For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
Quote
mitchQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
For your information:
[www.theguardian.com]
Quote
mitchQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
For your information:
[www.theguardian.com]
Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.Quote
jloweQuote
mitchQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
For your information:
[www.theguardian.com]
Well, if you think about how Stones Inc and its individual members have set up their tax affairs (shades of Google, Amazon etc) and that consequently it denies Governments the opportunity to spend more on social programmes.
The implication is that politically they are right of centre.
Having said that UK's Labour didn't do much to rein in the growth of tax havens like the British Cayman Isles when they were in power. And of course the Netherlands, where Promotone etc are based are very much part of the EEC, so there won't be much action from them either.
Of the two, I would say Macca has retained more of his working class values than Mick.
Quote
MisterDDDD
Re: Rolling Stones: Trump never asked permission to use songs
Posted by: jackflash1129 ()
Date: February 11, 2016 21:16
"I'm so tired of seeing this political stuff on this board. Can we please leave politics out of the conversation here?"
Re: Rolling Stones: Trump never asked permission to use songs
Posted by: mnewman505 ()
Date: February 11, 2016 21:22
"ugh, this board is my escape from US politics!"
Couple things..
A) It's not really a political topic as it is about copy-writes and misuse of the bands property. It's the same as if Pepsi used Satisfaction in an ad without asking or paying. It's illegal and immoral and we should be applauding the band for setting the record straight.
B ) Is there some sort of cyber gun being pointed at peoples head that makes them click on topics they don't like that I'm unaware of??
Because I'm really sick of chatter about Mick Taylor or Mick's hair, or setlist whining or.... so I just don't click on them and it seems to working brilliantly so far.
Quote
keefriff99Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.Quote
jloweQuote
mitchQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
For your information:
[www.theguardian.com]
Well, if you think about how Stones Inc and its individual members have set up their tax affairs (shades of Google, Amazon etc) and that consequently it denies Governments the opportunity to spend more on social programmes.
The implication is that politically they are right of centre.
Having said that UK's Labour didn't do much to rein in the growth of tax havens like the British Cayman Isles when they were in power. And of course the Netherlands, where Promotone etc are based are very much part of the EEC, so there won't be much action from them either.
Of the two, I would say Macca has retained more of his working class values than Mick.
Both Blair and Clinton "modernized" their parties by becoming centrist and aping a lot of bad right-wing ideas. That's why I find Bernie Sanders appealing, but I admit that I don't think he's electable. The GOP will paint him as the second coming of Josef Stalin and caricature him into oblivion.
I'm ambivalent about Hillary, but she's got the experience to fend off their mudslinging. I'm at the point where I'll vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name because the alternative is horrifying beyond belief.
First of all, it's the Democratic Party. Using the snide, truncated, grammatically-incorrect "democrat party" slur shows your hand.Quote
nightskymanQuote
keefriff99Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.Quote
jloweQuote
mitchQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
keefriff99
Mick is a right-winger by British standards, which would make him a moderate Democrat in America.
There's basically no British equivalent to what the Republican Party has devolved into unless you want to risk invoking Godwin's Law.
That has never been confirmed. My guess would be that he isn't, actually.
For your information:
[www.theguardian.com]
Well, if you think about how Stones Inc and its individual members have set up their tax affairs (shades of Google, Amazon etc) and that consequently it denies Governments the opportunity to spend more on social programmes.
The implication is that politically they are right of centre.
Having said that UK's Labour didn't do much to rein in the growth of tax havens like the British Cayman Isles when they were in power. And of course the Netherlands, where Promotone etc are based are very much part of the EEC, so there won't be much action from them either.
Of the two, I would say Macca has retained more of his working class values than Mick.
Both Blair and Clinton "modernized" their parties by becoming centrist and aping a lot of bad right-wing ideas. That's why I find Bernie Sanders appealing, but I admit that I don't think he's electable. The GOP will paint him as the second coming of Josef Stalin and caricature him into oblivion.
I'm ambivalent about Hillary, but she's got the experience to fend off their mudslinging. I'm at the point where I'll vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name because the alternative is horrifying beyond belief.
I disagree...Obama (and politicians like Bill Diblasio, mayor of NYC) have
fundamentally changed the democrat party in America to become far more left of center (then moved to center as you say). Don't forget that Diblasio, a left-wing democrat has made an already liberal city into a far left city and everyone knows he has presidential ambitions. So if anything, in the future, dems in America will become even more left of center. It's not just Bernie and Hillary.
Just imagine...
Quote
chop
What's strange is most Stones fans I know stateside do support Trump. The Sanders/Clinton crowd is usually listening to Mumford and Sons or some similar drech.
Quote
odean73
To be honest i sadly always classed Mick as right wing. I wished this article to be so true in its meaning regarding he has no allegiance.
Quote
chatoyancy
As for Bill Clinton and Obama, they were pressured by Republican congresses to be more centrist. Tried too hard to be accommodating and now it's coming back to haunt Hillary who actually is not Bill.
Quote
with sssoul
It's not about royalties, or about profits, or about politics; it's about licensing.
Some information: [www.ascap.com] (read it all the way through, though!)
and [futureofmusic.org]
Quote
MisterDDDD
Re: Rolling Stones: Trump never asked permission to use songs
Posted by: jackflash1129 ()
Date: February 11, 2016 21:16
"I'm so tired of seeing this political stuff on this board. Can we please leave politics out of the conversation here?"
Re: Rolling Stones: Trump never asked permission to use songs
Posted by: mnewman505 ()
Date: February 11, 2016 21:22
"ugh, this board is my escape from US politics!"
Couple things..
A) It's not really a political topic as it is about copy-writes and misuse of the bands property. It's the same as if Pepsi used Satisfaction in an ad without asking or paying. It's illegal and immoral and we should be applauding the band for setting the record straight.
B ) Is there some sort of cyber gun being pointed at peoples head that makes them click on topics they don't like that I'm unaware of??
Because I'm really sick of chatter about Mick Taylor or Mick's hair, or setlist whining or.... so I just don't click on them and it seems to working brilliantly so far.
The idea that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat is a complete myth. It's just another revisionist attempt by the right to usurp a popular icon of the left, much like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.Quote
kovachQuote
chatoyancy
As for Bill Clinton and Obama, they were pressured by Republican congresses to be more centrist. Tried too hard to be accommodating and now it's coming back to haunt Hillary who actually is not Bill.
Well accommodation saved his presidency as we had maybe the best economy ever as a result.
Hillary's brought on her own controversy, if you remember the whole investigation during Bill's presidency was over her Whitewater dealings not his, and now Libya and classified email on an unsecure server. Bill was just a womanizer which was not exactly rare in American politics (look at Kennedy).
Speaking of Kennedy, he was a fiscally responsible Democrat who stood for strong defense. Today that would be called 'conservative'. Which shows how far left we've drifted considering we have a Socialist leading the polls currently for the upcoming election.
Quote
keefriff99The idea that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat is a complete myth. It's just another revisionist attempt by the right to usurp a popular icon of the left, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.Quote
kovachQuote
chatoyancy
As for Bill Clinton and Obama, they were pressured by Republican congresses to be more centrist. Tried too hard to be accommodating and now it's coming back to haunt Hillary who actually is not Bill.
Well accommodation saved his presidency as we had maybe the best economy ever as a result.
Hillary's brought on her own controversy, if you remember the whole investigation during Bill's presidency was over her Whitewater dealings not his, and now Libya and classified email on an unsecure server. Bill was just a womanizer which was not exactly rare in American politics (look at Kennedy).
Speaking of Kennedy, he was a fiscally responsible Democrat who stood for strong defense. Today that would be called 'conservative'. Which shows how far left we've drifted considering we have a Socialist leading the polls currently for the upcoming election.
And the idea that America has drifted too far to the left is beyond laughable. Reagan shifted the political spectrum so far to the right that most Democrats today would be considered Rockefeller Republicans. Every President from FDR to Ford was more liberal than most Democrats.
It's about time the left started attempting to push back against right-wing dominance. Even though I don't think Sanders is electable, he's doing a service by highlighting the pain of 35 years of right-wing economic dominance and dragging Hillary to the left in the process.
Nixon is a fascinating character. Even though he was a horror of a human being, he was extremely smart and pragmatic. He could have even gone down as a halfway decent President had his demons and paranoia not destroyed him.Quote
Turner68Quote
keefriff99The idea that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat is a complete myth. It's just another revisionist attempt by the right to usurp a popular icon of the left, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.Quote
kovachQuote
chatoyancy
As for Bill Clinton and Obama, they were pressured by Republican congresses to be more centrist. Tried too hard to be accommodating and now it's coming back to haunt Hillary who actually is not Bill.
Well accommodation saved his presidency as we had maybe the best economy ever as a result.
Hillary's brought on her own controversy, if you remember the whole investigation during Bill's presidency was over her Whitewater dealings not his, and now Libya and classified email on an unsecure server. Bill was just a womanizer which was not exactly rare in American politics (look at Kennedy).
Speaking of Kennedy, he was a fiscally responsible Democrat who stood for strong defense. Today that would be called 'conservative'. Which shows how far left we've drifted considering we have a Socialist leading the polls currently for the upcoming election.
And the idea that America has drifted too far to the left is beyond laughable. Reagan shifted the political spectrum so far to the right that most Democrats today would be considered Rockefeller Republicans. Every President from FDR to Ford was more liberal than most Democrats.
It's about time the left started attempting to push back against right-wing dominance. Even though I don't think Sanders is electable, he's doing a service by highlighting the pain of 35 years of right-wing economic dominance and dragging Hillary to the left in the process.
Certainly Nixon would now be considered a liberal democrat - [www.nationalreview.com]
Quote
keefriff99Nixon is a fascinating character. Even though he was a horror of a human being, he was extremely smart and pragmatic. He could have even gone down as a halfway decent President had his demons and paranoia not destroyed him.Quote
Turner68Quote
keefriff99The idea that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat is a complete myth. It's just another revisionist attempt by the right to usurp a popular icon of the left, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.Quote
kovachQuote
chatoyancy
As for Bill Clinton and Obama, they were pressured by Republican congresses to be more centrist. Tried too hard to be accommodating and now it's coming back to haunt Hillary who actually is not Bill.
Well accommodation saved his presidency as we had maybe the best economy ever as a result.
Hillary's brought on her own controversy, if you remember the whole investigation during Bill's presidency was over her Whitewater dealings not his, and now Libya and classified email on an unsecure server. Bill was just a womanizer which was not exactly rare in American politics (look at Kennedy).
Speaking of Kennedy, he was a fiscally responsible Democrat who stood for strong defense. Today that would be called 'conservative'. Which shows how far left we've drifted considering we have a Socialist leading the polls currently for the upcoming election.
And the idea that America has drifted too far to the left is beyond laughable. Reagan shifted the political spectrum so far to the right that most Democrats today would be considered Rockefeller Republicans. Every President from FDR to Ford was more liberal than most Democrats.
It's about time the left started attempting to push back against right-wing dominance. Even though I don't think Sanders is electable, he's doing a service by highlighting the pain of 35 years of right-wing economic dominance and dragging Hillary to the left in the process.
Certainly Nixon would now be considered a liberal democrat - [www.nationalreview.com]
It also shows the value of committed, targeted, disciplined activism that hasn't existed on the left in decades. The only reason Nixon signed progressive legislation like founding the EPA is that activists like Ralph Nader were so relentless and organized that it forced his hand. No way he would have done so on his own, but he was smart enough to see where the national zeitgeist was.
Quote
keefriff99
...
From what I understand, Trump, ... has continued using the songs even when asked to desist...
Not with regards to Stones songs, but with other artists. I read a couple of weeks ago that he had continued using a song after being asked to stop (Adele, perhaps?). The article highlighted it as an example of his unconventional, arrogant and hostile campaigning style.Quote
LeonidPQuote
keefriff99
...
From what I understand, Trump, ... has continued using the songs even when asked to desist...
I don't get that at all from the article. Are you privy to other info not in the article?
Quote
exhpart
Getting back to the point I don't think Trump (or anyone else) needs permission to play a Stones song. He may need a public music licence or whatever it's called in the UsA
But I imagine he's thought of that.
Quote
keefriff99Not with regards to Stones songs, but with other artists. I read a couple of weeks ago that he had continued using a song after being asked to stop (Adele, perhaps?). The article highlighted it as an example of his unconventional, arrogant and hostile campaigning style.Quote
LeonidPQuote
keefriff99
...
From what I understand, Trump, ... has continued using the songs even when asked to desist...
I don't get that at all from the article. Are you privy to other info not in the article?
Unfortunately, I can't find the article...I will post it if I do.
Quote
exhpart
Getting back to the point I don't think Trump (or anyone else) needs permission to play a Stones song.
He may need a public music licence or whatever it's called in the UsA but I imagine he's thought of that.
Quote
with sssoul
It's not about royalties, or about profits, or about politics; it's about licensing.
Some information: [www.ascap.com] (read it all the way through, though!)
and [futureofmusic.org]