>
>
> Guess we needed to as you obviously were oblivious
> to the fact that for most people outside the US,
> the Dem/Rep terms are irrelevant


They seem to becoming irrelevent here too.
I don't really think Mick fits into any one political category.

Does the old skit on SNL -- in which Mick plays Keith, and Michael Meyers plays Mick -- shed any light on the question?
___________________________________________________________________


Kevin Nealon:
This week, Warner Brothers' Records dropped rap artist Ice T from their label, after further controversy over his song "Cop Killer". Was the decision justified? Here with a Point Counterpoint are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

Mick Jagger:
It's outrageous, man! It's outrageous! Keith, all the dude wants to do is write a bloody tune, man. And these guys are gettin' all cold for it, you know, it's all about censorship, man. Censorship - it's outrageous, it's outside, man.

Keith Richards:
Lemme tell ya something, Mick - that's rubbish! The police, they serve and protect. They're the backbone of our bloody society. You gotta stand up for the cats in blue, man! If you didn't have rules, you'd have.. freakin' anarchy!

Mick Jagger:
It's the bloody First Amendment, mate. I mean, if you can't write a song about killing a cop.. I mean, what's next? Won't be able to write about killing security guards.. or what - those bloody doormen, with their costumes and their "Nice weather we're having.." Or.. they want a bloody tip, man! When they really didn't do anything, you know! I can open a bloody door, you know?

Keith Richards:
Mick.. you ignorant slut! All the time, you liberal claptrap.. [ mumbles unintelligibly ]

Mick Jagger:
That wasn't English, Keith! I mean, you're talking in Esperanto, or some language twins teach each other! I mean, the King's English, man! I mean, throw us a bone man - alright!

Keith Richards:
Listen, man, you're going sillin' go with the goin' bean!

Mick Jagger:
What's that?

Keith Richards:
You're gonna sillin' go with the goin' bean.

Mick Jagger:
[ singing ] "You're gonna sillin' go with the goin' bean."

Mick & Keith:
[ singing together ] "You're gonna sillin' go with the goin' bean. You're gonna sillin' go with the goin' bean."

Keith Richards:
No, "Man."

Mick Jagger:
You don't like the "Man"? It's great, though. Just invert it, Keith.

Mick & Keith:
[ singing together ] "Sillin' go with the goin' bean. Sillin' go with the goin' bean."

Kevin Nealon:
Well, Mick, Keith.. thanks for coming. Great! Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, with Point/Counterpoint.

^that was a great sketch, hilarious.

If all Brits thought like Mick, I'd welcome them voting in our elections!! Gazza, I also think, aside from the $$ where being TOO political may effect the Stones, it could also be a matter of safety. They are not that casual or foolish to not notice that the USA has it's share of WACKOS!

According to Marianne Faithfull's autobiography:

"...by the spring of 1968 Mick had become restless. He was beginning to feel his role as lead singer of a rock 'n roll band was too confining ... he was casting about for something new. As a culture hero Mick could have become almost anything he wished. For a while, he flirted with the idea of becoming a Labour Member of Parliament!

It was that pivotal moment in the late 60's when all our fantasies about taking over the world seemed to be coming true. Mick wasn't really that interested in politics, certainly not left-wing politics. But I was, I'd come from a socialist background ... so when the charismatic Labour MP Tom Driberg contacted us I was delighted.

...He came over one afternoon to ask Mick to run for a seat in Parliament. And at this point Mick really could have done it. Mick was very principled then. He had been taken aback by the vindictiveness of the Establishment following the Redlands bust and was going around saying a lot of semi-radical things at that time. "Teenagers the world over are being pushed around by half-witted politicians who attempt to dominate their way of thinking and set a code for their living."

It was all taken quite seriously for a while. He went into all the possible objections and conflicts: "What about touring and that? My first commitment is to my music, so I wouldn't want to have to give any of that up to sit behind a desk."

And Tom said: "Oh, that wouldn't be a problem. You could carry on with your music same as you always have and still do something very important for the party."

"I mean, I don't exactly see myself scrutinizing the Waterworks Bill inch by inch, if you know what I mean."

"Dear boy, we wouldn't expect you to attend to the day to day ephemera of the House. Not at all. We see you more as, uh, a figurehead, like, you know.."

"The Queen?" said Mick, completing his sentence.

"Precisely!"

...It was a wild idea... The right-wing establishment had tried to crush us and here was an offering from the other side. This was the moment when it all made sense, and it also, I think, made Mick and me feel quite sick.

Mick felt that the Stones were a more pervasive influence than any politician. He also knew that it would be unbelievably dull! I suppose on the most banal level it must have come down to them wanting to get the youth vote. I don't think Mick liked that idea, being bait.

Keith finally did the idea in. When Mick asked Keith what he thought, Keith told him it was about the worst idea he'd ever heard. He knew that it would have taken Mick completely out of his sphere.

He was very clever, Driberg, because he could see exactly what Mick wanted, which was a form of respectability - and he came within an inch of success with Mick. Politics was an honourable forum, in Tom Driberg's eyes, but to Keith it wasn't at all. It would have meant a break-up of the Stones."



Thanks, Keith. Without you, we might have been stuck with Prime Minister Jagger and NO Rolling Stones.

Maybe Mick couldve formed a band with tony blair on guitar? The rolling MP's maybe?

a) I question the fundamental difference between left and right /democrat liberal or liberal/conservative in the 21st century.

b) Rolling Stones have been kind of anarchist in their prime, they have pushed the limit of the societies to upper limits and together with some other individuals, they have greatly (I think) contributed to some sort of liberation of the minds. Not to be seen a "liberalism" though.

c) 40 years ago they were thrown in jail, now it is "Sir" Jagger. Did they really change or did sociéty adapt to them?

All in all, the initial question has only one answer, Mick, or Keith are free thinkers. Kind of people that would not/could not follow party rules.

Grichka >> [collateral-interference.blogspot.com]

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 08:50 by FrankM.

There are sensitive, caring, enlightened people in both parties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 08:46 by FrankM.

Labor

paulywaul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lynn1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 1. He loves money and avoids taxes. Repub
> > 2. He obviously is not in favor of a large
> estate
> > taxes--too many offspring. Repub
> > 3. His song writing is anti-establishment.
> Demo
> > 4. He does not seem to use contraception often.
>
> > Repub
> > 5. He already has a quasi governmental title
> > (Sir). Repub
> > 6. He went to the London School of Econ.
> Repub
> > 7. He doesn't interact with the "little"
> people.
> > Repub
> > 8. He doesn't drive in a Prius. Repub
> > 9. Hosts birthday bashes for ex Demo Pres.
> Demo
> > 10. He speaks in complete sentences. Demo BUT
> > sqints when he talks..Repub
> >
> > please feel free to add to the list
>
> What are you trying to do, get yourself banned
> from IORR ? Don't bother with political threads.
> They're not particularly interesting, they're
> totally misplaced, and they inevitably get either
> closed or deleted by the administrator of this
> website. And anyway, he's neither. He's a Brit
> from Dartford/UK.


Oh relax Pauly. God, that's all I hear these days, so and so got banned, so and so is going to get banned if someone doesn't like what someone says. Don't take it all that seriously, he's just trying to be humorous and have a little fun.

PLEXIGLASS !

This was all started tongue in cheek. Thanks for recognizing the sarcasm!

Chav Watch Wrote:
Brits should
> get a vote in the US elections - after all the US
> does determine our foreign policy!!!


I don't think it'd work, but its an idea I could entertain. Certainly on global scale, what Bush does affects everyone.

I like George Bush. He's very commical. There was a great clip show about him and it's funny how many times he says something like "I need a chessburger" or I'm getting myself a cheeseburger" after interviews.

There was this Extreme version of Greenpeace..Jagger supported....not a very right-wing thing to do....I believe the guy got killed..not sure..I do remember posters in the street with Mick on it supporting this guy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-01 15:18 by rooster.

FRank, that was a generalization but statistically, the Democrats are the ones who implement social programs and work on behalf of poor and middle class. Not something I made up, just a historical fact. Check the history books. Seems I hit a nerve. Twinge of consciene perhaps.

Debra wrote: "Democrats are the ones who implement social programs"
*****************

you said it...dems expect government programs to take care of everyone. that's the problem. it is a fact that dems love to spend other people's money. repubs give much much much more $$...their own. it was documented again on the recent 11/29 episode of ABC's 20/20. you might want to get a tape of that.

the whole idea that one party(as a generalization) is more caring is ridiculous.
if you really think party affiliation determines whether that person cares about children, minorities or the environment,,,then you're just silly and falling for the rhetoric that a certain political party has used for decades to divide the American public.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-01 15:50 by sweet neo con.

Mick voted Labour Party in 'Being Mick' (or at least heavily implied this).

_

Big T



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 20:31 by JustinCaseBandDK.

If you don't care, why post?

"Mick voted Labour Party in 'Being Mick' (or at least heavily implied this)."

No, he said he'd voted for the Socialist Workers Party & he was taking the piss.

lynn1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was all started tongue in cheek. Thanks for
> recognizing the sarcasm!

A thread like this can never be started in this forum without stirring up a commotion.

post deleted as per request by bv.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 08:58 by FrankM.

He was asked to stand up as a frontman for labor back in 67.

Mick's a Labour-man. If he was American, he'd vote Green. A Democrat. Haven't you seen the lyrics for Sweet Neo Con??? A very liberal man, fortunately. Keith is a guy with green values, too. I've heard him talk about global warming, supporting the environmental movement. He's a wise man, like a chief of an American Indian tribe. He cares for Mother Earth. One of the reasons why I love him.

Tralala Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick's a Labour-man. If he was American, he'd vote
> Green. A Democrat. Haven't you seen the lyrics for
> Sweet Neo Con??? A very liberal man, fortunately.
> Keith is a guy with green values, too. I've heard
> him talk about global warming, supporting the
> environmental movement. He's a wise man, like a
> chief of an American Indian tribe. He cares for
> Mother Earth. One of the reasons why I love him.

When I was a kid back in the 70's the scientists thought we were heading towards another ice age- now it is global warming. Do any of these scientists know what the hell they are talking about anyway. What has the temperature risen? One degree in the last hundred years? Frankly I'm glad because it can be a little chilly here in New Jersey sometimes. May save me some money on my heating bill.

Don't believe all these Hollywood doomsday movies where you see people in row boats rowing through Manhattan.

FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tralala Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mick's a Labour-man. If he was American, he'd
> vote
> > Green. A Democrat. Haven't you seen the lyrics
> for
> > Sweet Neo Con??? A very liberal man,
> fortunately.
> > Keith is a guy with green values, too. I've
> heard
> > him talk about global warming, supporting the
> > environmental movement. He's a wise man, like a
> > chief of an American Indian tribe. He cares for
> > Mother Earth. One of the reasons why I love him.
>
> When I was a kid back in the 70's the scientists
> thought we were heading towards another ice age-
> now it is global warming. Do any of these
> scientists know what the hell they are talking
> about anyway. What has the temperature risen? One
> degree in the last hundred years? Frankly I'm glad
> because it can be a little chilly here in New
> Jersey sometimes. May save me some money on my
> heating bill.
>
> Don't believe all these Hollywood doomsday movies
> where you see people in row boats rowing through
> Manhattan.


If the temperature increased by 1 degree Celsius all over the world, a lot of snow would melt on the northpole and southpole, causing people in Taiwan, China and other places to loose their crops, and drown when there's a storm. Poor people loosing crops means death. A few degrees more, would cause even Netherland to disappear. Some people don't think about such things..because they are not in danger themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-01 22:38 by Erik_Snow.

erik;

I obviously wouldn't want to see people lose their life or livelyhood even if i'm on safe ground. My point was that at this point the danger is over exaggerated. Should we investigate global warming? Yes. Should there be a woldwide panic about it? No.

If there was imminent danger of the polar ice caps melting it would be all over the news and people would be evacuating as we speak.

My point was that the experts don't always know what they are talking about. Years ago food experts thought margarine was better for you than butter- now they find out that trans fats are even worse. The science community is quite fickle.

Some people have exaggerated the global warnings, I remember some stupid TV-and-news reports about it in the late 80s (the same way whale-hunting is exaggurated), yet it is a threat for people, especially in Asia, in the future. Poor countries are growing richer, and use European and AMerican outdated machinery when they build factories and such, and causing a much worse pollution than we make ourselves.
If all the people in the world used the same kind of energy as us Americans and Europeans have done the last 50 years, it would be a terrible disaster for the atmosphere, clima, and everything.
And there's several floods and famines that allready has taken place, which can be explained by the global heatings.
It's a delicate subject...

Frank and NeoCon, I think my version of history is quite accurate and to think that some folks think all Democrats do is keep people on welfare is ridiculous, but for those that choose to believe it, c'est la vie! Remember it was the Democrats who began Social Security and it's wonderful if you will never need to collect it, but for me, I expect to use it to supplement my savings after retirement! How do YOU know Babs doesn't give alot to charities? I'm sure you are guessing because I heard she was rather generous and NOT in a public way. Democrats at least TRY to find ways to help the poor, we don't spend time conniving to find yet another tax shelter for the 1% of the wealthiest in the country. I don't believe it is a Democrat who owns Enron or Haliburton. But enough of this, I am not going to waste time trying to show that I'm correct. For ME, the party of the people is the Democratic party and it is not an opinin, rather a fact. I'd much rather admire a Bobby Kennedy than a Richard.M Nixon or a George Bush.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-02 09:05 by FrankM.