Red Mosquito

cutuphalfdead wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. First, it's one of a number of factors. If the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush didn't cross party lines then Gore would have won, so why isn't it their fault? Also, it's false to assume that all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore anyway. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have gone to anyone.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:MYM is more general social/political commentary in the vein of DTE or Grievance rather than the specific stuff targeting Bush that you'd find on Riot Act and S/T. It's condemning the United States for sure (which would imply a shot at Obama, since he is president), but not Obama by name. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to harm obama (lets see what's said on tour this year, if anything), but Obama has been challenging to the psychology of the mainstream left. It was easy to assume that everything the left hated during the Bush years was because of Bush, and so blaming Bush makes sense. Get rid of bush, fix the problem. But if the same problems survive across two presidencies headed by two seemingly very different people than they become far more structural in nature, and so railing about a president kind of misses the point. What Obama taught a lot of people is that while who is president certainly matters, the issue runs into the core of how America functions.

If you ever get bored of teaching, I think you have a great future as a spin doctor.

Lament wrote:I'm trying to figure out which group is more delusional; those who think Lightning Bolt is going to be a double album full of lengthy space rock pieces, or those who think it's going to be packed with anti-Obama rhetoric.

Mine wrote:

stip wrote: I've talked about this ad infinitum on this board and the old one, but someone has to release your records, and when your boycott fails and one venue controls access to the places you want to play it is not hypocrisy to understand that you have to deal, and instead try and make deals on your own terms.

In theory they could have bought they way out of their contract with Epic and play to 117 people audiences in some local clubs. However i think that would have been moronic.

Also Epic and later Sony music, J Records that distributed s/t included, are a far bigger corporations than Target.

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

I used to know a guy in college who tried to use the same calculus on girls.

"It's sluttier to sleep with just one guy than it is to sleep with every possible guy."

It didn't work out very well for him.

Lounge Lizard wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

I used to know a guy in college who tried to use the same calculus on girls.

"It's sluttier to sleep with just one guy than it is to sleep with every possible guy."

It didn't work out very well for him.

I wonder why you hung out with a guy that slept with so many other guys

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

I used to know a guy in college who tried to use the same calculus on girls.

"It's sluttier to sleep with just one guy than it is to sleep with every possible guy."

Lament wrote:But for the record I think you've misinterpreted who the quotes were aimed at. Though that may have been intentional.

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

I used to know a guy in college who tried to use the same calculus on girls.

"It's sluttier to sleep with just one guy than it is to sleep with every possible guy."

It is if the girl walks around with the guy's cock in her mouth all day long.

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. First, it's one of a number of factors. If the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush didn't cross party lines then Gore would have won, so why isn't it their fault? Also, it's false to assume that all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore anyway. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have gone to anyone.

oh sure, it wasn't just nader. And voter suppression is the single biggest factor that there is. Had all votes been counted Gore likely would have won. had over 10,000 black voters not been purged Gore would have one. And some Nader voters would have likely not voted. But it only took a small percentage of voters like myself who would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't there to win.

BUT nevertheless, if Nader doesn't run, Gore wins. If all the libertarians leave the republican party they will not elect a candidate but they will make it much easier for democrats to win.

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:There is some odd calculus here that says that distributing through EVERY major possible retail corporation is somehow more anti-corporate than using one.

I used to know a guy in college who tried to use the same calculus on girls.

"It's sluttier to sleep with just one guy than it is to sleep with every possible guy."

It is if the girl walks around with the guy's cock in her mouth all day long.

What if she just made a single, really embarrassing three minute sex tape of one of her poorer performances in the sack?

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:MYM is more general social/political commentary in the vein of DTE or Grievance rather than the specific stuff targeting Bush that you'd find on Riot Act and S/T. It's condemning the United States for sure (which would imply a shot at Obama, since he is president), but not Obama by name. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to harm obama (lets see what's said on tour this year, if anything), but Obama has been challenging to the psychology of the mainstream left. It was easy to assume that everything the left hated during the Bush years was because of Bush, and so blaming Bush makes sense. Get rid of bush, fix the problem. But if the same problems survive across two presidencies headed by two seemingly very different people than they become far more structural in nature, and so railing about a president kind of misses the point. What Obama taught a lot of people is that while who is president certainly matters, the issue runs into the core of how America functions.

If you ever get bored of teaching, I think you have a great future as a spin doctor.

Heathen wrote:Did she sign an exclusive distribution deal for it?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. First, it's one of a number of factors. If the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush didn't cross party lines then Gore would have won, so why isn't it their fault? Also, it's false to assume that all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore anyway. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have gone to anyone.

oh sure, it wasn't just nader. And voter suppression is the single biggest factor that there is. Had all votes been counted Gore likely would have won. had over 10,000 black voters not been purged Gore would have one. And some Nader voters would have likely not voted. But it only took a small percentage of voters like myself who would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't there to win.

BUT nevertheless, if Nader doesn't run, Gore wins. If all the libertarians leave the republican party they will not elect a candidate but they will make it much easier for democrats to win.

It's just infuriating when people say "god damn fucking ralph nader costing gore the election!" instead of "god damn fucking voter suppression costing gore the election!". We'd rather vilify someone who has done an unquantifiable amount of good in this country, someone trying to shed light on a flawed political process, instead of focusing on the actual voter suppression that went on.

Also, you voted in New York, right? Your vote didn't count

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:MYM is more general social/political commentary in the vein of DTE or Grievance rather than the specific stuff targeting Bush that you'd find on Riot Act and S/T. It's condemning the United States for sure (which would imply a shot at Obama, since he is president), but not Obama by name. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to harm obama (lets see what's said on tour this year, if anything), but Obama has been challenging to the psychology of the mainstream left. It was easy to assume that everything the left hated during the Bush years was because of Bush, and so blaming Bush makes sense. Get rid of bush, fix the problem. But if the same problems survive across two presidencies headed by two seemingly very different people than they become far more structural in nature, and so railing about a president kind of misses the point. What Obama taught a lot of people is that while who is president certainly matters, the issue runs into the core of how America functions.

If you ever get bored of teaching, I think you have a great future as a spin doctor.

what a lovely back handed compliment. Everything I said there is serious.

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:Did she sign an exclusive distribution deal for it?

Yeah, but most people just downloaded it anyways.

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I absolutely hate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. First, it's one of a number of factors. If the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush didn't cross party lines then Gore would have won, so why isn't it their fault? Also, it's false to assume that all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore anyway. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have gone to anyone.

oh sure, it wasn't just nader. And voter suppression is the single biggest factor that there is. Had all votes been counted Gore likely would have won. had over 10,000 black voters not been purged Gore would have one. And some Nader voters would have likely not voted. But it only took a small percentage of voters like myself who would have voted Gore if Nader wasn't there to win.

BUT nevertheless, if Nader doesn't run, Gore wins. If all the libertarians leave the republican party they will not elect a candidate but they will make it much easier for democrats to win.

It's just infuriating when people say "god damn fucking ralph nader costing gore the election!" instead of "god damn fucking voter suppression costing gore the election!". We'd rather vilify someone who has done an unquantifiable amount of good in this country, someone trying to shed light on a flawed political process, instead of focusing on the actual voter suppression that went on.

Also, you voted in New York, right? Your vote didn't count

NJ, but still.

And I don't demonize nader and still have tremendous respect for him. But I do think it makes more sense to follow the tea party model and push for the kinds of change you want within your parties primary system (which is not as hard to do as people might think). In the absence of a viable 3rd party or a serious commitment from a third party to build one, it does empower the side you like least.


And I am a registered member of the working families party in NY. They run fusion candidates in the big elections so I don't have to make these choices, fortunately.