Red Mosquito

This thread is exhausting

digster wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Honestly, how long have you been a fan? I recommend you go back and listen to boots around that era. Ed didn't like Clinton's policies at all and was very outspoken about such.

Once again, he supported Nader (who many claim lost the election for Gore), obviously because of his stance on Clinton policies. Go listen to the concerts with I Am a Patriot on the set list. I'll bet you'll get some good anti-Clinton policy rants there.

Those songs speak for themselves. His comments on those songs and other issues during that era back up my point.

n

This doesn't really respond at all to what I was talking about. I'm not really talking about, nor do I care to, whether Eddie 'liked' Clinton. I was just saying that viewing Insignificance and Grievance as being 'about' Clinton or his policies sells the songs short and is a far too simplistic view of them.

Well I suppose if u mean they were general policy based, with clinton policy as the fuel since thats when they were written, I could see that. But the songs are def political. Anyway, even with your viewpoint, that makes them all the much more appealing for talking about TODAYs political environment at a show as an intro.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:
And the insane number of anti-abortion bills in state legislatures should make you wonder just how porous that wall between church and state is,

In fact, you are trying to infuse the two. Can one not be pro-life and atheist or agnositic or even not concerned with religion?

stip wrote: almost certainly. Again, understand that going after Obama on the NSA undermines support for him on health care, on gun control, on women's rights, or any other issue. Some 2000 nader supporters are probably hyper aware of that. Maybe this is penance.

No, it really doesn't.

Your points all along kinda come down to the same droning nonsense.... paraphrasing, but you keep saying one can't disagree with a political party about a singular issue and be in that party or advance that party's causes...

...in other words, you need to be a mindless unquestioning mute sheep about ALL causes (even those you disagree with) in order to advance causes you support. Sorry stip, but that's bullshit. Ed standing up on the NSA issue actually would advance the f'ing parties causes, not subtract from that.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: no, it is political science. And you are factually incorrect about this. The fact that we have two parties does not mean they are always the same distance apart from each other, or that the general level of interparty animosity stays the same. This is about as ugly as it has been in many many generations.

Distance how? Distance what? The fact is there's too many variables changing to ever quantitatively test this theory of yours. I know it's spun in the media constantly, so I know it's easy to recite. But, to me, it's bullshit. The only possible way to get data on this is survey data, and like I said, it's flawed because of controls.

People today simply don't like their politicians (Rs and Ds) the way they have in the past - that I'd agree with. But, that it's more polarized... I wouldn't. It's always "the most polarized EVER". Seriously, it has been (according to the news) for the past 20 years. It's laughable.

Okay, besides just throwing out the useful advice to not trust the news for your political analysis (it is almost uniformly terrible) I've now reached my 'almost every fundamental assumption illumineddie makes about politics needs to be corrected' quota for this thread, and am leaving this conversation. And walking away is obnoxious, so I apologize.


also,

stip wrote:I'm going to regret that post

I did.

marker in the sand is about dennis hastert's advocacy of fairtax legislation

IlluminEddie wrote:Does Ed's lack of voice today really matter? No. It doesn't.

This line just keeps getting more amusing the longer this goes on.

Lament wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:Does Ed's lack of voice today really matter? No. It doesn't.

This line just keeps getting more amusing the longer this goes on.

I still stand by initial statement that Ed basically doesn't give a shit anymore.

Is he completely divorced from caring about the political landscape? No. But if he cared like he used to, I believe that he would be lashing out against whomever were in power, regardless of their party or their individual policies. He used to always find something to criticize. Didn't matter who controlled the White House or Capitol Hill. I really don't think that stopped with Obama, and now he doesn't want to "undermine" him. If there's truth to that, than it's a symptom of not really caring, not a function of supporting "his boy".

I think most of the comments over the last three pages make sense from both sides if you line them up against the theory, which is that he generally just doesn't really care anymore. I have found myself less politically interested the older I get, i just get so frustrated with it, it sickens me. That sentiment has to have developed with Ed and the band to some extent.

A lot of words rhyme with NSA. He could easily write a song about it. He's too fucking lazy.

hlniv wrote:I still stand by initial statement that Ed basically doesn't give a shit anymore.

Is he completely divorced from caring about the political landscape? No. But if he cared like he used to, I believe that he would be lashing out against whomever were in power, regardless of their party or their individual policies. He used to always find something to criticize. Didn't matter who controlled the White House or Capitol Hill. I really don't think that stopped with Obama, and now he doesn't want to "undermine" him. If there's truth to that, than it's a symptom of not really caring, not a function of supporting "his boy".

I think most of the comments over the last three pages make sense from both sides if you line them up against the theory, which is that he generally just doesn't really care anymore. I have found myself less politically interested the older I get, i just get so frustrated with it, it sickens me. That sentiment has to have developed with Ed and the band to some extent.

I could buy this.

Personally I'm getting more radicalised as I get older.

digster wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Ed didn't like Clinton at all.

Clinton's policies are a theme in insignificance and grievance, and were the subject of many rants. He didn't like Clinton/Gore thoughts on nation building. Which was one reason he supported Nader (who hinted that Bush may be better than Gore in terms of that).... which led to Bushleaguer lyrics...

Anyways, I wouldn't call Clinton's policies the theme of Insignificance and Grievance. I think this is the problem with using songs like Bushleaguer or WWS as the dividing line on whether a song is appropriately political or not. It can be political without dealing explicitly with the person in the office.

Well Insignificance is in a way about the WTO/NAFTA protests in 1999 in Seattle. NAFTA was a hallmark of the Clinton administration so...

Same

cutuphalfdead wrote:

digster wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Ed didn't like Clinton at all.

Clinton's policies are a theme in insignificance and grievance, and were the subject of many rants. He didn't like Clinton/Gore thoughts on nation building. Which was one reason he supported Nader (who hinted that Bush may be better than Gore in terms of that).... which led to Bushleaguer lyrics...

Anyways, I wouldn't call Clinton's policies the theme of Insignificance and Grievance. I think this is the problem with using songs like Bushleaguer or WWS as the dividing line on whether a song is appropriately political or not. It can be political without dealing explicitly with the person in the office.

Well Insignificance is in a way about the WTO/NAFTA protests in 1999 in Seattle. NAFTA was a hallmark of the Clinton administration so...

Grievance

What?

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

digster wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Ed didn't like Clinton at all.

Clinton's policies are a theme in insignificance and grievance, and were the subject of many rants. He didn't like Clinton/Gore thoughts on nation building. Which was one reason he supported Nader (who hinted that Bush may be better than Gore in terms of that).... which led to Bushleaguer lyrics...

Anyways, I wouldn't call Clinton's policies the theme of Insignificance and Grievance. I think this is the problem with using songs like Bushleaguer or WWS as the dividing line on whether a song is appropriately political or not. It can be political without dealing explicitly with the person in the office.

Well Insignificance is in a way about the WTO/NAFTA protests in 1999 in Seattle. NAFTA was a hallmark of the Clinton administration so...

Grievance

I always thought the line "please forgive our hometown and our insignificance" was lamenting the futility of those protests, despite them being for a noble cause.

Grievance is the song about the two protests. My same comment was to harmless. Your post snuck in

I think Insignificance is tied to those protests as well.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

stip wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

digster wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:
Ed didn't like Clinton at all.

Clinton's policies are a theme in insignificance and grievance, and were the subject of many rants. He didn't like Clinton/Gore thoughts on nation building. Which was one reason he supported Nader (who hinted that Bush may be better than Gore in terms of that).... which led to Bushleaguer lyrics...

Anyways, I wouldn't call Clinton's policies the theme of Insignificance and Grievance. I think this is the problem with using songs like Bushleaguer or WWS as the dividing line on whether a song is appropriately political or not. It can be political without dealing explicitly with the person in the office.

Well Insignificance is in a way about the WTO/NAFTA protests in 1999 in Seattle. NAFTA was a hallmark of the Clinton administration so...

Grievance

I always thought the line "please forgive our hometown and our insignificance" was lamenting the futility of those protests, despite them being for a noble cause.

Fair enough. He did make the explicit connection w. Grievance but that line could be inspired by it

I always saw Insignificance as being broadly about militarization, and how economies and livelihoods come to depend on constant military conflict. Or something like that.

isn't insig about the fact that Seattle is the leading manufacturer of war planes n bombs n shit.

question mark.