Is it just me or did it seem like Bruce Springsteen did...
- Thread starter Requiem For A Dawg
- Start date
- Status
except for the ridiculous fake ref throwing the flag. WTF was that? Just sing, don't make it into a skit.
...what an ignorant thing to say.
I realize the OxyContin junkie sitting in the radio booth has programmed you to think this way, but Bruce Springsteen is a great patriot.
He has the albums & songs & Ronald Reagan trying to use Born in the USA (without Springsteen's persmission, of course) to prove it.
I realize the OxyContin junkie sitting in the radio booth has programmed you to think this way, but Bruce Springsteen is a great patriot.
He has the albums & songs & Ronald Reagan trying to use Born in the USA (without Springsteen's persmission, of course) to prove it.
... all I know is conservatives have a history of trying to use "liberal scum" music without the liberal scum's permission...
</a><a href="http://www.celebitchy.com/13988/the_wilson_sisters_only_the_latest_artists_who_dont_want_their_song_associated_with_republicans/">http://www.celebitchy.com...ociated_with_republicans/
</a><a href="http://www.celebitchy.com/13988/the_wilson_sisters_only_the_latest_artists_who_dont_want_their_song_associated_with_republicans/">http://www.celebitchy.com...ociated_with_republicans/
I could see where the gay marriage subject would be a senstive subject to YOUR kind...........</p>
...all I am saying is don't think you can question Bruce Springsteen's patriotism because of his political stance.
If you try that, I'm going to call you on it.
Springsteen's political stance is as vaild as yours. You may not like it, but that's the way it works in America.
If you try that, I'm going to call you on it.
Springsteen's political stance is as vaild as yours. You may not like it, but that's the way it works in America.
got the will......I agree that he is allowed to have his own political views. I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. That's every American's constitutional right. However, what I do question about Springsteen and certain other celebrities is them using their fame and stature via the mass media to spread their own political agendas. However, if you call Springsteen a patriot, then watch this video. Not sure what your definition of a patriot is but I don't see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzz1guhZjuM
BTW, are you the President of the Dixie Chicks fan club? </p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzz1guhZjuM
BTW, are you the President of the Dixie Chicks fan club? </p>
...as the poster child for the right wing. That means 75% of America the Beautiful believes you are wrong. Not only that, but a man of mixed heritage, with only 2 years in the Senate, beat the pants off his "inheritor" 54% to 45%. That was with 25% of voters who voted against him for only one thing...his heritage.hotdigitydog said:
As for the Dixie Chicks, they exercised their right under the 1st Amendment, the right of free speech, which you and your friends tried to silence by boycotting them.
...who ever graced "rock and roll." I saw him live at the Sea Girt Inn on the Jersey shore back when he was 19.
He has no clue about <span style="font-weight: bold;">****</span>! Most liberals (slash secular progressives) don't have any idea what the <17> they are talking about.... Our beloved county has survived <span style="font-weight: bold;">in spite of liberals!!!</span> They are the people who ride the bench during games!!!
The statement is incredibly ignorant. Namecalling is a pathetic excuse for discussion.
Away from the politics, Bruce is and was awesome. "Born to Run" is among the greatest rock songs ever. Make a top ten list and keep it off. You can't, unless you're only into one genre of rock that the song is not a part of.
Away from the politics, Bruce is and was awesome. "Born to Run" is among the greatest rock songs ever. Make a top ten list and keep it off. You can't, unless you're only into one genre of rock that the song is not a part of.
Congress is ALWAYS lower than the president. Period. Check out a history of approval polls. Regardless of the party of the president or of Congress, people just don't like Congress.
</a><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx">http://www.gallup.com/pol...owest-Gallup-Records.aspx
I think it has more to do with people don't like one party rule by either Republicans or Democrats. Clinton's last six were under Republican control and Bush's first two years, the Democrats controlled the Senate. After that it bottoms out. Similar ratings occur in the late 70s.
I think it has more to do with people don't like one party rule by either Republicans or Democrats. Clinton's last six were under Republican control and Bush's first two years, the Democrats controlled the Senate. After that it bottoms out. Similar ratings occur in the late 70s.
When he was singing "Glory Days", I was thinking... that's about the story of yourself right now isn't it bruce? The whole thinking back to better days with people should hit close to home for him. Hey don't get pissed at your Wal Mart deal because your albums aren't selling... be mad at yourself.
1- The tracking and restriction of marriage between 2 consenting adults is of no business to the government. Marriage, in the eyes of the government, is a legal contract. And as such, it needs to be applicable to ALL its citizens. Otherwise, the government is discriminating against its own people. The government has no reason to deny a legal contract such as marriage to anyone as long as they are of legal age and sound mind.hotdigitydog said:
I would love to hear a logical argument to the contrary.
2- Gun control, or as it is more appropriately defined, arms control, is an issue that everyone has a limit on. We have a right to bear arms, that much is clear. But i have never met someone that feels said right can go unrestricted or monitored. Criminals no longer have that right, our legal system has decided that right is revoked when they are found guilty. I dont see you or the NRA pushing a criminal's lack of a right to bear arms reversed. Why not? Its because too many people, even gun supporters, agree in limits.
So the real issue is where do you fall on the spectrum of arms? what should be allowed and what shouldnt be allowed? Nukes, should Nukes be allowed? after all, they are 'arms'. So the right to bear them shouldnt be infringed...right? What about Flame Throwers? Grenades? Other types of Warheads? remember, all these are 'arms'.
Yes, its an extreme and totally absurd example...yet it is truthful and hits on the very point that needs to be drilled into so many people's heads; EVERYONE except for the most extreme and distorted Libertarian is in favor of a restriction on arms.
The real discussion needs to be where an appropriate line in the sand should be.
Apparently all the people across the country and world that listen to his music and go to his shows didnt get that memo.Todd4State said:
Springstein still puts on a good show. Still wish I'd have made that trek up to 'Vegas in 1981. We don't pay for him to think-we pay for him to put on a good show.</p>
I suppose there's a tenuous link to sports, since the first post was related to the Super ? Bowl.
Most of it should be on the Six Pack political board, or non-sports board, wherever they are.
Then again, Rule 19.
RCD
Most of it should be on the Six Pack political board, or non-sports board, wherever they are.
Then again, Rule 19.
RCD
- Status