Political views and Jay........

jeffra
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:51 pm

Post by jeffra »

This is why I love this message board....Different ideas, people, and theologies.

However, we still share the same common bond with the music....

Hey, I have enjoyed each and every post on this thread....beacuase I remember when the board was hijacked by idiots....

Oh yeah, what do you all think about a message board concert....like a webcast or something?.

bigdaddy
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by bigdaddy »

I just want to point out for those who may not know that Israel is a democracy that has a constitution based heavily on the American constitution. And while Israel is a Jewish State (guarenteeing the right of return of all Jews after what happened in WWII), it guarentees religious and political freedoms to all of its citizens, over 25% of which are Muslim and Christian. Israel's constitution is completely separated from the Bible.

Hank Snow
Posts: 2161
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:15 pm
Location: The Buckle of the Bible Belt

Post by Hank Snow »

Every American is entitled to any belief system that they want, and I think any person of any belief system is entitiled to serve our great nation in any capacity. HOWEVER, I don't think any person in a position of power in any level of government should use their religous beliefs to govern in any way. Whether they are christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, anything. We are governed by the US and State Constitutions, not the bible or torah or koran.

I think if those of us on different sides of this issue would look at it with "Different Eyes" we would all understand each other a little better.

jeffra
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:51 pm

Post by jeffra »

This is not the issue of Pro-Zion or Anti-Zion politics. Its the wholesale product of music and liberal values that turns me away.

There is a time and place for music and issues, but not to turn people off.
Hey look what it did for Cat Stevens


(but as a devil's advocate)...... on the last post, you say the same about Ronnie Reagan and his views on life. Because someone has a moral or ethical code of conduct does not make them the son of satan. Are you proposing that no person that prescribes to Christian theology should EVER be in a public office..If so, then Washington, Lincoln, Reagan...etc has no business in running our country. Now that is a "Damn Shame"

bigdaddy
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by bigdaddy »

I agree that just because you criticize Israel that doesn't make you a racist. HOWEVER, I should point out that the suicide bombings that were taking place over the past few years have been curbed considerably by the very wall you're criticizing. In fact, an Israeli court itself ruled that a portion of the wall be rerouted because it encroched on Palestinian land and caused undue hardships. That was possible because Israel, as a democracy, has a court system that is transparent and true to a constutition that protects all of its citizens, regardless of religion. If it were your brothers and sisters being blown up, I'm sure you'd be putting up a wall too.

And Israel should thumb its nose at the international courts, not because it is special but because it never gets a fair shake. At a conference for racism in Durbin a few years back, the entire conference focused on Israel (a democracy) while there was no mention of Sudan, Iran, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and on and on. This should give you some insight as to why Israel isn't able to rely on international courts.

And remember, walls can always be torn down. Sometimes separation is necessary for both sides to cool down and try again when the time is right.

mandolinearth
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by mandolinearth »

Here is an article on the religious component of Bush's foreign policy:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052004J.shtml

Another thing we need to realize is that Israeli PACs contribute tons of money to congress members and it is THEY who are influencing our foreign policy, not the other way around. We have little impact on what Israel does. In fact, we kiss Israel's ass. Look at how the United States voted against a UN resolution requiring Israel to tear down the wall they've built (most of it encroaching on/stealing Palestinian land) and Israel just thumbs their nose. I will also insert here that I am not anti-semitic, there is a huge difference between criticizing the policies of Israel and being a racist. I had to laugh out loud when I heard Pat Robertson on the 700 club saying Israel had every right to build that wall to defend itself against those dastardly Palestinians. Look at Kerry's views on Israel, he's going to continue the same policies in the middle east that Bush is following. Note I use the word "following." There are other people calling the shots here and that is why we are only given two predetermined "choices" in an election year. Kucinich didn't stand a chance because he wouldn't pursue the policies of the powerful. The media essentially blacked him out. Nader won't stand a chance either but I'm going to vote my conscience because there is too much at stake here. The joe six packs in our country need to hear the truth. Who's going to bring it to them when the media serves those who hold the power? The music industry won't sign artists who are too political. There needs to be a populist voice even though most americans don't realize that they need one.

jeffra
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:51 pm

Post by jeffra »

Understanding the tame Mid-West, you would admit that the shit on TV regarding celebrities,mainstream muscians, and any other over paid turds that we praise on a daily basis is absurd. No one ever speaks for the everyday Joe six-pack, that through blind faith, loves and trusts his country but dosen't have a medium to express his own ideas. Bashing the president, regardless of party, is not good for the soul. Hey, I even supported Clinton through those times. I don't want to see Jay lumped in to the talking heads like Martin Sheen, Babs Striesand, and other turds that stand for nothing. Some people are devout to a cause and I support that. But others latch on because its the "sexier" route in the media.

Hank Snow
Posts: 2161
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:15 pm
Location: The Buckle of the Bible Belt

Post by Hank Snow »

I'm Sorry Jeffra, you started this thing with a good question and it sort of blew up into CNN's Crossfire or Hannity and Combs.

opinions really are like assholes and it really is ludicrous to think that any side of any argument can be 100% correct. In life there are many shades of grey.

I doubt if anything has changed in Jay Farrar's thinking or views or opinions. Perhaps with his age, maturity and the nature of things going on in the world, he just felt more like coming right out and saying what he felt, without mincing words.

What exactly do you mean by "why the abandonment(spelling) of "middle of america", and latching on the "sexier" liberal left." Are they mutually exclusive? Maybe you have already explained what you meant but it is buried somewhere between all my anti bush rhetoric.

jeffra
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 2:51 pm

Post by jeffra »

Once again we can all admit we have different ideas and opinions....and
to look at the world with one filter would be a damn shame. All I am asking is why the abandonment(spelling) of "middle of america", and latching on the "sexier" liberal left.

My interpretation of "SIX STRING BELIEF" is about the corruption of the music industry, not the government...

muteseh
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Post by muteseh »

Oh I don't discount Bush's religious views, just the idea they are based on the Book of Revelations. I think he views himself more as divinely appointed and his decisions having God's grace and all that pompous paternalistic bullshit.

Hank Snow
Posts: 2161
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:15 pm
Location: The Buckle of the Bible Belt

Post by Hank Snow »

I know it sounds silly, the religious aspect of Bush and Iraq, but it has basis in truth.

I clarified my position on the religious thing. I don't think George W necessarily believes in the religious aspect of the war in Iraq, but I KNOW FOR A FACT that millions of his faithful followers do, just switch on TBN or read anything about Tim Lahaye. Now that isn't the whole story, but it is part of what is going on in the Middle East. Iraq is Babylon, these people honestly and truly take the book of revelation SERIOUSLY and LITERALLY and want bad things to happen in the middle east, cause the sooner we get into Armegeddon, the sooner "Jesus comes back and they all go to heaven". I am not making this up. TBN, Haggee, Tim LaHaye, this is their beliefs, and they are connected to Bush just as the Unions and Hollywood and Jessee Jackson are connected to the Democratic candidates.

Again, I am not saying George believes this way, I don't think he can think that deep, but I think when such powerful contributors to your party believe that way you have to appease them.

The father aspect of it is probably the weakest argument I gave, but you know good and well GW relishes the fact that he took care of Hussein for dear old dad (I really liked George HW Bush BTW and voted for him twice).

And the Oil argument is undeniable. What happens in 25 years when we go all hydrogen, are we going to "liberate" Reykjavik, Iceland which is supposed to become the "Kuwait" of hydrogen power?

saratoga jay
Posts: 6665
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 6:02 pm
Location: South Jersey/Philly

Post by saratoga jay »

did anyone read osama bin laden's 'letter to america' that came out after 9/11???

they hate our way of life, and unfortunately i think (after another big hit or two to our homeland) we will realize that more than anything....we have a religious war on our hands, and it will get even uglier down the road.

Barnum
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:20 pm

Post by Barnum »

I've read the posts, but not seen the movie. Don't plan on it, either.

Let me give you the view from my foxhole - I'm in the military, and have been a "few" places.

We went to war in Iraq because it was the opening we needed to gain a stronger presence in the Middle East, and we realized that we couldn't succeed in mediating the Israel/Arab conflict unless we held sway over both the Arab world and Israel. Did WMD, terrorism, etc have a part in our invasion? Yes - if only for the fact that we could "kill" two birds with one stone. Now my friends are bogged down in a shitheap of a country. Right or wrong, the issue now is how to stabilize Iraq, maintain a presence and then pull out. The arrogance of America in thinking that it is the preeminent civilization on earth is leading us to believe that we can force democratization on others when the major players in the world, like the US, GB, France, etc, evolved into it.

In the future, I see a civil war in Afghanistan, leading to a stable government. In Iraq, I see a stabilization - if in name only - and an acceptance by the US that we may not be able to accomplish all of our "goals." A lot of Iraq depends on the next election - how soon we realize it may be 1 year, or 4 depending on the way it goes.

Why did we "succeed in the Cold War" and not Iraq? Because we used a form of economic and political warfare that changed attitudes and beliefs - not an abrupt change to the way of life. Sure, it took 30 years (a generation), but it worked.

The next major front for the US - probably 30 years or so down the line - will be Africa. If you look at history, every 30 years or so is followed by 30 years of relative peace, then another blow up. I think Africa if only for the natural resources, a relatively virgin unknown market/econonmy, and the human rights element.

Hooah. Rangers lead the way. And I won't comment anymore on geopolitcal issues unless someone's once again shooting at me.

muteseh
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:29 pm

Re: Hate to be Political BUT....

Post by muteseh »

TinyElvis wrote:
Hank Snow wrote:..I think a lot of it really is a war for oil, I think a lot of it is inspired by Bush's right wing christian fundamentalists interpretations of the Book of Revelation. I think a lot of it is cause his father failed to take out Saddam in the 90s. I think very little of it has to do with "Terrorism".
You do not really believe that statement do you? Honestly, think about how ridiculous it sounds...
I agree with his statement minus the the "interpretations of the Book of Revelation" and the father bit. This nation's biggest priority National Interest-wise is, after all, energy, and more specifically, oil -- this is indisputable fact. Without oil, or merely with less of it, this economy would essentially collapse.

And if the war in Iraq is about terrorism then we fucked up royally. In one sense, the war may have played a strategic role as a spring-board into the Middle-East, but even then you are talking more about a global Neo-Con strategy (bring democracy to the Middle East in order to secure economic interests) and less about preventing actual terrorism. That is to say, our venture into Iraq and our low troop-levels and subsequent post-Saddam failings have done nothing to protect us short-term. Well, that and any connection between Saddam and AQ was purely superficial if they existed at all.

Trellis
Posts: 981
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Peterborough, ON

Post by Trellis »

I thought things were made relatively clear when Jay called his label "Act/Resist" records. I don't understand why some people think it's bad to be an "activist;" I respect activists. I look to American musicians for a fantastic tradition of "activist," populist expression, which I think often adds a rich layer to lyrics and music even as it's a practical, meaningful way of making a difference in the world.
Last time Jay's politics came up on this board -- and I think the subject makes for some of the best threads here -- someone mentioned that they weren't going to listen to Jay anymore because "leftist" politics is tearing the U.S. apart. Not going to listen to another's position in the interests of togetherness? A classic, almost touching Radio-Republican contradiction, similar to the stuff TinyE (who is not a republican -- good for you!) has been saying. He also deployed one of those empty, but enchanting, R-R cliches: "wild-eyed leftists." I like that one. I've never met anyone with "wild-eyes." What would that look like? Anyway, as Jay points out, it's more a question of different eyes, looking in the same old places.

Post Reply