Glad to see an artist not taking the safe path....anyone worth listening to has taken risks. Last I heard, being well known didn't mean giving up your right to express your own personal convictions.

I have a new respect for her....

thanks so much for playing this!

namesbenny wrote:

Count me in on the doorstop and the cherry danish, but undecided about agar plate. Maybe as slimy as W.

8~)

Is it just me, or does it sound like she has a stuffy nose, and she's trying to sing and breathe through her mouth at the same time?

srbarry wrote:

Relax, jerkoff. They'll get back to three-chord rock'n'roll in a few minutes and you can go back to sleep again.

This set needs a Dixie Chicks song.

ncmtnbiker wrote:

Hilarious. Toby Keith, yeah. Laughing at my desk. I believe the humor in this post was too subtle for some. The right! Ha!

Barf. Two days in a row with this whinny crap. Enuf already.

If the music had any merit it might be different - but to give this air time just for the politics is a waste of good RP quality time.

When Toby Keith turns out something worth listening to, maybe it'll get played.

I, for one, could live the rest of my life without having to hear Keith's "love it or leave it" crap. It's exactly that attitude that damns the level of discourse in this country to the Ann Coulter/Michael Moore idiocy that abounds.

What do all these political rants have to do with this crummy song?

Another proof of the maxim that musicians should stick to music.

Major buzzkill.

Excellent music to pack for the upcoming Women's March (tomorrow!) to... keep the thread going :-)

smellody wrote:

There HAS to be a Forum for this stuff folks, take it there,......GET A ROOM!

smellody wrote:

Pot head? I havent smoked that stuff since before you were born.

Who cares if Bush OR Kerry win? They are both the same thing. Globalists. Communists. Stop shoving that false "Left - Right" paradigm into your veins.They all voted the patriot act and they all want to keep and expand it.The true political spectrum is Total State on the left and total Fredom on the right. Both Bush and Kerry represent the LEFT.

veegez wrote:

We already are in flames if TRUTH is less important than which party is speaking it. Why people stick to party lines when such evidence is laid out in front of them boggles the mind. Clarke is not merely selling a book. He's serving his country. Without the truth, democracy cannot function. Clarke served Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. He is a registered Republican. His story lines up perfectly with other Republican members of the staff who have come forward to say that this president is dangerously inept. O'Neill is another conservative who told the same story.

They chose the book form because it's a much more efficient method to get the message out than walking around telling people in person or posting on RP. Perhaps you can suggest a better one that wouldn't bring such scorn from people who refuse to look at truth?

namesbenny wrote:

Well, the Arab world has kind of challenged us, in case you've forgotten. I'm afraid people on the left want to pretend Clinton did a "Great" job on terrorism, and Bush was "complicit" in the 9/11 attacks and that something like that probably won't happen again, so let's pull out of Iraq since they were "Never" a threat to the US or any of our allies or were "never" connected with Al Qaida in the first place. Nothing like igoring facts and rewritting history and flat out lying and taking sides in the matter to sell a book (aka Richard "Dick" Clarke), much to the pleasure of our enemies in North Korea and Iran and Syria etc., and all in the name of making sure the Blue team wins the election. We might as well pull the plug on this thing called Democracy. We're goin down in flames if we can't be on the same page when it comes to defending ourselves.

No? Well if you're not happy about the direction Bush is taking us, would you be happy supporting the direction Islamic Terrorists are taking the world? .

As someone else has already noted, the choice is not so black and white. Voting Bush out doesn't mean one supports terrorism (though his ads would suggest as much). It means there may be other approaches to the problem. I feel US military aggression is flaming the fire in the Islamic world, and I'd like to see the US generally promote peace instead. There may be a need to fight at times, but lets make that the final option instead of the standard response. I see Bush and company always challenging the Arab world as a spiral leading downward to more death and destruction.

heliosweb wrote:


... the one main and rather important difference being that you still have the power to vote this imbecile and his cronies out of office (and reverse his silly laws and foreign policies).

But seeing US voters' infatuation with a candidate's "leadership" qualities (never mind the content!!), so called patriotism and also the highly questionable amalgamation of religion, big business and politics makes me less than optimistic.

So please remember: Your votes affect us as much as you. You vote, we suffer. And believe me, we wouldn't choose George W. for all the oil in Iraq.

veegez wrote:


This is the problem with the short-sighted right. You can't possibly believe those are the only two choices available, or do you?

namesbenny wrote:

I'll take the cherry danish. It's obvious I'm completely outnumbered here and I most likely won't change anybody's mind with anything that I write or post. But, what if George W could dance?

Disco
Aerobics

No? Well if you're not happy about the direction Bush is taking us, would you be happy supporting the direction Islamic Terrorists are taking the world? They were able to topple a Democratic government in 3 days before an election and replaced it with a Socialist Govt. Spain is immediately appeasing the terrorists by vacating Iraq and trying to calm the fears of it's populace. Islamic Terrorists must be encouraged by the results.

Question: Who do you want in control of the world, Bush, or Al Qaeda? And don't laugh, this is their goal. The first step is a US President sympathetic to their causes, or at least a President that appears willing to appease their wishes or look the other way.

Wall St Journal excerpt:
The new prime minister's stated determination to bring Spain into the axis of weasels also underscores the dangers of making a fetish of multilateralism, another Kerry fallacy. Eugene Volokh makes the point:

If we agree that we may not do what we think is right and necessary for our national security if any one of England, France, Russia, or China says "veto," then our enemies can paralyze us simply by influencing one foreign country. The influence might be exerted by bribes . . ., or by threat of terrorist violence. But one way or another, an enemy that couldn't break down our resolve could still stop us from doing what needs to be done by breaking down the resolve of one of the veto-owning countries. (The same applies if we just generally agree not to go ahead without the agreement of "our European allies" generally--if the threat of terrorist retaliation cows several of those allies, that could be enough to stymie our plans.)

I think that the last paragraph explains specifically why the United Nations is not so good for the US.

veegez wrote:

I don't think Bush had all his answers to foreign policy when he was running the first time, so I don't think it's realistic to expect too much from Kerry until he's on the job. Sometimes a choice is clear when you know what you don't want. I'd vote for a doorstop, a cherry danish or an agar plate before I'd support the direction Bush is taking the US and the world.

indigo_xia wrote:

I won't flame you or label you. You just have a different view of what happened regarding Iraq/terrorism and what is currently happening than I do.

About "leaving the role of the world policeman to the UN". The US really has the only resouces in the world to follow through with the enforcement part of that proposition. In which case, why would you want to have to get permission from France or Lichtenstein to protect our citizens? Tiny countries having the same say in what goes on in the world as the larger countries makes no sense, as those larger countries will carry the majority of the burden of whatever is proposed. It just creates an opportunity for those countries to ask for payoffs. "What are you gonna do for us?", they say. So then, we have to pay everybody off before we get permission to save ourselves.

John Kerry represents exactly what I have posted about the war here. He is positioned against Bush, says he'd do things differently, but really doesn't say exactly what he'd do. I would hope that voters would demand these answers from him before they vote for him. Andrew Sullivan, Editor at the New Republic breaks down John Kerry's answers from the primary debate in Milwaukee: (click here)

veegez wrote:

OK. This is for all of the people and organizations who thought that the US should ignore the UN and invade Iraq when no WMDs had been discovered in 2002.



Please note that I never said that only Bush thought that Iraq had WMDs. Of course it wasn't just him. And I agree that Saddam was a horrible man who oppressed and murdered his own people and needed to be overthrown. However, I believe that the US shouldn't have gone rogue to do so. I have yet to be convinced that Iraq had any WMDs and/or ties to Al Quaeda during the months leading up to the invasion that threatened America. IMO the Bush administration played up the information that supported their political agenda. Having failed to take out Osama bin Laden, they wanted to punish someone for 9-11 and get their hands on Iraq's oil.



I do, but I doubt you're gonna like it. Leave the role of "world policeman" to the UN. Since the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion was oil, let's develop renewable energy sources so that we can eventually end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. The oil and natural gas deposits are going to dry up eventually. Why wait until they do?

I know I'm going to get seriously flamed for the above. Whatever. If veegez can spew right-wing, flag-waving rhetoric, I'll take up the cause for the tree-hugging hippies.

indigo_xia wrote:

EDIT: It only "appears" that way because people are attempting to re-write history. The record and facts combine to show otherwise.

veegez wrote:

"People believing the hype" works for Bush supporters as well. Look at how many Americans supported invading Iraq because of the "imminent threat" of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Now in hindsight Saddam appears to have been a sadistic, paranoid tyrant without a single WMD. To each his own hype, I guess.

Veegez, maybe you're the one who knows where all the WMD are. Apparantly you seem to know more than the rest of us about how wonderful the Bush administration is.
veegez wrote: