I was correcting your false assertion that his politics were "ambivalent."
You were wrong about that. And now you've moved on to another equally false assertion.
It is preposterous to pretend that Lennon was just another person opposed to the war in Vietnam.
Lennon was one of the most influential persons of his generation. He recognized that, and sought to use his influence to oppose the Vietnam war.
To cite just one example, Lennon intended to write the Marseilles for the "peace movement" -- and with "Give Peace A Chance" he did.
Clearly you are ignorant on that entire period. Why don't you go read up on it and come back when you are in better position to discuss the subject responsibly?
I'm a huge Beatles fan and have read countless books about Lennon, who I find to be the most interesting of the four.
Lennon's entire being was a paradox. One minute he could be extremely kind and the next a total bastard. One minute he could be political and the next a retiring house husband. One minute he could be generous and the next a total skin flint. One minute he could espouse liberal values and the next conservative values. Even in the song "Revolution" he couldn't decide until the last minute whether to be with Chairman Mao or against him.
I do believe that a combination of his upbringing, the insanity of the Beatles and the drug-taking made him deeply disturbed. I also believe he had no core values, which is why he bounced from thing to thing.
Lennon was a latecomer, at best, to the anti-war movement, which had run its course full well by the time the draft ended. "Give Peace a Chance" was a dopey pop song that meant little in the grand scheme of things . . . only retarded dreamers and people who are trying to sell you something have the opinion that pop music "can change the world." Lennon was nowhere near the man behind the curtain you seem to think he was.
"Everyone's talking about bag-ism . . . isn't it the most?" Yeah, that's right up there with the best of them . . . give me a break.
As for the Hemingway barb, why would that have any relevance at all to the topic at hand---John Lennon? Why in the world would I have brought that up on this thread? I know Hemingway's biography as well as anyone here, thank you very much---your mentioning it was just a childish attempt to score points in whatever game you think it is you're playing with me. Is it recess time for you, or are you always this childish?
You've been here since '96?
Sam Hill
Since Jul 12, 2005
So why are you flying false colors? Who were you before Jul 12, 2005? You get booted off for something?
So what? He was a prominent opponent of the Vietnam war... and? Does this mean that President Hillary's critics need to be tailed because they oppose her policies? You seem to love big government a wee bit too much.
It was not illegal to be opposed to nam. I am opposed to alot of government programs. Perhaps if you object to the department of education they can sick the FBI on you too.
To conclude. What the hell are you talking about? If there was evidence that Lennon wanted to stage a violent revolution, commit criminal acts in order to finance radicals, or actual evidence of you know a crime, other than free speech.
I suppose Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh needed bugging because they opposed Clinton's war in Kosovo too. Are you an American? You sure don't sound like one.