QuoteTom Morello: 'Paul Ryan Is the Embodiment of the Machine Our Music Rages Against'
Rage Against the Machine's guitarist blasts Romney's VP pick and unlikely Rage fan
By Tom Morello
August 16, 2012 6:44 PM ET
Last week, Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, the Republican architect of Congress's radical right-wing budget plan, as his running mate. Ryan has previously cited Rage Against the Machine as one of his favorite bands. Rage guitarist Tom Morello responds in this exclusive op-ed.
Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.
Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.
I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that "Those people are undeserving. They're . . . lesser." Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.
But Rage's music affects people in different ways. Some tune out what the band stands for and concentrate on the moshing and throwing elbows in the pit. For others, Rage has changed their minds and their lives. Many activists around the world, including organizers of the global occupy movement, were radicalized by Rage Against the Machine and work tirelessly for a more humane and just planet. Perhaps Paul Ryan was moshing when he should have been listening.
My hope is that maybe Paul Ryan is a mole. Maybe Rage did plant some sensible ideas in this extreme fringe right wing nut job. Maybe if elected, he'll pardon Leonard Peltier. Maybe he'll throw U.S. military support behind the Zapatistas. Maybe he'll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign – and then torture them with Rage music 24/7. That's one possibility. But I'm not betting on it.
And, from Dee Snider's attorneys:
QuoteIt was brought to the attention of the management today that Paul Ryan has been using our client Dee Snider's composition "We're Not Gonna Take It" in his political campaign to become the Vice President of The United States of America. Dee does not support Paul Ryan. Accordingly, Dee has released this statement to Benjy Sarlin, campaign reporter for TPM in Washington, DC:
I emphatically denounce Paul Ryan's use of my song "Were Not Gonna Take It" as recorded by my band Twisted Sister. There is almost nothing on which I agree with Paul Ryan, except perhaps the use of the P90X.
Dee Snider
:yawn:
I think Mr. Ryan should copy Twisted Sister's fashion as well.
Obama is done, no matter how much these fanatical radical communists rage against Paul Ryan.
How come the communists are "left"?
In every country they have EVER controlled they have put gays, intellectuals and artists behind bars, or worst, denieying even basic freedoms.
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 02:23:20 PM
Obama is done, no matter how much these fanatical radical communists rage against Paul Ryan.
How come the communists are "left"?
In every country they have EVER controlled they have put gays, intellectuals and artists behind bars, or worst, denieying even basic freedoms.
Obama has been leading in every poll for over a year now.
Artists are entitled to have political opinions, of course.
But contrast how Dee Snider handles it, as compared to Tom Morello.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
But contrast how Dee Snider handles it, as compared to Tom Morello.
Well, look at their careers: one's never taken himself seriously, and the other's taken himself too seriously.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:36:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
But contrast how Dee Snider handles it, as compared to Tom Morello.
Well, look at their careers: one's never taken himself seriously, and the other's taken himself too seriously.
Good point.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
Artists are entitled to have political opinions, of course.
But if you, as a voter or just a public-minded citizen, put any special stock in those opinions, you're a moron. Being an artist grants no special insight into public policy questions.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
Artists are entitled to have political opinions, of course.
But if you, as a voter or just a public-minded citizen, put any special stock in those opinions, you're a moron. Being an artist grants no special insight into public policy questions.
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
I agree, but the thing is that sensible reasonable politics never ever produces good music. Revolutions always have the best songs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
Wait, wait, wait... weren't you the one that called them Rage Against the Suck? Or am I thinking of Ed? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 02:40:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
Artists are entitled to have political opinions, of course.
But if you, as a voter or just a public-minded citizen, put any special stock in those opinions, you're a moron. Being an artist grants no special insight into public policy questions.
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons?
If the entire fanbase gives the band's political views credence simply because of their status as rock stars, yes. If not, not necessarily.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2012, 03:03:59 PM
Wait, wait, wait... weren't you the one that called them Rage Against the Suck? Or am I thinking of Ed? :unsure:
You're thinking of Mittens of the Midwest.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 02:30:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 02:23:20 PM
Obama is done, no matter how much these fanatical radical communists rage against Paul Ryan.
How come the communists are "left"?
In every country they have EVER controlled they have put gays, intellectuals and artists behind bars, or worst, denieying even basic freedoms.
Obama has been leading in every poll for over a year now.
Not really. He's leading in most polls, but it's a slim lead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 23, 2012, 03:03:59 PM
Wait, wait, wait... weren't you the one that called them Rage Against the Suck? Or am I thinking of Ed? :unsure:
You're thinking of Mittens of the Midwest.
Call me Willard.
So Tom Morello thinks that a person who likes the sound of RATM but not the lyrics is a moron when he's the enemy that the lyrics speak of? I knew he was a retarded Communist but not that he was that stupid.
I think RATM has some nice songs musically, but their lyrics are infantile Communism.
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
Artists are entitled to have political opinions, of course.
But contrast how Dee Snider handles it, as compared to Tom Morello.
Tom Morello thinks he's John Lennon, only even better. Tom Morello's obnoxiousness in the arena of politics makes Viking's stance on religion look almost pleasant by comparison.
Question on copyrights:
1- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan so long as the proper fees were paid?
2- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan if he uses a cover of "We're not gonna take it"?
Seriously. Not to mention RATM never had vocals as good as ol' RoundSpecs. When Morello gets going on about politics, even Rise Against seems less preachy.
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 02:30:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 02:23:20 PM
Obama is done, no matter how much these fanatical radical communists rage against Paul Ryan.
How come the communists are "left"?
In every country they have EVER controlled they have put gays, intellectuals and artists behind bars, or worst, denieying even basic freedoms.
Obama has been leading in every poll for over a year now.
If Obama wins he's going to sell so much US hardware to the Chinese. That'll show those damn communists!
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
Question on copyrights:
1- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan so long as the proper fees were paid?
2- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan if he uses a cover of "We're not gonna take it"?
Are you kidding?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
That's a great song!!!!
Hey Now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-s7ol38Ifs
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 23, 2012, 06:48:30 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
That's a great song!!!!
Hey Now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-s7ol38Ifs
:glare:
Come on, don't lie to me.
You know you loved that movie back in the day.
You loved it like a love song, baby
And kept hitting re-peat-peat-peat-peat-peat-peat
I only masturbate to iCarly.
You are so disgusting.
Thank you.
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
Question on copyrights:
1- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan so long as the proper fees were paid?
2- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan if he uses a cover of "We're not gonna take it"?
Answer to both questions is "it depends." There are 3 big licensing agencies - BMI, ASCAP, and I forget the other one - that between them have the right to license practically every song in the U.S. These are the guys you pay for permission to perform music in your bars and clubs and whatnot. If Ryan has the right permissions from these guys, the answer is pretty much nothing. If he doesn't, then Dee can likely get $3000-$150000 per performance and require Ryan to stop playing his song.
Quote from: ulmont on August 23, 2012, 08:24:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
Question on copyrights:
1- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan so long as the proper fees were paid?
2- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan if he uses a cover of "We're not gonna take it"?
Answer to both questions is "it depends." There are 3 big licensing agencies - BMI, ASCAP, and I forget the other one - that between them have the right to license practically every song in the U.S. These are the guys you pay for permission to perform music in your bars and clubs and whatnot. If Ryan has the right permissions from these guys, the answer is pretty much nothing. If he doesn't, then Dee can likely get $3000-$150000 per performance and require Ryan to stop playing his song.
thanks :)
Quote from: ulmont on August 23, 2012, 08:24:50 PM
There are 3 big licensing agencies - BMI, ASCAP, and I forget the other one -
You forgot those Tennesseeweenies, SESAC.
Quote from: ulmont on August 23, 2012, 08:24:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 23, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
Question on copyrights:
1- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan so long as the proper fees were paid?
2- Can Dee Snyder do anything legally to stop Paul Ryan if he uses a cover of "We're not gonna take it"?
Answer to both questions is "it depends." There are 3 big licensing agencies - BMI, ASCAP, and I forget the other one - that between them have the right to license practically every song in the U.S. These are the guys you pay for permission to perform music in your bars and clubs and whatnot. If Ryan has the right permissions from these guys, the answer is pretty much nothing. If he doesn't, then Dee can likely get $3000-$150000 per performance and require Ryan to stop playing his song.
It's a little more complicated than that, especially when it comes to a cover. Once a song is writen, recorded, and released, you can't stop someone else from releasing a cover (you can stop them from releasing a cover of a song that hasn't otherwise been released yet, but that wouldn't apply here). So the campaign could have someone record a cover, and then use the cover--but they couldn't do so in a way that creates the impression that it's the Twisted Sister original.
I mean, Morello's right and all, but it's not that big a deal. I like David Allen Coe.
Why is something that a drug- and alcohol-addled person who can sing a tune has to say is relevant enough to warrant a new thread?
Quote from: Viking on August 23, 2012, 02:52:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
I agree, but the thing is that sensible reasonable politics never ever produces good music. Revolutions always have the best songs.
That is correct. For example, the French have the best fucking anthem ever.
Quote from: Siege on August 23, 2012, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 02:50:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 23, 2012, 02:46:16 PM
So RATM's entire fanbase are morons? I agree.
HEY NOW
That's a great song!!!!
Hey Now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-s7ol38Ifs
Wow, I thought you would at least post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_jWHffIx5E
You disgust me.
I'm sure Siege's song is every bit as annoying as Marty's, but at least I've never heard it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 01:19:45 AM
Why is something that a drug- and alcohol-addled person who can sing a tune has to say is relevant enough to warrant a new thread?
Tom Morello and Dee Snider are drunken drug users? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 01:19:45 AM
Why is something that a drug- and alcohol-addled person who can sing a tune has to say is relevant enough to warrant a new thread?
Because I fucking decided it was. Why are you always a whiny ass bitch on Fridays?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 05:41:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 01:19:45 AM
Why is something that a drug- and alcohol-addled person who can sing a tune has to say is relevant enough to warrant a new thread?
Because I fucking decided it was. Why are you always a whiny ass bitch on Fridays?
I am hung-over (I took my bf to a party at my female-partner-at-another-lawfirm friend last night; we had a blast and drank tons of wine; funny thing - all lawyer chicks there had long term male partners who were both hotter and significantly younger than themselves; so I fit right in :D).
And you are begining to sound tribalistically partisan - now everything that can be used to hit the enemy over the head, no matter how trivial and silly, is newsworthy. And all you do it for a guy in the pocket of big pharma.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 05:47:43 AM
And you are begining to sound tribalistically partisan - now everything that can be used to hit the enemy over the head, no matter how trivial and silly, is newsworthy. And all you do it for a guy in the pocket of big pharma.
Beginning? Get fucking used to it, it's not even convention time yet.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 05:52:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 05:47:43 AM
And you are begining to sound tribalistically partisan - now everything that can be used to hit the enemy over the head, no matter how trivial and silly, is newsworthy. And all you do it for a guy in the pocket of big pharma.
Beginning? Get fucking used to it, it's not even convention time yet.
I just think that if Republicans were having someone like Bachmann or someone else out of Handmaid's Tale as their candidate, there would be a point in actively opposing it. But both Obama and Romney are corporate empty suits, and you are too smart not to realize that.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 05:54:17 AM
I just think that if Republicans were having someone like Bachmann or someone else out of Handmaid's Tale as their candidate, there would be a point in actively opposing it. But both Obama and Romney are corporate empty suits, and you are too smart not to realize that.
There's huge differences between the parties whether they're fighting the culture war or not. The Romney/Ryan plan of slashing spending while cutting taxes on the rich will impact a lot more people than letting gays get married in Alabama.
BTW, in case you've forgotten, Obama did get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Romney has talked of revisiting that decision.
RATM sucks. Audioslave fuckin ruled though. You know: RATM minus that douche Zack de la Rocha, then plus Chris Cornell.
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 05:54:17 AM
I just think that if Republicans were having someone like Bachmann or someone else out of Handmaid's Tale as their candidate, there would be a point in actively opposing it. But both Obama and Romney are corporate empty suits, and you are too smart not to realize that.
There's huge differences between the parties whether they're fighting the culture war or not. The Romney/Ryan plan of slashing spending while cutting taxes on the rich will impact a lot more people than letting gays get married in Alabama.
BTW, in case you've forgotten, Obama did get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Romney has talked of revisiting that decision.
I don't see Romney restoring DADT - too much of enforcement nightmare.
As for the fiscal plan, why should I oppose that?
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 05:54:17 AM
But both Obama and Romney are corporate empty suits, and you are too smart not to realize that.
You don't see the difference because you're on the other side of the planet. Your perspective is skewered. Oh yeah, and you're a fucking retarded Polock.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2012, 06:35:46 AM
As for the fiscal plan, why should I oppose that?
Well, if you were someone who'd be a Democrat supporter even if you were straight, you'd presumably oppose it. But who cares, support Romney if you want. Just don't claim the candidates are the same just because neither is particularly motivated by your Issue.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
:hug:
I love Rage!
What better time then now? What better place then here!
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 24, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
:hug:
I love Rage!
What better time then now? What better place then here!
They're alright. Probably be better if De La Rocha could sing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
You're sounding like the spitting image of an angry teen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
Your movement really isn't in motion. The entire point of the Democrats is to maintain the status quo. All the strength and power of your movement is dedicated to preventing the Republicans from dragging your society back into the 19th century.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 07:44:46 AM
You're sounding like the spitting image of an angry teen.
Bah, shove it up your cocktail gown, Donna Summer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 23, 2012, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 23, 2012, 08:24:50 PM
There are 3 big licensing agencies - BMI, ASCAP, and I forget the other one -
You forgot those Tennesseeweenies, SESAC.
Hey, Tennesse is a great state, known as The Volunteer State.
Im now the great political revelation of the century.
After expending quite a amount of time thinking, I have come to an incredible realization:
Barack Hussein Obama is to the United States what Mikhail Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union!!!
A great leader?
A visionary leader willing to sacrifice his own personal good for the good of his people?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 07:57:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 07:44:46 AM
You're sounding like the spitting image of an angry teen.
Bah, shove it up your cocktail gown, Donna Summer.
I don't want anything that you're selling.
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 11:36:32 PM
It's a little more complicated than that, especially when it comes to a cover. Once a song is writen, recorded, and released, you can't stop someone else from releasing a cover (you can stop them from releasing a cover of a song that hasn't otherwise been released yet, but that wouldn't apply here). So the campaign could have someone record a cover, and then use the cover--but they couldn't do so in a way that creates the impression that it's the Twisted Sister original.
To get the cover rights, you go to yet another agency for a mechanical license.
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2012, 08:13:38 AM
A visionary leader willing to sacrifice his own personal good for the good of his people?
I think Siegebreaker means a leader who fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the state that he governs. Gorbachev didn't realize that the entire Soviet Union was held together only by terror and the threat of force. When that threat of force disappeared, so did the Soviet Union.
Mind you, Siegebreaker is pretty wrong.
Quote from: ulmont on August 24, 2012, 08:46:31 AM
Quote from: dps on August 23, 2012, 11:36:32 PM
It's a little more complicated than that, especially when it comes to a cover. Once a song is writen, recorded, and released, you can't stop someone else from releasing a cover (you can stop them from releasing a cover of a song that hasn't otherwise been released yet, but that wouldn't apply here). So the campaign could have someone record a cover, and then use the cover--but they couldn't do so in a way that creates the impression that it's the Twisted Sister original.
To get the cover rights, you go to yet another agency for a mechanical license.
Yeah, but that's just a matter of paying a fee. The point was, Dee Snyder or any other member(s) of Twisted Sister can't stop anyone from covering their songs.
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2012, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2012, 08:13:38 AM
A visionary leader willing to sacrifice his own personal good for the good of his people?
I think Siegebreaker means a leader who fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the state that he governs. Gorbachev didn't realize that the entire Soviet Union was held together only by terror and the threat of force. When that threat of force disappeared, so did the Soviet Union.
Mind you, Siegebreaker is pretty wrong.
Gorbachev was trying to save the USSR from the totalitarian dictatorship who truly believed that openess and restructuring was the only way to save the USSR and the Party itself and only a reformed party could possibly gain the confidence of the people. He was trying to give the state back to the people.
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 08:02:45 AM
Im now the great political revelation of the century.
After expending quite a amount of time thinking, I have come to an incredible realization:
Barack Hussein Obama is to the United States what Mikhail Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union!!!
Are you saying that Obama will be the greatest leader the US ever had?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
God, I hope so. I've been saying for absolutely fucking years that there is no reason anymore not to be just as vicious and cruel as the right.
At least when the left attacks it's not nearly as often entirely made the fuck up.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 24, 2012, 11:44:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 06:33:06 AM
So fucking typical.
Just like how everybody loves a passive Democratic Party when it comes to campaigns, curling up in the fetal position while they get assbanged by Willie Horton and Swiftboated over and over, you're all happy and content with lefties signing the same Lennon/Baez/Dylan bullshit, kumbayahing and trying to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
But no, when the music punches you right back in the fucking face like an Obama campaign ad, you're all "Whaaaa, we don't like it, it's threatening and ickypoo." Well, fuck all of you. The movement's in motion with massive militant poetry, and the days of the left being your pliant punching bag like a beaten wife are over.
God, I hope so. I've been saying for absolutely fucking years that there is no reason anymore not to be just as vicious and cruel as the right.
At least when the left attacks it's not nearly as often entirely made the fuck up.
Be careful of becoming what you hate.
I don't think I have to beware becoming a rich sociopath. Do I? Because that would be awesome.
I am so misunderstood here in Languish.
How come Languish have become so liberal?
America and the Soviet Union and completely diferent nations with completely oppoused ideology, my analogy is on the consequences of these leaders, not their intentions. Gorbachev destroyed a superpower, plain and simple, regardless of his motivation. Very great for us in the West, but all fucked up for the russians that BELIEVED in socialism.
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth. Obama wants to downgrade America, America's economy, America's Army, and America's power. He thinks the "wrongs" of colonization and capitalism (that evil word), have to be set right. He thinks this is for the best.
Now for the average American that believe in America as FOUNDED, this is a cataclism similar to the fall of the Soviet Union was for the commies.
Do you guys understand my analogy now?
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2012, 11:26:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2012, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 24, 2012, 08:13:38 AM
A visionary leader willing to sacrifice his own personal good for the good of his people?
I think Siegebreaker means a leader who fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the state that he governs. Gorbachev didn't realize that the entire Soviet Union was held together only by terror and the threat of force. When that threat of force disappeared, so did the Soviet Union.
Mind you, Siegebreaker is pretty wrong.
Gorbachev was trying to save the USSR from the totalitarian dictatorship who truly believed that openess and restructuring was the only way to save the USSR and the Party itself and only a reformed party could possibly gain the confidence of the people. He was trying to give the state back to the people.
And that was the misunderstanding. The entire point of the USSR was that for the vast majority of the member states, there were no benefits to the union, and that the only purpose it served was to maintain the imperial rule of Russia over assorted subject peoples. As soon as there was an option for them not to be repressed by Russia, they took it. Gorbachev thought that a nice mission statement could make people forget about the previous three centuries of Russian misrule, and that people who weren't Russian would ever be willing to trust a Russian. Gorbachev made the mistake of thinking that Russians would accept being first among equals.
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2012, 01:51:11 PM
And that was the misunderstanding. The entire point of the USSR was that for the vast majority of the member states, there were no benefits to the union, and that the only purpose it served was to maintain the imperial rule of Russia over assorted subject peoples. As soon as there was an option for them not to be repressed by Russia, they took it. Gorbachev thought that a nice mission statement could make people forget about the previous three centuries of Russian misrule, and that people who weren't Russian would ever be willing to trust a Russian. Gorbachev made the mistake of thinking that Russians would accept being first among equals.
Yeah, pretty much. Looks like only Belarus and some fringe elements of the other republics were willing to subordinate themselves to Russia with Russians.
Though Russia did manage to poison the non-Russian republics by partly colonizing them.
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth.
This already happened before Obama was elected. Fourth-generation warfare blew the wheels off the idea of superpowers.
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth.
This already happened before Obama was elected. Fourth-generation welfare blew the wheels off the idea of superpowers.
LOL FYP.
I actually read it that way on first glance.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 24, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth.
This already happened before Obama was elected. Fourth-generation welfare blew the wheels off the idea of superpowers.
LOL FYP.
I actually read it that way on first glance.
I don't know about that. The Soviet Union maintained a welfare state of sorts while still being a superpower. Quality of life was pretty shit though.
Besides, even if the US was spending a trillion dollars a year on their military, they'd still get beaten by worthless Arabs blowing up Humvees with IEDs and sniping troops in urban areas. In fact, the more that the US spends, the more vulnerable they are.
Damn those welfare queens in their Cadillacs!
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth. Obama wants to downgrade America, America's economy, America's Army, and America's power. He thinks the "wrongs" of colonization and capitalism (that evil word), have to be set right. He thinks this is for the best.
If he wants to downgrade the army he is doing a really shitty job of it. I have no idea where you are getting all this revolutionary shit from. Obama is just another politician.
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
I am so misunderstood here in Languish.
How come Languish have become so liberal?
America and the Soviet Union and completely diferent nations with completely oppoused ideology, my analogy is on the consequences of these leaders, not their intentions. Gorbachev destroyed a superpower, plain and simple, regardless of his motivation. Very great for us in the West, but all fucked up for the russians that BELIEVED in socialism.
Obama wants to transcedentaly downgrade America from the sole superpower to another average power sitting in a round table among the nations of the Earth. Obama wants to downgrade America, America's economy, America's Army, and America's power. He thinks the "wrongs" of colonization and capitalism (that evil word), have to be set right. He thinks this is for the best.
Now for the average American that believe in America as FOUNDED, this is a cataclism similar to the fall of the Soviet Union was for the commies.
Do you guys understand my analogy now?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe when everything around you seems different that the thing that changed is you? Seriously, where are you getting these ideas? Is the LT making you listen to talk radio everyday or something? How do you know what Obama wants? I don't recall him saying "I want to downgrade America" Also the US wasn't founded on capitalism as the concepts of capitalism were just being written out at the time of the founding of the US. I'm not sure you'd like the US ideology as FOUNDED. For one thing, many of founders really didn't like the idea of a standing military. You should also look into the first Barbary war where the US captured a city in North Africa then ended up paying the Arabs for a peace treaty anyway.
Siegy, you've gotten a lot crazier in the shit you spout in the last few years. It's not Languish that's changed, it's you.
I mean, maybe you're joking, but the shit you're spouting is about the same as the crazy made-up shit Arabs and old school anti-Semites spout about Jews. It's just a different flavour, but you're off deep in conspiracy lunacy territory.
I think one could make the case that Languish has moved a little leftward since The Great Migration.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
I think one could make the case that Languish has moved a little leftward since The Great Migration.
Maybe with the Euro contingent, but not the North American.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 03:06:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
I think one could make the case that Languish has moved a little leftward since The Great Migration.
Maybe with the Euro contingent, but not the North American.
I'd say the opposite, actually.
Well, Hans did get sent overseas, so we don't get National Review Online on a regular basis anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 03:24:37 PM
Well, Hans did get sent overseas, so we don't get National Review Online on a regular basis anymore.
Plus Scip doesn't seem to post about politics any more. PA was right of center, and he's long gone. Camper was a centrist, if not slightly to the right. Probably some others left that I can't think of.
Meanwhile Seedy has gone hard left, though I'm still not sure if it's just schtick for our enjoyment or if he really means it. Grumbler seems to have moved a little to the left as well.
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. EUOT it ain't.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Other than Seedy, I can't think of anyone who goes about praising the man.
My problem with voting Republican since '08 is I can't stand the Tea Party and can't stand most of the candidates the GOP throws up anymore. Josh Mandel for Senate against Sherrod 'Mumbles' brown? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So I hibernate. I miss Dubya.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
My problem with voting Republican since '08 is I can't stand the Tea Party and can't stand most of the candidates the GOP throws up anymore. Josh Mandel for Senate against Sherrod 'Mumbles' brown? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So I hibernate. I miss Dubya.
So what's wrong with Josh Mandel? I didn't know much about him before this year.
Meh, it's pretty much just me left to to do the heavy work of championing civil rights, the working man's unions and women's reproductive concerns against the rest of you GOPtards-in-Libertarian-clothing Wall Street-asskissers.*
Jacob will chime in on occasion when he's not busy with his hair and Asian chicks, but everybody else pretty much opts out.
*And the occasional comic relief from Raz.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 03:24:37 PM
Well, Hans did get sent overseas, so we don't get National Review Online on a regular basis anymore.
Plus Scip doesn't seem to post about politics any more. PA was right of center, and he's long gone. Camper was a centrist, if not slightly to the right. Probably some others left that I can't think of.
Meanwhile Seedy has gone hard left, though I'm still not sure if it's just schtick for our enjoyment or if he really means it. Grumbler seems to have moved a little to the left as well.
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. EUOT it ain't.
Grumbler never takes any real position because he never has the guts to play defense. Instead he likes sit on the sidelines slinging shit. If I had to classify him, I'd say libertarian which is pretty much not taking a real position. Paul was solid conservative. He took Robber baron to it's logical conclusion.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
My problem with voting Republican since '08 is I can't stand the Tea Party and can't stand most of the candidates the GOP throws up anymore. Josh Mandel for Senate against Sherrod 'Mumbles' brown? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So I hibernate. I miss Dubya.
So what's wrong with Josh Mandel? I didn't know much about him before this year.
He looks like he's 15 and I tire of him trumpeting that he was a Marine. Big deal. I'm still not voting for Sherrod 'Mumbles' Brown however.
Bring back Mike DeWine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2012, 03:51:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:46:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
My problem with voting Republican since '08 is I can't stand the Tea Party and can't stand most of the candidates the GOP throws up anymore. Josh Mandel for Senate against Sherrod 'Mumbles' brown? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So I hibernate. I miss Dubya.
So what's wrong with Josh Mandel? I didn't know much about him before this year.
He looks like he's 15 and I tire of him trumpeting that he was a Marine. Big deal. I'm still not voting for Sherrod 'Mumbles' Brown however.
Bring back Mike DeWine.
Okay, he does look like a kid, but I haven't noticed him going on too much about his Marine service. He seems like he'd be sufficiently frugal with our money and he's pro-gun. And he's not Sherrod Brown, so he had my vote locked up long ago.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 03:24:37 PM
Well, Hans did get sent overseas, so we don't get National Review Online on a regular basis anymore.
Plus Scip doesn't seem to post about politics any more. PA was right of center, and he's long gone. Camper was a centrist, if not slightly to the right. Probably some others left that I can't think of.
Meanwhile Seedy has gone hard left, though I'm still not sure if it's just schtick for our enjoyment or if he really means it. Grumbler seems to have moved a little to the left as well.
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. EUOT it ain't.
There were some leftists who are long one now as well. Wasn't Pirate Scum an avowed communist or something close to it?
Personally I rarely get involved in political discussions or debates here, but I will say that I considered myself a moderate Republican when I joined EUOT / Languish and supported Bush. My positions have changed somewhat since then but while I'm still pretty centrist I can no longer conceive of voting Republican in congressional races or for the presidency because of the Tea Party.
I am unashamedly partisan.
Y'all are forgetting the Conservative Canadian lawyers cabal. :shifty:
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2012, 04:22:33 PM
Y'all are forgetting the Conservative Canadian lawyers cabal. :shifty:
Intentionally.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
Plus Scip doesn't seem to post about politics any more. PA was right of center, and he's long gone. Camper was a centrist, if not slightly to the right. Probably some others left that I can't think of.
Meanwhile Seedy has gone hard left, though I'm still not sure if it's just schtick for our enjoyment or if he really means it. Grumbler seems to have moved a little to the left as well.
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. EUOT it ain't.
I think it boils down to McCain being more likeable than Romney and the GOP having lurched to the right in the last four years.
PA had a very strong anti-religious bent just like Berkut does, and Camper was only right of center by Seattle standards. I think you're letting nostalgia color your perceptions, Spiess.
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 03:24:37 PM
Well, Hans did get sent overseas, so we don't get National Review Online on a regular basis anymore.
Plus Scip doesn't seem to post about politics any more. PA was right of center, and he's long gone. Camper was a centrist, if not slightly to the right. Probably some others left that I can't think of.
Meanwhile Seedy has gone hard left, though I'm still not sure if it's just schtick for our enjoyment or if he really means it. Grumbler seems to have moved a little to the left as well.
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. EUOT it ain't.
Right after the Great Migration, we actually had threads about how we needed to get more liberals here, because so many of the posters at that time were conservative enough that it was hard to get much debate going.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2012, 03:47:55 PMeverybody else pretty much opts out.
It's a common thing in Europe, I guess. Or at least in Germany/Austria. People (as in average Joe) don't care for politics much. Politicians are all considered to be detached and aloof, and do what they like, anyways. Add a heavy dose of corruption for Austria. So as long as they're not rocking the boat too much, people just don't give a shit. A lot of people feel not involved in politics anymore.
10 years ago I was following politics a lot, but the more I watched, the more the I became annoyed by a lack of progress in things. Also, there's a distinct lack of debate culture, the political debate has left the parliament and moved to talk shows where people shout at each other and try to score entertainment points instead of arguing their issues properly.
Instead you get many people who are ranting on forums/news site commentary sections about anything that proves that politicians are corrupt and power hungry, corporations are evil and power hungry, Amerikkka is evil and power hungry, mankind is destroying the world etc.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2012, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 24, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
And there's definitely a heavy bias on the forum towards Obama among US posters. Only a small handful of us here ever dare say anything vaguely critical of him.
Other than Seedy, I can't think of anyone who goes about praising the man.
No kidding. I think he sucks. But what am I going to do? Vote for an antichrist?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dineshdsouza.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2FObamaAmerica1-586x439.png&hash=38767eb305bf9148950d2b992dbbd1ca8ef26604)
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
This is where the Truth (tm) about Obama can be found.
Downsize america:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z6QOscKvUjU
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 11:37:34 AM
Are you saying that Obama will be the greatest leader the US ever had?
Gorbachev wasn't the USSR's greatest leader. That honor belongs to Stalin. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 26, 2012, 06:46:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2012, 11:37:34 AM
Are you saying that Obama will be the greatest leader the US ever had?
Gorbachev wasn't the USSR's greatest leader. That honor belongs to Stalin. :)
Well, they did both do their part in destroying the Soviet Union.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/obamas-america-dinesh-dsouza/1112111598?cm_mmc=google-_-o_1-_-obamas+america-_-%2bobamas+%2bamerica+%2bbook&ean=9781596987784&imkwid=27291887&r=1&utm_campaign=o_1&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=obamas++america++book
Overview
CAN AMERICA SURVIVE FOUR MORE YEARS OF BARACK OBAMA?
No, because America as we know it—wealthy, powerful, assertive—is not what Obama wants. He wants a smaller America, a poorer America, and America unable to exert its will, and America happy to be one that other nations might rise—all in the name of global fairness. To Obama, the hated "one percent" isn't just wealthy Americans; it is America itself. In Obama's view, America needs to be taken down a notch.
That is the startling conclusion of bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza. Building on his previous bestseller on Barack Obama, The Roots of Obama's Rage—which Newt Gingrich called, "Stunning…the most profound insight I have read in the last six years"—D'Souza shows how Obama's goal to downsize America is in plain sight but ignored by everyone.
D'Souza lays out what Obama plans to do in a second administration—a makeover of America so drastic that the "shining city on a hill" will become a shantytown in a rather dangerous global village.
In Obama's America you'll learn:
•How Obama plans to use debt as a weapon of economic mass destruction to downsize the United States
•How a second Obama term could be fatal to Isreal—and to American interests in the Middle East
•A superpower disarmed: why drastic defense cuts are only the beginning
•How Obama plans to make us more dependent on foreign energy suppliers
•What the world will be like when America is a debt-ridden, second-tier economy and other countries, like China, India, and even Brazil, are wealthier and dominant
Arresting in its presentation and sobering in its conclusions, Obama's America is essential reading for those who want to change America's course before it's too late.
Quote from: Siege on August 27, 2012, 04:28:55 PM
CAN AMERICA SURVIVE FOUR MORE YEARS OF BARACK OBAMA?
You survived so far, didn't you?
Now STFU, you seditious Heeb.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 27, 2012, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 27, 2012, 04:28:55 PM
CAN AMERICA SURVIVE FOUR MORE YEARS OF BARACK OBAMA?
You survived so far, didn't you?
Now STFU, you seditious Heeb.
DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC
Quote from: derspiess on August 27, 2012, 04:34:56 PMDISSENT IS PATRIOTIC
It is. But delusional paranoia is a mental illness.
Hey, Siege. You want to put your money where your mouth is? If America can not truly survive 4 more years of Obama, then it should be gone if four years if he wins another term. So here is my bet. If Obama wins and the US is still standing in 4 years, you owe me say 50 bucks. If it is destroyed in that time period, I'll pay you 50 bucks. I am willing to raise the stakes to what ever you want.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
Hey, Siege. You want to put your money where your mouth is? If America can not truly survive 4 more years of Obama, then it should be gone if four years if he wins another term. So here is my bet. If Obama wins and the US is still standing in 4 years, you owe me say 50 bucks. If it is destroyed in that time period, I'll pay you 50 bucks. I am willing to raise the stakes to what ever you want.
You know the world is ending this December, right? ;)
Bet you 50 bucks it don't!
Alright, send me 50 bucks now and if the world's still around I'll pay you back later. :shifty:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
Hey, Siege. You want to put your money where your mouth is? If America can not truly survive 4 more years of Obama, then it should be gone if four years if he wins another term. So here is my bet. If Obama wins and the US is still standing in 4 years, you owe me say 50 bucks. If it is destroyed in that time period, I'll pay you 50 bucks. I am willing to raise the stakes to what ever you want.
If it is destroyed, you won't be able to afford the 50 bucks, so Siege loses everything :P
You don't say.
I wish we had at least one political party that didn't want to destroy America.
Quote from: Kleves on August 28, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
I wish we had at least one political party that didn't want to destroy America.
That legalize pot one just wants to sit around and eat Little Debbie snack cakes all day.
Quote from: PDH on August 28, 2012, 08:55:51 AM
Quote from: Kleves on August 28, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
I wish we had at least one political party that didn't want to destroy America.
That legalize pot one just wants to sit around and eat Little Debbie snack cakes all day.
Fuckers block the snack isles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2012, 08:59:11 AM
Fuckers block the snack isles.
You have to go before noon. Stoners never roll out of bed before 2pm.
Warning, after 2pm avoid the cookie aisle.
I did a grammar boner. :blush:
I just figured stores were designed differently in Ohio :)
Quote from: PDH on August 28, 2012, 08:55:51 AM
Quote from: Kleves on August 28, 2012, 08:53:38 AM
I wish we had at least one political party that didn't want to destroy America.
That legalize pot one just wants to sit around and eat Little Debbie snack cakes all day.
And you can forget scoring any Pop Tarts.
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2012, 08:18:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2012, 05:10:06 PM
Hey, Siege. You want to put your money where your mouth is? If America can not truly survive 4 more years of Obama, then it should be gone if four years if he wins another term. So here is my bet. If Obama wins and the US is still standing in 4 years, you owe me say 50 bucks. If it is destroyed in that time period, I'll pay you 50 bucks. I am willing to raise the stakes to what ever you want.
If it is destroyed, you won't be able to afford the 50 bucks, so Siege loses everything :P
I'll take out 50 bucks before hand and keep in a box.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 28, 2012, 10:46:37 AM
I'll take out 50 bucks before hand and keep in a box.
In a... LOCK BOX??
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbc.com%2FSaturday_Night_Live%2Fpolitics%2Fimages%2Fcand_ag.jpg&hash=d6883bad89dc64fdb7a94bab5ef6e6b96172e625)
Should have listened to him.