Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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
mitch

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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]

I know that well, thank you. But Mick is smart, and he would never flag anything. To admire, or being inspired by, is entirely different than voting for the party...

Quote
mitch

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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
jlowe

Quote
mitch

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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.

Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.

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.

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.

Illegal and immoral - Right up Keith's and Brian's alley - sounds like the Stones we love!

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe

Quote
mitch

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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.

Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.

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
nightskyman

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
jlowe

Quote
mitch

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
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.

Labour basically did what the Democrats have done in America...moved to the center and become only slightly better alternatives than their conservative opposition.

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...

First of all, it's the Democratic Party. Using the snide, truncated, grammatically-incorrect "democrat party" slur shows your hand.

Democrats governing as Republican-lite started with Bill Clinton in the early '90s, and Obama started his Presidency as a Rockefeller Republican...he's only started asserting his liberal bona fides recently because he's finally realized that the GOP will slap his hand away in hatred no matter how centrist he attempts to govern.

Democrats attempting to govern as actual liberal Democrats is a relatively new phenomenon. People like de Blasio and Sanders are pushing back on the notion that Democrats have to play it safe and only govern slightly less conservatively than Republicans.

And it's about goddamn time they started to re-embrace their liberal values. The GOP has dragged the political spectrum so far to the right over the last 35 years that the Democrats were basically where the Republicans were in the '70s up until a few years ago.

I look at it from an independent perspective, even so a little surprised by your initial post (which I saw it as an attack on republican/conervativism).

So someone needed to respond, All I was saying is it's a stretch to call Obama a centrist (or a centrist democrat)...as if to say he hasn't gone far enough to the left. I mean, how much more liberal/leftist do you want him to be? (Be more like Castro?)

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.

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
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.

Which all goes to show there's no correlation ...i.e. you can be a twat and still be a Stones fan

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick is mortified at the suggestion he’s close to the Tory party

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
odean73

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Mick is mortified at the suggestion he’s close to the Tory party

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.

I believe it! His Mum was a Conservative and I mean capital C I think she was a member and I do think his instincts are what we in the UK describe as One Nation Conservative... but Mick has to be "handled" carefully and would resent being boxed into a corner as the article depicts.

Mick is not a right-winger. Did you read his interview with Spanish paper El Pais a few years ago? Left-wing views coming from Mick concerning the Iraq war. Surprising because Keith had told the press that Mick had dined with Tony Blair, who Keith considered to be "to the right of Margaret Thatcher". 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.

The Clintons are good friends with the Stones. Hillary and Bill were backstage at the Stones "Shine A Light" concert in New York. Hillary and her mother were Stones fans since the early 60's, Mick said.

In 2011 Keith Richards vacationed with the Clintons in the Caribbean. Hillary's mother Dorothy was 92. When she told Keith she was a bigger fan of the Stones than anyone, Keith kissed her. She died a few months later, happy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-13 06:18 by chatoyancy.

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.

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
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]

this is the point

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.

and this is the rest of the point



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-13 19:13 by CloudCat.

Quote
kovach

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.

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.

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.

And this notion 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 are ideologically where Rockefeller Republicans were in the '70s. Every President from FDR to Ford was more economically liberal than where most Democrats stood post-Reagan.

It's about time liberals started attempting to pull the spectrum back to the left a bit. Even though I don't think Sanders has much of a chance in the general election, he's performing a tremendous service by highlighting the injustices of 35 years of right-wing ideology being so dominant that even Democratic Presidents like Clinton and Obama bought into the framing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-02-13 19:39 by keefriff99.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
kovach

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.

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.

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, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.

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
Turner68

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
kovach

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.

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.

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, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.

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]

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.

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.

Good points.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Turner68

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
kovach

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.

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.

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, just like their pathetic, transparent effort to claim Martin Luther King as one of their own.

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]

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.

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.

“I always thought the banjo was the one thing that could have saved Nixon … he gets off the plane, says, ‘I’d like to talk about politics, but first, a little ‘Foggy Mountain Breakdown.’ ” - Steve Martin

Quote
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
LeonidP

Quote
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?

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.

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.

However, even if should be correct that Trump needs no permission to play music from the Stones, the band is entitled to state that he did not ask for a permission. The relevance would be in case if somebody was to believe he had asked and had been granted permission.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
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?

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.

Unfortunately, I can't find the article...I will post it if I do.

I am sure it was Adele as well.

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.

Once more:

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]

The links in that post there provide very specific factual information, if anyone's interested

Donald is really good at utilizing the spotlight. Throw out a bone get the attention deliever a more compasionate ( softer) message. And he gets away with it everytime because many journalists think of themselves as activists rather than media producers.

We all know the Stones HATE Trump. Nothing political about it.

YCAGWYW played at end of Trump's speech tonight...ugh!