rigorousintuition.ca

Pan, my point is about well-intentioned people with high visibility still doing big dumb damaging things like the Uber Bowl and hyping nationalism in a fascist country, not that Brucie is evil.

Thanks for posting this info below which just underscores my point about the cost-benefit of macho nationalism which 'Brand Bruce' still conveys.

WHY didn't this get Springsteen the treatment that the Dixie Chicks got?
Hmmm? It has to do with demographics and gender-

professorpan wrote:Springsteen spoke out at every concert appearance on his tour before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During every single show, he paused to give what he called his "public service message" about the rush to war, the futility of all war, and how it would be a colossal mistake to invade Iraq. He got some boos from the crowd (no, they were not yelling Bruuuuuuce) and he knew it might hurt his sales, but his words were impassioned and real.
.....

professorpan wrote:Springsteen spoke out at every concert appearance on his tour before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During every single show, he paused to give what he called his "public service message" about the rush to war, the futility of all war, and how it would be a colossal mistake to invade Iraq.

Good for him. So when can we expect to hear him say it is "a colossal mistake" for Obama to continue that war (not to mention the war in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Obama's very own "surgical strikes" in Pakistan)?

Let me know as soon as it happens, Pan. I mean it. Because that would take actual guts.

He got some boos from the crowd (no, they were not yelling Bruuuuuuce) and he knew it might hurt his sales, but his words were impassioned and real. It took guts, unlike posting on message boards.

...say you, gutsily, on a message board.

I don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks about his music

So you say. And since you've chosen the vocabulary: I don't give a flying fuck what you think about my opinion of that music. Nor do I think good songwriters write "anti-war songs" that make it sound as if they're wrapped in the flag and longing to bomb Hanoi, or Kabul, or anywhere.

because I don't rely on the validation of others when it comes to what I like to listen to. As Snoop Dogg might say, "Never have, never will." But unlike nearly every other mega-star in popular music, Springsteen has always put his words, energy, and money into causes I believe in.

But that won't stop halfwits who don't know what they're talking about from slandering him. Reason #267 why I can barely even skim the bulk of threads on this board anymore, and why even typing this little screed seems like a waste of time.

Well, Pan, that "little screed" was nothing if not predictable. It's the standard deeply miffed reaction of any full-witted "liberal" Obama-ite when anyone ventures to takes the shine off his hero. (As Brecht said, pity the land that needs them.)

Talking of guts (or prudence, or canny business sense, or something), here's more from Anti-War Bruce, he of the guts, he who is convinced (according to you) of "the futility of all war":

BBC, July 29th 2002:

Springsteen 'backs' war on terror

Bruce Springsteen has reportedly praised the way US President George W Bush handled the "war on terror" after the 11 September attacks.

The veteran rock legend said he had been surprised by the approach to action against the Taleban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the World Trade Center attacks.

Springsteen made the comments as his album of 11 September-inspired songs was released.

The 52-year-old star is well known for supporting liberal causes and his anger at the hijacking of his Vietnam-themed song, Born in the USA, by right-wingers.

But he told The Times: "The war in Afghanistan was handled well.

"It was deliberative, which I wasn't counting on. I expected a lot less from this administration."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2158381.stm

"Deliberative"? Sic. For fuck's sake.

Still, credit where credit's due: the BBC's caption to their accompanying photo is nothing if not laconic:

Springsteen is a well-known liberal

Who could deny it?

So you say. And since youchoose the vocabilary: I don't give a flying fuck what you think about my opinion of it. And I don't think good songwriters write "anti-war songs" that make it sound as if they're wrapped in the flag and longing to bomb Hanoi. (Or Kabul.)

And I don't give a flying fuck if you prefer not to actually read the lyrics.

And I know a lot of people who supported the war in Afghanistan, and while I might disagree with them, I'm not ready to take them off my Christmas card list or send them to re-education camps. I have no idea if Springsteen has changed his mind about Afghanistan, but even if he hasn't, I still respect his integrity, which he has shown over a very long career. Even if I have major disagreements. Hey, Neil Young fucked up royally, but eventually saw the error in his ways and produced a full-throttle anti-Bush, antiwar album. People make mistakes.

Well, Pan, that "little screed" was nothing if not predictable. It's the standard deeply miffed reaction of any full-witted "liberal" Obama-ite when anyone ventures to takes the shine off his hero. (As Brecht said, pity the land that needs them.)

Oh, snap!

But really, is that the best you can do -- characterize me as an Obama worshiper? Please.

MacCruiskeen wrote: Good for him. So when can we expect to hear him say it is "a colossal mistake" for Obama to continue that war (not to mention the war in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Obama's very own "surgical strikes" in Pakistan)?

Let me know as soon as it happens, Pan. I mean it. Because that would take actual guts.

He got some boos from the crowd (no, they were not yelling Bruuuuuuce) and he knew it might hurt his sales, but his words were impassioned and real. It took guts, unlike posting on message boards.

...say you, gutsily, on a message board.

I don't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks about his music

Yeah, profpan true to form. Gutsy and impassioned.

Hi guys did I miss a thread in which every single poster was calling each other and Bruce Springsteen a Nazi?

Sounds like fun. 卐

Imagine Pete Seegar marketing himself as...'The Boss.'

orz wrote:Hi guys did I miss a thread in which every single poster was calling each other and Bruce Springsteen a Nazi?

Sounds like fun. 卐

Are you including me, orz? I'm not offended. But I was trying to exercise restraint. And if I failed, I'd want to know about it.

Springsteen isn't half the bard Willie Nelson is.

Irate post sanitized

Wow, thanks for pinning the sins of empire on little old me -- although honestly, the last time I invaded another country, it was Tokyo, and they seemed to welcome my yankee dollars

As for my spine being jelly, well, nyah nyah nyah, I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to YOU.

Pan, why bother?

Clearly these people are basing their judgement of Springsteen on their dislike of his music, by their total and wanton disregard of his actual actions over the years.

So he wraps himself in a flag. Big deal. He's patriotic. But these people find 'patriotism' synonomous with 'nazism.' It's idiotic at best.

Whatever.

.

Can you believe the length of this thread?

If it had been a considered critique of

- 120 years of football for its inherent war-theater and celebration of macho, or of

- 43 years of Superbowls for their recruitment propaganda (and function as consumerist high holiday), or of

- rock and roll's complicity with uber-patriotic ideology, or of

- Springsteen's complicity for playing this year's Superbowl, or of

- the standard forms of stadium shows with their lights and fireworks

... a whole bunch of people would have agreed. The thread would have been over soon after, unless we all went off on a tangent.

But if you want attention, just ignore all history and sense. Put nothing in context. Instead, say something like this: Springsteen's (pedestrian, oft-seen) Superbowl performance is actually a (totally unprecedented!) modern reenactment of the Riefenstahl-Speer "Cathedral of Light," and intended as a "triumphal arch" for the entry of Fuehrer Obama on the wave of his millions of brainwashed fool cultists!

Inexplicably, many of you still completely ignore the initial thesis of the OP, and instead pretend it's about the violence of football, Superbowls, militarism, bad rock, or whatever else... it's not. It's pure anti-Obama woo in the service of the Republican Party Comeback Committee.

And chlamor is the Julius Streicher of the anti-Obama woo brigade!

(Well, actually, he's not, not even remotely, but as this statement is no more over-the-top than the initial OP, I'm entitled to direct it at anyone I have even mild disagreements with. In short, you're all NAZI SCUM.)

.

JackRiddler wrote:.

Can you believe the length of this thread?

If it had been a considered critique of

- 120 years of football for its inherent war-theater and celebration of macho, or of

- 43 years of Superbowls for their recruitment propaganda (and function as consumerist high holiday), or of

- rock and roll's complicity with uber-patriotic ideology, or of

- Springsteen's complicity for playing this year's Superbowl, or of

- the standard forms of stadium shows with their lights and fireworks

... a whole bunch of people would have agreed. The thread would have been over soon after, unless we all went off on a tangent.

But if you want attention, just ignore all history and sense. Put nothing in context. Instead, say something like this: Springsteen's (pedestrian, oft-seen) Superbowl performance is actually a (totally unprecedented!) modern reenactment of the Riefenstahl-Speer "Cathedral of Light," and intended as a "triumphal arch" for the entry of Fuehrer Obama on the wave of his millions of brainwashed fool cultists!

Inexplicably, many of you still completely ignore the initial thesis of the OP, and instead pretend it's about the violence of football, Superbowls, militarism, bad rock, or whatever else... it's not. It's pure anti-Obama woo in the service of the Republican Party Comeback Committee.

And chlamor is the Julius Streicher of the anti-Obama woo brigade!

(Well, actually, he's not, not even remotely, but as this statement is no more over-the-top than the initial OP, I'm entitled to direct it at anyone I have even mild disagreements with. In short, you're all NAZI SCUM.)

.

Jack you're full of crap and politically incoherent which is why you stupidly adhere to the ass-backwards idea that somehow we must first get rid if the Repubs and only then look to eliminate the Dems. You can't even recognize the simple fact that the Dems are who provide cover for the entire bloody enterprise and more to the point that the Dems and Pubs work hand in glove on every single issue of import and vote in agreement on every single issue of import. But you will ramble on absurdly with such insane ideas of what ails the American political machinery...

Obama sucks bad and is the perfect fit for the decaying Empire and it's confused citizenry. He'll keep the pretense going far better than would other rougher errand boys.

The Obama crowd needs to grow up.

this forum is full of pettily irate crusaders.

any form of normalcy, grace or accomodation is viewed as submission to the great babylon.

chlamor from the rooftops.

chlamor wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:.

Can you believe the length of this thread?

If it had been a considered critique of

- 120 years of football for its inherent war-theater and celebration of macho, or of

- 43 years of Superbowls for their recruitment propaganda (and function as consumerist high holiday), or of

- rock and roll's complicity with uber-patriotic ideology, or of

- Springsteen's complicity for playing this year's Superbowl, or of

- the standard forms of stadium shows with their lights and fireworks

... a whole bunch of people would have agreed. The thread would have been over soon after, unless we all went off on a tangent.

But if you want attention, just ignore all history and sense. Put nothing in context. Instead, say something like this: Springsteen's (pedestrian, oft-seen) Superbowl performance is actually a (totally unprecedented!) modern reenactment of the Riefenstahl-Speer "Cathedral of Light," and intended as a "triumphal arch" for the entry of Fuehrer Obama on the wave of his millions of brainwashed fool cultists!

Inexplicably, many of you still completely ignore the initial thesis of the OP, and instead pretend it's about the violence of football, Superbowls, militarism, bad rock, or whatever else... it's not. It's pure anti-Obama woo in the service of the Republican Party Comeback Committee.

And chlamor is the Julius Streicher of the anti-Obama woo brigade!

(Well, actually, he's not, not even remotely, but as this statement is no more over-the-top than the initial OP, I'm entitled to direct it at anyone I have even mild disagreements with. In short, you're all NAZI SCUM.)

.

Jack you're full of crap and politically incoherent which is why you stupidly adhere to the ass-backwards idea that somehow we must first get rid if the Repubs and only then look to eliminate the Dems. You can't even recognize the simple fact that the Dems are who provide cover for the entire bloody enterprise and more to the point that the Dems and Pubs work hand in glove on every single issue of import and vote in agreement on every single issue of import. But you will ramble on absurdly with such insane ideas of what ails the American political machinery...

Obama sucks bad and is the perfect fit for the decaying Empire and it's confused citizenry. He'll keep the pretense going far better than would other rougher errand boys.

The Obama crowd needs to grow up.

Nice complete avoidance of the FACT (as Hugh would say) that the source article is over-the-top to the point of retardation.

(Bruce Springsteen will still be irrelevant tomorrow)