Posted on 08/20/2002 1:07:58 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
That's part of the issue. The rest of the issue is why the media is quick to play a song from an artist who is "trying to get into the head" of a traitor to the U.S., but is unwilling to play a song that is into the head of a patriot (because the songwriter is the patriot).
Oh, but you see, we need to understand people like Lindh and what it is that makes them want to destroy 2700 people or more in a single blow. You should never want to put a boot in his a$$.</sarcasm>
(BAAARRRRRRFFFFFFFF)
Now I feel better.
Shalom.
I agree. However, a suburban kid going to high school and then off to college to learn to be an engineer is far less thought provoking. Sure, I would rather that have happened to Lindh but it is a somewhat intriguing story as to how he got so far away from mainstream America.
Well, we worked eighty hours makin' time and a half, but La Grange was too damn hot/We drove back home at the end of the week, and we spent it all on pot.
How can you spend your money on a guy who glorifies pot-smoking? Ever heard the song (from the album "Step Right Up") called "The Preacher"? Very anti-Christian.
In "Loving County", Charlie sings about a guy (using the first person point of view) murdering a woman to steal her diamond ring, to get a girl to marry him. Glorifying murder, there.
Are you starting to get my point?
Know who one of Charlie's songwriting idols is? Mister Steve Earle. Listen to "John O'Reilly" on "Step Right Up." It's a carbon copy of Steve's "Dixieland," right down to the Irish character and use of a tin whistle.
Give me "The Long Goodbye."
Shalom.
You don't have to try. I don't really care. But the author of the post I was replying to was trying and not doing a very good job of it. I would suggest, however, that if you decide to try, that you actually contemplate the issue instead of flying off the handle without thinking like so many other posters in this thread.
Of course, it's a free country and people are free to think in any twisted way they want to. But that puts no moral obligation on me to listen to their twisted thoughts or try to understand them.
I completely agree and I don't believe I have ever put forth the notion that anyone has an obligation to listen.
Anyone, and I mean anyone who has any reaction to the idea of destroying 2800 or more people in a single act of violence other than to want to destroy the perps is beyond fathoming to me. There are some thoughts I'd rather not understand.
It is unfathomable to me as well. For the life of me I can't understand why people following Mao/Stalin/Hitler were hoodwinked either. It is an interesting question for me to contemplate however. If you would rather not try to understand them then don't. As we both have said, you have no obligation.
Only if it wants to spend some time on how you can keep it from happening to your kid. But then you might find out (unless I'm mixing up my stories) that his father "turned gay" and that had something to do with it so we can't go down that path ...
Lots of kids do interesting things. If you want to tell a good story, tell about a kid who went to work for FDNY. Leave stories about terrorists and traitors to terrorists and traitors.
Shalom.
I am one that is intrigued by the question of how did he end up where he is now. I also want to put a boot in his @$$. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I think he should be tried for treason and then executed. I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.
Check out the Stanley Milgram experiment in behavoral psychology, and forgive me if I mangled his name. It's been over 20 years since I studied that stuff. Maybe people followed Mao/Stalin/Hitler because people sympathetic to their ideas got so much airplay?
It's a thought.
Shalom.
As for the kid who became a Fire Fighter, it probably would make a great story but it wouldn't dominate the National and Local news for weeks on end. Like it or not, it was a huge story which provoked a lot of interest from all types of people.
Don't want to sound like a broken record, but you know not of what you speak. If you'd followed his career, you'd know that he long ago eschewed commercial success. As I've said in this thread, he never sells more than 200K records, but never less than 100K.
As for gigs, the types of venues have never changed, and he's not looking to do that with this record.
His main motivation for writing this batch of political songs -- according to him -- was his alarm at passage of the Patriot Act. And I've seen many libertarians on this board voice the same concerns.
OK, you are obviously brain damaged, so I will type this real slow so you can keep up. Jimmy Buffett sang a song about robbing a gas station, but he was not advocating commtting armed robbery. Johnny Cash sang a song about stealing car parts from a factory where he supposedly worked, but he wasn't necessarily advocating embezzlement. Clint Eastwood played an outlaw who hunted down and killed U.S. soldiers, but he certainly wasn't advocating it.
There is a big difference. It's so big, your brain is obviously not capable of comprehending it.
Are you starting to get my point?
Yeah, I'm starting to understand that you have absolutley no common sense and don't see the difference between singing a song about something and getting on a soap box to preach it.
I've only listened to one of Charlie's cds, and I like it. I make no apologies about it. But if I ever see him up on a soapbox, trying to use his status as an entertainer to advocate (Key word here, try using your dictionary, if you know how) left wing politics, any of his cds in my home will go in the trash, without hesitation.
ad·vo·cate
Pronunciation: 'ad-v&-k&t, -"kAt
Function: noun
1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
What your brain fired heroin junky idol does in his personal life is no business of mine, but when he decides to jump into the political waters, I have every right to decide if I'm going to give him my money for his next heroin fix or for his next contribution to a political organization I despise.
The fact that you are incapable of seperating yourself from your celebrity idols, regardless of their actions puts you in the same class of people as the Klinton apologists. It demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on your part, and frankly, it evokes in me a sense of pity for you.
He doesn't do heroin, and hasn't in eight years. It demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on your part, and frankly, it evokes in me a sense of pity for you.
So, I have a lack of moral fiber because I buy Steve Earle's records. Thanks for clearing that up.
You've got me there, I guess.
Do you watch ESPN? It's owned by Disney, which is run by Michael Eisner, a Clinton supporter. Disney also pays Peter Jennings' salary. And he prevented Charlie Daniels from performing a patriotic song on ABC's July 4 special.
- Reading a murder novel
- Seeing a murder mystery movie (BTW, doe s George Lucas advocate killing through his Star Wars franchise?)
- Watching a sprting event (as they have beer commericals...and stuff)
- Reading a newspaper - after all, they do report on murders/robberies/etc.
- Reading a magazine - see above
- Watching television - etc., etc., etc.
Must be fun at your house...
BTW, have your read all of Gurn's posts? He has said repeatedly that he disagrees with Earle's politics but believes he is a great songwriter. How, exactly, is that "incapable of separating"? Is it not possible to enjoy one's work while disagreeing with the views of the artist? I thuroughly enjoy the early works of R.E.M. but think Michael Stipe is a nutball. Is that not possible in your world?
I don't watch ESPN. I don't watch Disney either. Nor do I watch CNN, PMSNBC, NBC and a majority of the other stations available. In fact, if it was possible to unprogram stations from my cable box, it would make my channel surfing a lot more pleasurable, because I wouldn't even have to look at those stations in passing.
In fact, the more liberal garbage I find on tv, the less I watch it. I'm certainly gaining a good understanding of those people who say they have even rid their homes of televisions. During the last week, My tv has only been on for a total of about 10 hours. About an hour every morning while I'm waking up and getting ready for work I have it on FoxNews, and I watch "The Simpsons" and "King of the Hill" when I get home from work. After that, the tv is usually turned off.
Gay parent to messed up kid is not a stretch, but gay parent to Islam or Taliban might be. Then again, maybe he was searching for someone whose values weren't fatally screwed up when he went looking for Islam. Anyway, that's probably a topic for another thread.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.