the Swift-boat guys who have been pretty much
discredited, but there is an atmosphere that is created by so much willing
media exposure that it imparts them credibility.


What do you think the responsibility of the artist is in society?

There is a long tradition of the artist being involved in the life of the
nation. For me, it goes back to Woody Guthrie, James Brown, Curtis Mayfield
and Bob Dylan. These were all people who were alternative sources of
information. When Dylan hit in the mid-Sixties, he brought with him as true
a reading of what was going on as was out there.
People have the choice to not listen, but you have these business lobbyists
who affect the direction of public policy. For example, what is going on
with the assault-rifle ban is disgusting. The labor unions try to affect
policy in their fashion. Artists do it by talking and singing and addressing
the life of the mind.
I don't think the audience are lemmings. They get their various points of
view from a lot of places. I try to come in and be that alternative source
of information. I try to speak my case as directly as I can. If that makes
you angry, that's fine. The artist is there to open up discourse, to get
people thinking about American identity: Who are we? What do we fight for?
What do we stand for? I view these things as a fundamental part of my job,
and they have been for the past thirty years.


You've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be an American
and about our distinctive identity and position in the world. What is that
great thing about America that appeals to you that you are fighting for?

I felt I lived the prototypical American life - the way I grew up, the town
I grew up in, my family life. Things that I cared about, things that I
aspired to, they were just something that naturally came to me when I wrote.
I think that this particular election is, at the core, a debate about the
soul of the nation. I think we can move toward greater economic justice for
all of our citizens, or we cannot. I think we can move toward a sane,
responsible foreign policy, or we cannot. For me, these are issues that go
right to the heart of the spiritual life of the nation. That is something I
have written about. It cannot be abandoned and is worth fighting and
fighting and fighting for.
When you embark on a creative life, it has a dynamic of its own. You are
partially directing it, and you are partially riding the wave. If your work
is threaded into people's lives and into the life of your town, your family,
your country, then you're like everybody else - you're at the mercy of
events, you're borne along on the currents of time and history.
It's sort of "Gee, I came from this place, I wrote songs about these things
that mattered to me." I was serious about them. I was serious about taking
what I had written and having some practical impact, which we started to do
in the early Eighties. Nothing fancy. I can play my guitar, I can make a few
bucks, I can bring some attention to some folks doing the real work and have
some small impact in the towns we visit. You move down the road and it just
sort of . . . happens.


Did you feel the call of your nation or the call of your community?

I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't view myself as that kind of valuable.


So you feel the call from your heart?

Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience. I
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
you!" he yelled at me through the car window. That's about the size of it:
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into some
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
jweber
2004-09-23 06:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience. I
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into some
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
mcnews
2004-09-23 12:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience.
I
Post by dlarsson
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into
some
Post by dlarsson
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
what important?
Al
2004-09-23 12:52:10 UTC
Permalink
"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who
to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars?
Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very
rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

--Alice Cooper

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40127
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my
audience.
I
Post by dlarsson
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into
some
Post by dlarsson
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
dlarsson
2004-09-24 00:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
We sleep all day, we play music at night and very
rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
--Alice Cooper
The Washington Journal was wrong about Iraq,
wrong about Bush's reasons to attack Iraq.

Those who are thinking for themselves and
not reading the Washington Journal are likely
to be a whole lot closer to the truth.




- Derek

================================
Al
2004-09-24 03:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by Al
We sleep all day, we play music at night and very
rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
--Alice Cooper
The Washington Journal was wrong about Iraq,
wrong about Bush's reasons to attack Iraq.
Those who are thinking for themselves and
not reading the Washington Journal are likely
to be a whole lot closer to the truth.
Those who are thinking for themselves can decide on their own what they are
for and against; and they don't need some has-been, self-important rock star
trying to shove leftist political propaganda down their throats. As Laura
Ingraham says, "Shut up and sing!"
dlarsson
2004-09-25 04:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Those who are thinking for themselves can decide on their own what they are
for and against; and they don't need some has-been, self-important rock
star trying to shove leftist political propaganda down their throats. As
Laura Ingraham says, "Shut up and sing!"
1. Speaking out against an unnecessary war, that was based on
demonstrable and obvious lies, and speaking out for the
environment,
public schools, health care, jobs, job security, responsible
balanced budget,
fair taxation policy not shifted for the rich, is not
"leftist political propaganda"
it is both common sense and a matter of economic survival.

2. And we sure as hell don't need some inexperienced,
unqualified, dumb, juvenile, weight-lifting-freak, Hollywood
B-movie actor like Arnold Swartzhenagger shoving
right-wing propaganda down our throats and running for office.

Laura Ingraham is exposed as a hypocrite as well as yourself
UsurperTom
2004-09-25 05:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Laura Ingraham is exposed as a hypocrite as well as yourself
What did Laura Ingraham and the poster you replied to do that goes against the
values they espouse?
Tom
dlarsson
2004-09-25 05:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
Post by dlarsson
Laura Ingraham is exposed as a hypocrite as well as yourself
What did Laura Ingraham and the poster you replied to do that goes against the
values they espouse?
They condemn and scorn Celebrities and "Hollywood"
(such as Springsteen or the talented Barbara Streisand ) for
having social conscious and expressing their views, while
at the same time are 100% behind none other than
an unqualified, moronic, weight-lifting, HOLLYWOOD Actor
(and Celebrity) Arnold Schartzenegger for not only
just expressing his views but running for office.

So, if its right-wing, pro-war, banana-republicanism than it's okay

If its progressive, democratic policy than it is no good - just "shut up
and sing".

The hypocrisy and double-standard is obvious to anyone with a brain.
Al
2004-09-25 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
Post by dlarsson
Laura Ingraham is exposed as a hypocrite as well as yourself
What did Laura Ingraham and the poster you replied to do that goes against the
values they espouse?
They are 100% behind none other than
an unqualified, moronic, weight-lifting, HOLLYWOOD Actor
(and Celebrity) Arnold Schartzenegger for not only
just expressing his views but running for office.
I am? Have you ever met me? Can you read minds, now? You brought up
Arnold Schwarzenegger (learn how to spell, please), I didn't.
The hypocrisy and double-standard is obvious to anyone with a brain.
How is either Laura Ingraham, or myself a hypocrite? I posted my own
OPINION, which is that I don't need Bruce Springsteen to tell me what to be
for or against. Her talk show is an OPINION show. Her books contain her
OPINIONS. She is conservative. That means that she writes about, and
supports conservative candidates and issues, and not liberal ones.

If she supports Schwarzenegger on issues where he is conservative, but
doesn't support Springsteens's "We hate Bush" tour, or agree with what's on
Streisand's website, exactly how does that make her a hypocrite? In your
world, is she required to agree with every liberal in Hollywood or the music
industry, just because Arnold used to make movies? Where is this double
standard?

Derek, if nothing else, you are a great source of comic relief to this
newsgroup. Please don't ever stop posting here, in your efforts to
enlighten the masses!
dlarsson
2004-09-26 02:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
How is either Laura Ingraham, or myself a hypocrite? I posted my own
If she supports Schwarzenegger on issues where he is conservative, but
doesn't support Springsteens's "We hate Bush" tour, or agree with what's
on Streisand's website, exactly how does that make her a hypocrite?
She tells celebrities that they have no right to express their views
and to just "shut and sing" - unless they are right-wing hacks
like Schwarzenegger. Then you don't hear any anti-Hollywoood
talk do you?
Al
2004-09-26 02:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by Al
How is either Laura Ingraham, or myself a hypocrite? I posted my own
If she supports Schwarzenegger on issues where he is conservative, but
doesn't support Springsteens's "We hate Bush" tour, or agree with what's
on Streisand's website, exactly how does that make her a hypocrite?
She tells celebrities that they have no right to express their views
and to just "shut and sing" - unless they are right-wing hacks
like Schwarzenegger. Then you don't hear any anti-Hollywoood
talk do you?
Nope, wrong again. She doesn't tell anyone they have no right to express
their opinions. She does, however, disagreee with liberals. Even you
should be able to you understand the difference, but maybe I'm giving you
too much credit.

Go drink some more DNC Kool-Aid.
dlarsson
2004-09-28 00:15:16 UTC
Permalink
She doesn't tell anyone they have no right to express their opinions.
LOL ...
I think her own choice of words: "Shut up and Sing"
and her systematic anti-Hollywood diatribes
( minus Schwarzenegger of course) is quite clear.

Clearly hypocritical


- Derek
Al
2004-09-28 03:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
She doesn't tell anyone they have no right to express their opinions.
LOL ...
I think her own choice of words: "Shut up and Sing"
and her systematic anti-Hollywood diatribes
( minus Schwarzenegger of course) is quite clear.
Clearly hypocritical
- Derek
Please cite specific examples where Laura Ingraham has specifically stated
that liberals _have no right_ to express their opinions. In case you didn't
get it the first time, she is a CONSERVATIVE talk show host - that means she
DISAGREES with liberals, so she is never going to be on the same page as
Streisand, Springsteen, or any of the performers on the "We Hate Bush 2004"
tour. To my knowledge, she has never stated that liberals do not have the
right to disagree with her. If you've read her book, and can give any
specific evidence to the contrary, please post it.
mrm
2004-10-08 15:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Please cite specific examples where Laura Ingraham has specifically stated
that liberals _have no right_ to express their opinions. In case you didn't
get it the first time, she is a CONSERVATIVE talk show host - that means she
DISAGREES with liberals, so she is never going to be on the same page as
Streisand, Springsteen, or any of the performers on the "We Hate Bush 2004"
tour. To my knowledge, she has never stated that liberals do not have the
right to disagree with her. If you've read her book, and can give any
specific evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Today, Laura Ingraham called Bruce Springsteen "un-American." If
that's not saying that he doesn't have a right to express his views, I
don't know what is.
Al
2004-10-08 16:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrm
Post by Al
Please cite specific examples where Laura Ingraham has specifically stated
that liberals _have no right_ to express their opinions. In case you didn't
get it the first time, she is a CONSERVATIVE talk show host - that means she
DISAGREES with liberals, so she is never going to be on the same page as
Streisand, Springsteen, or any of the performers on the "We Hate Bush 2004"
tour. To my knowledge, she has never stated that liberals do not have the
right to disagree with her. If you've read her book, and can give any
specific evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Today, Laura Ingraham called Bruce Springsteen "un-American." If
that's not saying that he doesn't have a right to express his views, I
don't know what is.
I guess you don't. Re-read the question. Also, please provide a source for
this quote or a link.
BlackMonk
2004-10-10 19:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrm
Post by Al
Please cite specific examples where Laura Ingraham has specifically stated
that liberals _have no right_ to express their opinions. In case you didn't
get it the first time, she is a CONSERVATIVE talk show host - that means she
DISAGREES with liberals, so she is never going to be on the same page as
Streisand, Springsteen, or any of the performers on the "We Hate Bush 2004"
tour. To my knowledge, she has never stated that liberals do not have the
right to disagree with her. If you've read her book, and can give any
specific evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Today, Laura Ingraham called Bruce Springsteen "un-American." If
that's not saying that he doesn't have a right to express his views, I
don't know what is.
What an un-American thing for her to say.
Solostar1A
2004-10-10 20:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Today, Laura Ingraham called >Bruce Springsteen "un-American."
1) What un-American thing does Laura assert Bruce has done?
2) What does this have to do with rec.music.beatles?
DJ
2004-09-24 16:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who
to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars?
Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very
rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
--Alice Cooper
Um....seems like YOU are listening to a rock star on the topic of
whether or not you should listen to rock stars' opinions. There's
some irony here.....

-DJ
Al
2004-09-24 16:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DJ
Post by Al
"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who
to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars?
Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very
rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
--Alice Cooper
Um....seems like YOU are listening to a rock star on the topic of
whether or not you should listen to rock stars' opinions. There's
some irony here.....
-DJ
Wrong. I posted a statement that happens to agree with my own opinion,
which is that I don't need celebrities to tell me how to vote. Understand
the difference?

Bruce Springsteen's political opinions are no more or less valid than my
own. I don't need to go see the "We Hate Bush" Tour to decide what I'm for
and against.
BlackMonk
2004-09-25 02:13:52 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't take the advice of either Bush or Kerry about what I should
listen to.
Martin Hofner
2004-09-23 13:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
Limousine lefties expecting fans of their art to suck up to their politics.

And Mr Rolling Stone, the consummate journalist.

Made my rice crispies snap, crackle and laugh outrageously.
HubbubBub
2004-09-23 13:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience.
I
Post by dlarsson
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into
some
Post by dlarsson
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
Actually, he sounds pretty humble about it to me; it's some of his
fans that overblow his image.
Mister Charlie
2004-09-23 13:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my
audience.
Post by jweber
I
Post by dlarsson
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump
into
Post by jweber
some
Post by dlarsson
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
jweber
2004-09-23 14:35:01 UTC
Permalink
really aren't that important.
Post by Mister Charlie
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
I always liked Springsteen and what he ws about- especially his marathon
concerts that gave his fans more than their money's worth.

It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?

What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.

Did Springsteen ever stop and think about the fans who simply like him for
his music? Attending this concert(s?) makes it appear that you support his
political beliefs. What if you're pro-Kerry, but have grown up with
Springsteen's music for 30 years and enjoyed it?

Does a Springsteen fan force themself to sit at home the night of this
concert because they feel uncomfortable? No fan of *music* should even have
to deal with that.

It's for that reason that I think Bruce Springsteen is so into himself. His
political beliefs are too strong and belong in his mansion- not on the
stage.
Mister Charlie
2004-09-23 14:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
really aren't that important.
Post by Mister Charlie
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
I always liked Springsteen and what he ws about- especially his marathon
concerts that gave his fans more than their money's worth.
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Did Springsteen ever stop and think about the fans who simply like him for
his music? Attending this concert(s?) makes it appear that you support his
political beliefs. What if you're pro-Kerry, but have grown up with
Springsteen's music for 30 years and enjoyed it?
Does a Springsteen fan force themself to sit at home the night of this
concert because they feel uncomfortable? No fan of *music* should even have
to deal with that.
It's for that reason that I think Bruce Springsteen is so into
himself. His
Post by jweber
political beliefs are too strong and belong in his mansion- not on the
stage.
So many performers express political beliefs on stage (remember the
Dixie Chicks?). It IS their right of free speech. Fans are free to be
offended or ignore the comments.
dlarsson
2004-09-24 01:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Quite wrong! Terribly wrong.
______________________


What is "horrible and embarassing" here is a having
a jackass president who:

1) "wins" an election by seeking to obstruct the count of all legal
votes

2) has the speaking, verbal, and logic skills of a 9 year old (or
worse)

3) began his term with a record budget surplus and then
created on his watch a massive $500 billion dollar budget debt
( approx 1.5 billion dollars lost each and every day )

4) began his term with only 3% unemployment and is now
the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to have less
people working on his watch than at work when he began.

5) has revoked the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty,
and has started a brand new Global Nuclear Arms tensions
on his watch.

6) presided over the worst Intelligence failure and lapse in
U.S. History - despite both foreign and domestic intelligence
warnings in advance, and his own damn Presidential Daily Briefing
even boldly declaring: "Bin Laden Plans To Strike The U.S."

7) starts an immoral and illegal war based on lies, exaggerations,
and a false substitution of who our most "grave threat" was
which needlessly kills 1,100 U.S. Soldiers, mames 7,000,
kills 25,000 - 40,000 totally innocent civilians (not related to
Sept. 11)
and wastes $200 billion dollars of U.S. Taxpayer money
an has NO END IN SIGHT.

8) has violated the Geneva Conventions, engaged in the
creation of detention camps, torture, and the repression
of customary civil liberties

9) deleted our existing environmental laws and allowed
Oil and Energy companies to go out and make our
water and air a whole lot dirtier and unsafe.

10) promotes monopolization and outsourcing of U.S. Jobs

11) sat by and done nothing while 45,000,000 people have lost
their Health Insurance during his term

12) refused to even testify before the Sept 11 Commission
and would only agree to talk to them provided
a) Dick Cheney was there with him
b) nothing they said could be included in the report

13) had 40 pages of the Congression report on Sept. 11
deleted to protect Saudi Arabia ( 15 of the 19 hijackers
as well as Osama Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia)

14) after four years, despite worldwide support,
FAILED to ever get Osama Bin Laden and isn't even trying

15) created a Civil War, unspeakable tragedy, carnage, and total chaos
in a weak country that has solved nothing abd made the
Al Qeada and Terrorism situation much much worse

16) has shrunk the Middle-Class, expanded Poverty, and
and given "big government" welfare to Enron and Halliburton
and let them off the hook for ripping off consumers and
War Profiteering.

17) has made the U.S. poorer, more isolated, more at risk,
and the World itself more divided and dangerous.

18) has transformed our beloved United States into the most
hated and distrusted country on the planet.

19) is trying to win re-election based on funding and sponsering
a phony hatchet-job group to attack a courageous,
purple-heart,bronze-star, military leader that tells the truth
( something Bush never was and never will be )


Bush's record of performance is what is horrible and embarrassing.


The fact that Bruce Springsteen has a conscious and wants to
get people to think about the election and encourage them to
get out and Vote For Change is hardly a radical step to take.

When you are on a road to disaster - you change course.

Music, Art, Rock has always been about cutting through
social repression and reaching a higher form of humanity.

Bruce isn't alone here and any fan that connects or relates
to the Beatles and/or Lennon and Harrison and what they
stood for - should be behind him 100%



- Derek

================================
jweber
2004-09-24 03:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Quite wrong! Terribly wrong.
What is "horrible and embarassing" here is a having
<snip endless lines of text here>

Nah. I think Springsteen's political agenda is full of shit. Simple as that.

-John W.
http://www.johnnydupe.com
dlarsson
2004-09-25 01:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Nah. I think Springsteen's political agenda is full of shit. Simple as that.
Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft & Rumsfeld are the political agenda
that is full of shit here.
UsurperTom
2004-09-24 05:57:21 UTC
Permalink
the Beatles and/or Lennon and Harrison and what they stood for
We know what John stood for (albeit for only a brief interlude), but what did
the Beatles (especially George whose name you felt the need to invoke) "stand
for?" You once admitted that the only book about George that you read was
Giuliano's severely flawed "Dark Horse" and not even that book mentions his
politics.
Tom
dlarsson
2004-09-25 01:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
the Beatles and/or Lennon and Harrison and what they stood for
We know what John stood for (albeit for only a brief interlude), but what did
the Beatles (especially George whose name you felt the need to invoke) "stand
for?"
George organized the Bangladesh concert and was firmly
in the anti-Vietnam War camp.

Harrison also tried to look beyond the "material world"
and, like Lennon, cared about social justice and humanitarian
concerns.

All the Beatles, like Springsteen, fell into that category
with Lennon & Harrison being the most demonstrable
about it.



- Derek

================================
UsurperTom
2004-09-25 04:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
George organized the Bangladesh concert
Even Richard Nixon recognized Bangladesh's independence. The Bangladesh
concert was a really a charity for starving people rather than a political
event.
Post by dlarsson
Harrison also tried to look beyond the "material world"
I know people who are into Eastern religions who are political conservatives.
The US Navy used Transcendental Meditation in training exercises. George's
religion was centered toward self-improvement instead of being active in the
political arena. If you read Olivia's foreword in the Rolling Stone tribute,
you'll find references to warfare in George's spiritual beliefs.
Fundamentalist Hindus are virulently anti-Muslim as we recently saw in Nepal.
Tom
dlarsson
2004-09-25 05:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
If you read Olivia's foreword in the Rolling Stone tribute,
you'll find references to warfare in George's spiritual beliefs.
Obviously you missed the point.

Harrison was outspoken against the Vietnam War
(and, in fact, Lennon's strongest ally on the subject )

Harrison was not "anti-Muslim" or anti-anything
(aside from anti-violence)
UsurperTom
2004-09-25 06:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Harrison was outspoken against the Vietnam War
Other than the joint statement from all from all four of them in 1966, what did
George say?
Post by dlarsson
Harrison was not "anti-Muslim" or anti-anything (aside from anti-violence)
I didn't say that although his support for Bangladesh was motivated partially
by India's hostility to Pakistan. I was pointing out that Hinduism is not a
pacifistic religion. After Nepalese hostages were beheaded in Iraq, mobs of
Hindus threw stones and set fires at mosques, vandalized Arab embassies and
media outlets and burned Korans.
Tom
ivanaveekoff2004
2004-09-25 01:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Post by jweber
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Quite wrong! Terribly wrong.
______________________
What is "horrible and embarassing" here is a having
1) "wins" an election by seeking to obstruct the count of all legal
votes
2) has the speaking, verbal, and logic skills of a 9 year old (or
worse)
3) began his term with a record budget surplus and then
created on his watch a massive $500 billion dollar budget debt
( approx 1.5 billion dollars lost each and every day )
4) began his term with only 3% unemployment and is now
the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to have less
people working on his watch than at work when he began.
5) has revoked the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty,
and has started a brand new Global Nuclear Arms tensions
on his watch.
6) presided over the worst Intelligence failure and lapse in
U.S. History - despite both foreign and domestic intelligence
warnings in advance, and his own damn Presidential Daily Briefing
even boldly declaring: "Bin Laden Plans To Strike The U.S."
7) starts an immoral and illegal war based on lies, exaggerations,
and a false substitution of who our most "grave threat" was
which needlessly kills 1,100 U.S. Soldiers, mames 7,000,
kills 25,000 - 40,000 totally innocent civilians (not related to
Sept. 11)
and wastes $200 billion dollars of U.S. Taxpayer money
an has NO END IN SIGHT.
8) has violated the Geneva Conventions, engaged in the
creation of detention camps, torture, and the repression
of customary civil liberties
9) deleted our existing environmental laws and allowed
Oil and Energy companies to go out and make our
water and air a whole lot dirtier and unsafe.
10) promotes monopolization and outsourcing of U.S. Jobs
11) sat by and done nothing while 45,000,000 people have lost
their Health Insurance during his term
12) refused to even testify before the Sept 11 Commission
and would only agree to talk to them provided
a) Dick Cheney was there with him
b) nothing they said could be included in the report
13) had 40 pages of the Congression report on Sept. 11
deleted to protect Saudi Arabia ( 15 of the 19 hijackers
as well as Osama Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia)
14) after four years, despite worldwide support,
FAILED to ever get Osama Bin Laden and isn't even trying
15) created a Civil War, unspeakable tragedy, carnage, and total chaos
in a weak country that has solved nothing abd made the
Al Qeada and Terrorism situation much much worse
16) has shrunk the Middle-Class, expanded Poverty, and
and given "big government" welfare to Enron and Halliburton
and let them off the hook for ripping off consumers and
War Profiteering.
17) has made the U.S. poorer, more isolated, more at risk,
and the World itself more divided and dangerous.
18) has transformed our beloved United States into the most
hated and distrusted country on the planet.
19) is trying to win re-election based on funding and sponsering
a phony hatchet-job group to attack a courageous,
purple-heart,bronze-star, military leader that tells the truth
( something Bush never was and never will be )
Bush's record of performance is what is horrible and embarrassing.
The fact that Bruce Springsteen has a conscious and wants to
get people to think about the election and encourage them to
get out and Vote For Change is hardly a radical step to take.
When you are on a road to disaster - you change course.
Music, Art, Rock has always been about cutting through
social repression and reaching a higher form of humanity.
Bruce isn't alone here and any fan that connects or relates
to the Beatles and/or Lennon and Harrison and what they
stood for - should be behind him 100%
- Derek
================================
C'mon now, Derek -- tell us how you REALLY feel!
goFab.com
2004-09-24 01:55:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:35:01 GMT, in article
Post by jweber
really aren't that important.
Post by Mister Charlie
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
I always liked Springsteen and what he ws about- especially his marathon
concerts that gave his fans more than their money's worth.
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Did Springsteen ever stop and think about the fans who simply like him for
his music? Attending this concert(s?) makes it appear that you support his
political beliefs. What if you're pro-Kerry, but have grown up with
Springsteen's music for 30 years and enjoyed it?
Does a Springsteen fan force themself to sit at home the night of this
concert because they feel uncomfortable? No fan of *music* should even have
to deal with that.
It's for that reason that I think Bruce Springsteen is so into himself. His
political beliefs are too strong and belong in his mansion- not on the
stage.
Springsteen is just another washed-up celebrity who's dying to matter. He hasn't
made a listenable record since 1979. This is nothing more than his bid for
relevance, like the exploitative, cringe-worthy album he recorded after 9/11.
Michael Moore proved there was a ready-made audience of idiots who like to get
into an ecstastic state bashing the President, and he's justy trying to tap the
same lucrative vein. Same with Jann Wenner, only more derivatively. If
Springsteen were really a concerned humanist, how about organizing a "Concert
Against Live Decapitation"?
dlarsson
2004-09-24 02:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by goFab.com
If
Springsteen were really a concerned humanist, how about organizing a "Concert
Against Live Decapitation"?
We never had Americans decapitated abroad until
BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

When we have a junk president that kicks out
the weapons inspectors team,
to attack other countries that did not attack us,
and kill their people, steal the natural resources (OIL),
creating chaos, civil war, and making terrorism worse

well .. you then have to expect Americans will become
targets themselves in a way that never were before.

This won't change until you get rid of Bush & Cheney



- Derek

================================
UsurperTom
2004-09-24 05:59:58 UTC
Permalink
We never had Americans decapitated abroad until BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
You're going to claim that Bush invented the practice of beheading? FYI
Americans have been murdered in terrorist attacks long before George W. Bush
was president.
Tom
dlarsson
2004-09-25 01:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
We never had Americans decapitated abroad until BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
You're going to claim that Bush invented the practice of beheading?
I did not say Bush "invented" anything.

His reckless policies and pro-bloodshed behavior has led to
unprecedented hatred (worldwide) against the United States
and American citizens like nothing before.

He is repsonsible for that.
Post by UsurperTom
Americans have been murdered in terrorist attacks long before George W. Bush
was president.
Of course, but we did not see ritualisitc beheadings on an
ever increasing basis (as well as daily car-bombing attacks )

Wake up!



- Derek

================================
goFab.com
2004-09-25 02:37:26 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Sep 2004 05:59:58 GMT, in article
Post by UsurperTom
We never had Americans decapitated abroad until BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
You're going to claim that Bush invented the practice of beheading? FYI
Americans have been murdered in terrorist attacks long before George W. Bush
was president.
Tom
I seem to remember hundreds of Marines dying in Lebanon -- and we did nothing.
Check that, we ran away.

I seem to remember dozens of sailors slaughtered on the Cole -- and we did
nothing.

I seem to remember an old American man in a wheelchair being pushed from an
ocean liner -- and we did nothing.

I seem to remember the bodies of American boys being dragged through the streets
and dismembered in the Mog -- and we did nothing. Check that -- we ran away.

The first thing that's killing these poor people is cowardice past, on the part
of former administrations, and cowardice present, on the part of other nations
who give in to this type of pressure.

The second thing that's killing these people is John Kerry, and his offer of a
"sensitive" treatment of terror -- holding out the promise of giving the
Islamists what they want -- regime change in the White House to an
administration that will be more "sensitive" to the needs of these fascist
fanatics. It is Kerry breaking ranks on the war against terror that is
encouraging these despicable acts.

But he's not going to be President, so it doesn't matter.

I just wish the administration were more competent at selling its diplomatic
successes in the war on terror -- which are many. Who would have thought we'd
have an effective anti-terror alliance with Pakistan? That Libya would be
turning around? That Saudi Arabia would be aggressively pursuing terrorist
cells on its own soil? That the terrorist Yassir Arafat would have become
largely irrelevant and marginalized? That an Iraqi Prime Minister would be
addressing the U.S. Congress? These are stunning changes from the way of the
world on 9/10/2001.
Mister Charlie
2004-09-25 03:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by goFab.com
On 24 Sep 2004 05:59:58 GMT, in article
Post by UsurperTom
We never had Americans decapitated abroad until BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
You're going to claim that Bush invented the practice of beheading?
FYI
Post by goFab.com
Post by UsurperTom
Americans have been murdered in terrorist attacks long before George W. Bush
was president.
Tom
I seem to remember hundreds of Marines dying in Lebanon -- and we did nothing.
Check that, we ran away.
I seem to remember dozens of sailors slaughtered on the Cole -- and we did
nothing.
I seem to remember an old American man in a wheelchair being pushed from an
ocean liner -- and we did nothing.
I seem to remember the bodies of American boys being dragged through the streets
and dismembered in the Mog -- and we did nothing. Check that -- we ran away.
The first thing that's killing these poor people is cowardice past, on the part
of former administrations, and cowardice present, on the part of other nations
who give in to this type of pressure.
The second thing that's killing these people is John Kerry, and his offer of a
"sensitive" treatment of terror -- holding out the promise of giving the
Islamists what they want -- regime change in the White House to an
administration that will be more "sensitive" to the needs of these fascist
fanatics. It is Kerry breaking ranks on the war against terror that is
encouraging these despicable acts.
You're as nuts as derek.
goFab.com
2004-09-25 15:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
Mister Charlie
2004-09-25 16:51:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:38:20 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
You would consider it so. You define the very word knee-jerk.
goFab.com
2004-09-26 00:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:38:20 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
You would consider it so. You define the very word knee-jerk.
Get a job, Charlie. Please.
Mister Charlie
2004-09-26 07:34:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:51:22 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:38:20 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
You would consider it so. You define the very word knee-jerk.
Get a job, Charlie. Please.
Beyond a cheap attempt at an insult that has no sting, what does that
have to do with the discussion? Get a clue, Lar. Please.
goFab.com
2004-09-27 15:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:51:22 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:38:20 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
You would consider it so. You define the very word knee-jerk.
Get a job, Charlie. Please.
Beyond a cheap attempt at an insult that has no sting, what does that
have to do with the discussion? Get a clue, Lar. Please.
So now you're channelling Feekle, too? Never let it be said that you don't
aspire to greatness. :o)
Mister Charlie
2004-09-27 19:32:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:34:01 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:51:22 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:38:20 -0700, in article
Post by Mister Charlie
You're as nuts as derek.
That's quite a compliment, coming from you ! :o)
You would consider it so. You define the very word knee-jerk.
Get a job, Charlie. Please.
Beyond a cheap attempt at an insult that has no sting, what does that
have to do with the discussion? Get a clue, Lar. Please.
So now you're channelling Feekle, too? Never let it be said that you don't
aspire to greatness. :o)
The Merk has no cornered market on the truth.
dlarsson
2004-09-25 04:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by goFab.com
The second thing that's killing these people is John Kerry, and his offer of a
"sensitive" treatment of terror -- holding out the promise of giving the
Islamists what they want -- regime change in the White House to an
administration that will be more "sensitive" to the needs of these fascist
fanatics. It is Kerry breaking ranks on the war against terror that is
encouraging these despicable acts.
LOL ... what total ignorant, childish, reich-wing nonsense
and stupidity. You sound like Ann Coulter

It is Bush who has never pursued Osama Bin Laden
leaving it up to the Afghan Warlords (his friends)
to "go and get him" in Afghanistan instead of
using the U.S. Special Forces to finish him off.

Then he withdrew troops from Afghanistan to
start a bullshit war against the wrong country
(the only one in the region with no Al Qeada links
much less any role in the 9-11 attack ).

Bush let Bin Laden go free.

Bush is the guy who did not even listen to his own terrorism expert
Richard Clarke and then demoted him off to a sub-cabinet position
rather than put into effect his anti-Al Qaeda strategy in 2001.
Gee, that made sense!

Bush is the guy who totally ignored the Hart-Rudman Commission.

Bush is the guy who did absolutely nothing after receiving
Daily Briefings with the title: "Bin Laden Plans To Strike U.S."
Then, despite being president for only 6 months - he decided
to take the entire month of August off on vacation in Crawford,
Texas at taxpayers expense while the terrorists moved into
their positions.

Bush is the guy who sat in a classroom reading
"My Pet Goat" after the SECOND tower was hit
(as well as the first) instead of taking the action
of scrambling the jets to curtail the damage.

Bush is the guy who said this statement:

"I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is and
I really don't care. It's not that important.
It's not our priority."
-George W. Bush, March 13, 2003


Bush is the guy who then switched attention away from
fighting terrorism, away from fighting Al Qaeda,
away from Bin Laden to go and launch an illegal and
unjustified invasion and occupation of a militarily weak,
Oil-Rich country - that has created horrific carnage, chaos,
civil war, and made our terrorism problem much worse.

This bastard Bush is not making us safer.

He has screwed up everything he has done
and lied about it the entire way.

Bush also has protected Saudi Arabia the whole time,
even deleting the pages about them from the Congressional
report. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Wake - Up

What Bush has done in Iraq is an historic tradegy and failure.

He has protected and coddled the true terrorists while
he invents "mushroom clouds" about Iraq and alienates
all of our allies in the fight against terrorism with a
unnecessary, phony, fraudulent war.

This man ain't making us safer. He is a total screw up.

We need a new direction, a new military strategy, new diplomacy
and most of all actual honesty and pre-planning in our foreign policy.

Kerry can do that.
Bush is a proven failure and a proven fraud.




- Derek

================================
UsurperTom
2004-09-25 05:09:52 UTC
Permalink
instead of using the U.S. Special Forces to finish him off.
There are Special Forces along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Then he withdrew troops from Afghanistan
No resources were diverted from Afghanistan and the war against al Qaida. 9-11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured only days before the first shots
were fired in Iraq.
the only one in the region with no Al Qeada links
Read the indictment of Osama bin Laden by Bill Clinton's Justice Department in
1998. Also, the Clinton administration justified bombing the asprin factory in
Sudan by saying that Iraqi scientists worked with al Qaida to produce chemical
weapons.
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
That doesn't mean the Saudi government was involved in 9-11. The other
hijackers were from Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen as well
as a would be hijacker from Morocco. The shoe bomber was British. I suppose
you don't think the US should invade those countries instead of Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Tom
dlarsson
2004-09-25 06:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
instead of using the U.S. Special Forces to finish him off.
There are Special Forces along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

In Tora Bora, Bush held back the U.S. Special Forces
and just left it up to the Afghan Warlords to go and find
Bin Laden.
Post by UsurperTom
Then he withdrew troops from Afghanistan
No resources were diverted from Afghanistan and the war against al Qaida.
Nonsense. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Even Tommy Franks ( a Bush supporter - at least publically )
stated his dismay at the fact that troops were being diverted
away from Afghanistan and being shifted to go and
fight a new war against Iraq. He was also angered that
he had to spend time drawing up invasion plans for
Iraq DURING THE MIDDLE of the Afghanistan engagement
with the situation there unresolved.
Post by UsurperTom
the only one in the region with no Al Qeada links
the Clinton administration justified bombing the asprin factory in
Sudan by saying that Iraqi scientists worked with al Qaida to produce chemical
weapons.
Hey, lets switch the subject away from Bush's many catastrophic failures
and dead bodies and wasted money (and lies ) and try and blame Bill
Clinton.
The usual right-wing sign of desparation.

Under Clinton the world respected the United States,
Under Clinton terrorism expert Richard Clarke was not demoted
to a sub-cabinet position and just ignored ( which is why we
successfully thwarted and prevented terrorist incidents
during the 1999-2000 change over ).
Under Clinton a detailed anti-Bin Laden, anti-Al Qeada
strategy and plan was drawn up and handed over to
George Bush when he moved in.

Bush IGNORED the plan. Did nothing!

And, f.y.i., the asprin factory in 1998 was a CIA screw-up
( the CIA maps were wrong) not a planned event or designed policy.

However, the illegal leak of a CIA Agent Valerie Plame to
get revenge on Ambassador Joe Wilson (who revealed
Bush was lying about Iraq's weapons) - that was
a designed and planned act.
Post by UsurperTom
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
That doesn't mean the Saudi government was involved in 9-11.
LOL ... I can only imagine what you would say if
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia was and is a hotbed of islamic fundamentalism
where they are taught in mosques to hate America.
Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia.

Bush had to DELETE 40 pages from the Congressional
Report on September 11 to save face and conceal the
fact that Saudi Arabia was involved ( and they aren't
even on the Bush axis of evil list )

Go ask Senator Bob Grahamn (D-FL) about Saudi Arabia.
He knows.

You clearly do not.
Post by UsurperTom
The shoe bomber was British. I suppose
you don't think the US should invade those countries instead of Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Invading Iraq was a fraud and an historic failure.

Your logic and your juvenile knee-jerk arguments
fail to defend Bush for starting a war ( monolithic
invasion and occupation) against the wrong people
which has gone and made the terrorism problem
much, ,uch worse (and made our allies hate us)
- nor do they defend Bush for ignoring the real
terrorists the whole time.


"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He is unable to project power against his neighbors."
-Secretary of State Colin Powell in Cairo, Feb. 24, 2001

"We are able to keep his [ Hussein ] arms from him.
His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-Condoleeza Rice, July 2001



_________________________________


"I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is and
I really don't care. It's not that important.
It's not our priority."
-George W. Bush, March 13, 2003




This is the most incompetent president in all of U.S. History

He's not protecting this country.
He's created a mess
He's serving Halliburton, Enron, and his Oil Service & War
Profiteering buddies

It's time for change. Vote For Change.
Wake up!



- Derek

================================
UsurperTom
2004-09-25 06:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by dlarsson
Nonsense
Millions of Afghans are now registering to vote.
Post by dlarsson
try and blame Bill Clinton.
No. I'm gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt on Sudan.
Tom
mcnews
2004-09-24 13:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
really aren't that important.
Post by Mister Charlie
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
I always liked Springsteen and what he ws about- especially his marathon
concerts that gave his fans more than their money's worth.
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Did Springsteen ever stop and think about the fans who simply like him for
his music? Attending this concert(s?) makes it appear that you support his
political beliefs. What if you're pro-Kerry, but have grown up with
Springsteen's music for 30 years and enjoyed it?
Does a Springsteen fan force themself to sit at home the night of this
concert because they feel uncomfortable? No fan of *music* should even have
to deal with that.
It's for that reason that I think Bruce Springsteen is so into himself. His
political beliefs are too strong and belong in his mansion- not on the
stage.
i always thought bruce seemed like he took himself too seriously.
he's one artist i know i should respect because you can hear the
talent and the honesty, but i just can't bring myself to listen to.
anyway, i admire the fact that he feels compelled to speak and act
according to what he believes and that he uses what ever influence he
may have to saway people toward what he percieves as truth.
(yes, especially because i agree with him, ok).
based on his statement concerning the concert i think he is aware that
he may turn some people off with his stance and i think he is big
enough to accept it.
yeah, stay home that night.
if you like to hear 'ave maria', but can't eat the food, buy the
record.
ivanaveekoff2004
2004-09-25 01:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by mcnews
Post by jweber
really aren't that important.
Post by Mister Charlie
He was for awhile. More so than the Sex Pistols. ;-P
I always liked Springsteen and what he ws about- especially his marathon
concerts that gave his fans more than their money's worth.
It was when politics entered into the picture where I began to lose respect
for him. If I recall correctly, didn't he, or isn't he, headlining a concert
with a bunch of other politically vocal bands where he encourages people to
*not* vote for Bush?
What a horrible and embarrassing position to put your fans in.
Did Springsteen ever stop and think about the fans who simply like him for
his music? Attending this concert(s?) makes it appear that you support his
political beliefs. What if you're pro-Kerry, but have grown up with
Springsteen's music for 30 years and enjoyed it?
Does a Springsteen fan force themself to sit at home the night of this
concert because they feel uncomfortable? No fan of *music* should even have
to deal with that.
It's for that reason that I think Bruce Springsteen is so into himself. His
political beliefs are too strong and belong in his mansion- not on the
stage.
i always thought bruce seemed like he took himself too seriously.
he's one artist i know i should respect because you can hear the
talent and the honesty, but i just can't bring myself to listen to.
anyway, i admire the fact that he feels compelled to speak and act
according to what he believes and that he uses what ever influence he
may have to saway people toward what he percieves as truth.
(yes, especially because i agree with him, ok).
based on his statement concerning the concert i think he is aware that
he may turn some people off with his stance and i think he is big
enough to accept it.
yeah, stay home that night.
if you like to hear 'ave maria', but can't eat the food, buy the
record.
Wow! A mature, even-handed statement! What's it doing on this thread?
ivanaveekoff2004
2004-09-25 00:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by dlarsson
Yeah, I can hear the bells chiming. I've had a long life with my audience.
I
Post by dlarsson
always tell the story about the guy with The Rising: "Hey, Bruce, we need
You get a few letters that say, "Hey, man, we need you." You bump into
some
Post by dlarsson
people at a club and you say, "Hey, man, what's going on?" And they go,
"Hey, we need you." Yeah, they don't really need me, but I'm proud if they
need what I do. That's what my band is. That's what we were built for.
Get over yourself, Bruce. You really aren't that important.
I think Springsteen was saying that the "we need you" really means "we
need what you do". Springsteen's music and message has been very
important to a certain number of people. I don't think it is out of
line for fans to say that they need what he does, nor for him to be
proud that he has successfully played that kind of role for them. I
think you probably just disagree with his political views. Funny how
often political disagreement turns into personal bashing.

Of course, perhaps you actually fully agree with him but just think he
is conceited....
jweber
2004-09-25 02:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ivanaveekoff2004
I think Springsteen was saying that the "we need you" really means "we
need what you do". Springsteen's music and message has been very
important to a certain number of people. I don't think it is out of
line for fans to say that they need what he does, nor for him to be
proud that he has successfully played that kind of role for them.
I totally agree with that.
Post by ivanaveekoff2004
I
think you probably just disagree with his political views.
Not at all. Actually, i'm not pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. I'm more *pro-choice*
in every way- especially when it comes to religion, unplanned pregnancies
and what the mother decides, and politics. There is nothing more detestable
than a *musician*, of all people, trying to manipulate your opinion on such
sensitive and personal issues.

Sure, Lennon kept on pushing "peace" on people, and surely there isn't a
civilized human being who doesn't want peace. When he criticized the war, I
was a bit too young to know all the facts and agreed with him regardless.

Once we get older and more educated, surely we can think for ourselves. Why
is "Vote For Change" any different than annoying televangelists or Hare
Krishnas at airports? They're all trying to change your way of thinking to
think like *them*. It's a power trip.

Look at Cat Stevens. Hard to believe it's the same normal guy who sang
"Morning Has Broken"- which was the soundtrack of quite a few wedding
ceremonies over the years. When he started babbling to the press about his
new-found religion and anti-American jingo, he certainly lost me as a fan of
his.
Post by ivanaveekoff2004
Funny how
often political disagreement turns into personal bashing.
I don't disagree with his political views. I disagree that not only does he
push it on people now, but has to even perform concerts dealing with it. Why
not just have some "Rock The Vote" concerts encouraging people to take
action? Instead, he's trying to influence people *who to vote for*. It isn't
immoral or illegal to do so- but I think it's just dumb.
Post by ivanaveekoff2004
Of course, perhaps you actually fully agree with him but just think he
is conceited....
From Bruce's website:

"I felt like I couldn't have written the music I've written, and been on
stage singing about the things that I've sung about for the last twenty five
years and not take part in this particular election."

That explains in a nutshell why I lost alot of respect for the guy. He was
the "working man's musician", singing about small-town life, love, and
hardship. Watch- in 4 years (if Kerry got elected in the meantime), he'll be
hosting another series of "Vote For Change" concerts.

Political figures are just like Bruce Springsteen and musicians who cross
the line- they always let you down.

-John W.
http://www.johnnydupe.com
Mister Charlie
2004-09-25 03:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
"I felt like I couldn't have written the music I've written, and been on
stage singing about the things that I've sung about for the last twenty five
years and not take part in this particular election."
That explains in a nutshell why I lost alot of respect for the guy. He was
the "working man's musician", singing about small-town life, love, and
hardship. Watch- in 4 years (if Kerry got elected in the meantime), he'll be
hosting another series of "Vote For Change" concerts.
Political figures are just like Bruce Springsteen and musicians who cross
the line- they always let you down.
If he said he was voting for Bush...THAT would be crossing the line.
Since you want to think for yourself shouldn't you get going? :)
jweber
2004-09-25 03:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mister Charlie
If he said he was voting for Bush...THAT would be crossing the line.
Since you want to think for yourself shouldn't you get going? :)
Going where? To the voting booth or to a lame 2004 Springsteen concert?

Now, if it were *1974*, i'd be the first in line to see The ex-Boss.
Mister Charlie
2004-09-25 03:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by jweber
Post by Mister Charlie
If he said he was voting for Bush...THAT would be crossing the line.
Since you want to think for yourself shouldn't you get going? :)
Going where? To the voting booth or to a lame 2004 Springsteen concert?
Now, if it were *1974*, i'd be the first in line to see The ex-Boss.
Frankly I wouldn't bother going to see him either. His best days are
behind him
Now that I think of it, so are mine.
mrm
2004-10-11 14:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Sorry that you conservatives want to silence anyone who disagrees with
you. The musicians have as much right to express their views as the
Swift Vet Liars. Both are part of our political system, and voters
can decide for themselves who to vote for.

I love the way this administration wants to curb free speech when it
doesn't support their extremist agenda.
Al
2004-10-11 16:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by mrm
Sorry that you conservatives want to silence anyone who disagrees with
you.
Give examples, please.
Post by mrm
The musicians have as much right to express their views as the
Swift Vet Liars.
Who said they don't, and who's stopping them? Also, I like the way you
dismiss a group of veterans who don't support YOUR political views as liars.
How do you know they're lying? Were YOU there? Please give specific
examples that prove that the Swift Boat Vets are wrong.
Post by mrm
Both are part of our political system, and voters
can decide for themselves who to vote for.
Exactly. However, this concert tour isn't telling anyone to decide for
themselves and just get out and vote. They're specifically telling their
audience not to vote for Bush. I don't need Springsteen or Michael Moore to
make up my mind for me, but maybe other people do.
Post by mrm
I love the way this administration wants to curb free speech
Please give an example of exactly how your free speech has personally been
restricted under the Bush administration.
Post by mrm
when it
doesn't support their extremist agenda.
So, since YOU don't agree with the Bush agenda, it must be extremist, right?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...