Rolling Stones Street-fighting 'Neo-Con'

USA Today & Yahoo ^ | August 18, 2005 | Edna Gundersen

[Petronius]

WTF does Che Guervara have to do with anything I posted anywhere? Did HST write something about him? Is he vicariously guilty? None of the writers I listed were Marxists (Faulkner??) and I'm well versed in 20th century thugs.

Don't put words in my mouth (that's unsanitary).

[Brad’s Gramma]

Rolling Stones ping!

[NickatNite2003]

"WTF does Che Guervara have to do with anything I posted anywhere?"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1876175702/002-7117655-8418400?v=glance

We were discussing the "Steamin Conciessness" of
the Lefts Un-illuminati, i believe...

[Petronius]

I last saw them in 77 or 78 in Baton Rouge.

*Sigh* I first saw them in 85. If I had a time-machine, the 77 Spring tour would, without a doubt, be my first choice. The Cornell show (5-8-77) gets unfairly singled out as The Greatest Show Ever. The whole tour rocked.

Somewhere I have a tape with Pig Pen doing Run, Run Rudolph. (I think Keith Richards did it, too.)

[Petronius]

We were discussing the "Steamin Conciessness" of the Lefts Un-illuminati, i believe...

No, YOU took exception to my tagline and went off on a wild tangent about Marxism. I still don't understand what anything you've posted has to do with 1) Hunter Thompson or 2) me.

HST is perhaps better characterized as an anarchist, libertarian, or "extremely cranky contrarian"--not that I care. I liked his books because they were very funny & well-written. Much like the bands I listen to, the authors I read don't have to have Pure Thoughts. I'm a big boy. I can handle subversion.

[NickatNite2003]

Ahh! I understand now...you're *stronger* than
the drugs.

Not that i'm sayin you are a drug user. Just that
you are a kindred spirit of Hunter Thompson.

No, i went off on a small diatribe as to the
efficatiosness of those that the Left hold as
their Icons..such as Jagger, Thompson, Sarandon,
Castro, Stone, Streisand,Haydewn, Hoffman, Sprinsteen
..ad nauseum...They don;t have to be Marxists..just
Devolutionary and "Counter-culture" without a Clue.
AKA: Anarchist

[Petronius]

Just that you are a kindred spirit of Hunter Thompson.

This is, indirectly, the point I was raising in my first post: you can appreciate someone's art without being a kindred spirit. The fuss over the Stone's song is caused by people forgetting this. What, is Ted Nugent the only performer we should ever listen to?

Jagger, Thompson, Sarandon, Castro, Stone, Streisand,Haydewn, Hoffman, Sprinsteen...

Lumping entertainers in with Castro detracts from the gravity of his crimes. On any moral scale, being an odious tyrant is exponentially worse than composing The Ghost of Tom Joad or starring in The Way We Were. (Well, worse than the first one anyway).

They don;t have to be Marxists..just Devolutionary and "Counter-culture" without a Clue. AKA: Anarchist

Strictly defined, an "anarchist" would be opposed to Marxism. There's nothing wrong with being an anarchist against illegitimate authority.

[NickatNite2003]

It's the Lefts promotion of individuals
excersizing the 'Personal Values' of
Nietzsche-ism, and "Civic values" grounded
Socialism, to push the whole of the
"prolotariat" inexorably into devolving
into Communism.

So yes, in my mind, it is quite legitimate to
lump Castro, Striesand, Hayden, Ginsburg,
Moo-er, Maher, Che, Tiddy Kowardly, Kucinich,
Penn, Asner, the ACLU plague rats..etc..all together.

[NickatNite2003]

"Strictly defined, an "anarchist" would be opposed to Marxism. There's nothing wrong with being an anarchist against illegitimate authority."

Yes and no..fighting against a corrupt
government, does not make one an anarchist.

a true anarchist seeks to destroy *any*
kind of government, and while in idealistic
La La land, we could all interact without
a government, but in reality, one might as
well try and create a continental Shangri La...
all well and good, ...until you put people in it.

Civilisation has rules, not because some bunch of
Queens of Hearts in Black Dresses, decided to
make them, and change them, by fiat..but because
Society ENCODED THEIR MORALS AND VALUES, to best
benefit the whole of the society, to propagate and
protect it's survival. As far as i am concerned,
*Every* anarchist in the US, is a deadly domestic
enemy, and should be dealt with to whatever extent neccesary, to nutralise any ability they have to
effectively act like the societal cancer, they are.

[saneright]

This is nothing more than the Stones copying what the band Green Day did.

Green Day was a washed up pseudo punk band who's best days had long since past. They then come out with an overtly anti-american album and are instantly the darlings of the music establishment. Suddenly MTV plays their videos and wants them for interviews. Rolling Stone magazine puts them on the cover. You get the picture

Mick Jagger has now created some controversy and people are talking about the album. Once released it is sure to get a lot more air time on the radio then it probably deserves. Little marxist students who would have otherwise not known a Stones album has been released, let alone actually purchase it, will go out and buy it for know other reason than it's anti George Bush lyrics. This is nothing but a marketing strategy.