|
Post by sayne on Aug 7, 2008 20:08:37 GMT -5
Yahoo News has taken a video news story from ABC News about Paul having just written a new love song for or about Heather. The reporter refers to Paul as having written "All You Need is Love." Jeez! That's an easy one, too.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 7, 2008 20:54:45 GMT -5
Maybe the press is just reporting what Paul himself is declaring and believing in his own head these days! ;D
|
|
|
Post by marcm1441 on Aug 8, 2008 13:18:03 GMT -5
Yea, But his name is on it as a songwriter and thats all the research they need to do
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 8, 2008 13:48:10 GMT -5
Yea, . . . thats all the research they need to do Are you serious about this? Boy, that's setting the bar really low. No wonder the average person is so ignorant of what is going on in the world. They believe everything that is written and don't bother asking questions. I understand reporter bias - I do not understand, nor accept reporter incompetence or laziness.
|
|
|
Post by marcm1441 on Aug 8, 2008 16:04:14 GMT -5
Yea, . . . thats all the research they need to do Are you serious about this? Boy, that's setting the bar really low. No wonder the average person is so ignorant of what is going on in the world. They believe everything that is written and don't bother asking questions. I understand reporter bias - I do not understand, nor accept reporter incompetence or laziness. I agree with you , and people dont care,....In the world of 24 hour a day news cycles.....we get this all the time.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 8, 2008 17:10:49 GMT -5
Are you serious about this? Boy, that's setting the bar really low. No wonder the average person is so ignorant of what is going on in the world. They believe everything that is written and don't bother asking questions. I understand reporter bias - I do not understand, nor accept reporter incompetence or laziness. I agree with you , and people dont care,....In the world of 24 hour a day news cycles.....we get this all the time. so sad and so true
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 8, 2008 21:17:49 GMT -5
If it's the story I think it is, it didn't originate with ABC News, but Contact Media or Bang Media, the same jerks that came up with the Let It Be DVD story that I debunked. All these guys do is pull quotes out of context and make up stuff. Don't believe a word of it. They're not real reporters. They're hacks. Real reporters wouldn't write that stuff. Take it from me (a former journalist).
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Aug 9, 2008 14:24:00 GMT -5
There has always been some degree of sloppiness and laziness in the media -- I don't know that it worse today than in the past.
However, what is more troubling is the large-scale propaganda. Yesterday, I was bouncing from channel to channel as the John Edwards story unfolded. On Fox News, Neil Cavuto suggested that the sex scandal is more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Huh? Larry Craig, Foley, Vittner, Guliani, Gingrich, etc. Of course, Democrats, another group of human beings, also have their share. But leave it to Fox News to turn the story into Democratic problem beyond John Edwards. Ridiculous. As we have long suspected, there has been confirmation that the White House provided (or provides) Fox News with talking points. These guys are a propaganda arm, not a news organization. I think most intelligent people realize this, but it should be clear that Fox does provide news. Brit Hume and the rest are propagandists.
People in a free society need to make this clear. Such networks are a threat -- much more than sloppy or lazy journalists.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 10, 2008 12:43:12 GMT -5
There has always been some degree of sloppiness and laziness in the media -- I don't know that it worse today than in the past. However, what is more troubling is the large-scale propaganda. Yesterday, I was bouncing from channel to channel as the John Edwards story unfolded. On Fox News, Neil Cavuto suggested that the sex scandal is more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Huh? Larry Craig, Foley, Vittner, Guliani, Gingrich, etc. Of course, Democrats, another group of human beings, also have their share. But leave it to Fox News to turn the story into Democratic problem beyond John Edwards. Ridiculous. As we have long suspected, there has been confirmation that the White House provided (or provides) Fox News with talking points. These guys are a propaganda arm, not a news organization. I think most intelligent people realize this, but it should be clear that Fox does provide news. Brit Hume and the rest are propagandists. People in a free society need to make this clear. Such networks are a threat -- much more than sloppy or lazy journalists. It is called right-wing vs. left-wing. Just like John and Paul. John left because Paul was always right!!!!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 10, 2008 13:06:24 GMT -5
It is called right-wing vs. left-wing. Just like John and Paul. John left because Paul was always right!!!! LOL! That's a good one! And Paul didn't, "dig no Pakastanis taking all the people's jobs", a rather right wing position.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 11, 2008 18:38:55 GMT -5
It is called right-wing vs. left-wing. Just like John and Paul. John left because Paul was always right!!!! LOL! That's a good one! And Paul didn't, "dig no Pakastanis taking all the people's jobs", a rather right wing position. Glad you enjoyed that JSD. But, with all seriousness, it was half joke and half not. The biggest difference between John and Paul was there general and political look at life in general. Hence, the diverse contrast in songs and statements. Paul, a la Michael Jordon, Republicans also buy sneakers. John's response, All you need is love. One infatuated with money, while the other had grown almost indifferent and just wanted to carry on. This whole Beatle thing of why they did and did not break-up, gravitates to this very point. Artistically it was all still grand, but politically and monetarily a far cry. Greed and all the other things that go with it are very destructive. It destroyed the Beatles. Try to set blame on one or the other is very hard when the viewpoints are so different. John and George were all about Peace and Love at the end point. Paul was still in his business attire trying to get his future family firmly entrenched to carry on a family and Beatle love affair. The other three opted for something else. That is why I blame Paul. Without trying to turn this into a political discussion, I am firmly left-wing. Cannot and will not ever try and understand the other wing. This is how I view life and it is how John viewed life. Paul viewed it on the other side that I cannot comprehend. What else can I say?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 11, 2008 20:16:50 GMT -5
John and George were all about Peace and Love at the end point. Paul was still in his business attire trying to get his future family firmly entrenched to carry on a family and Beatle love affair. The other three opted for something else. That is why I blame Paul. I'm quite left-wing, myself, but I think most people here will disagree with you if you're trying to assert that John, George, and Ringo were the liberals and Paul was the conservative. I think if you look at the various issues - environment, drugs, death penalty, war, animal rights, religion, abortion, social programs, speech, guns, etc. The Beatles were liberals. Yes, there may be some issue where they, as individuals, might be "conservative" on, but that is normal. My leftist leanings do not preclude me believing that free public education should not allow people to "pay" for their textbooks and then get their money back if the books are returned in good shape. It does not prevent me from thinking that the "exclusionary rule" in police searches should be absolute. Paul may be more self-aware about his image and may like to "play it safe", but I would not consider him to be a conservative. If I'm misreading what you are saying, sorry for the misunderstanding. If I'm not, then I disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Aug 11, 2008 21:17:46 GMT -5
LOL! That's a good one! And Paul didn't, "dig no Pakastanis taking all the people's jobs", a rather right wing position. John and George were all about Peace and Love at the end point. You make some interesting points. But I think it would be a mistake to think that George, for one, ever lost sight of the value of money. He was a humanitarian, God bless him, but a surely a wealthy capitalist as well. In general, I don't think anyone who was consorting with Allen Klein was "all about Peace and Love."
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 12, 2008 3:06:17 GMT -5
And yet George wrote Taxman...
And yet John canvassed for Klein to turn Apple round to profitability when the hippie experiment went sour...
And yet John was quite happy to sit there and let Mother make millions for him...
And yet Paul chose to live in squalor on Kintire for years...
Life's not necessarily as simple as it appears to be.
From a right-winger who does, at least, try to understand the opposing viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 13, 2008 11:22:43 GMT -5
And yet George wrote Taxman... And yet John canvassed for Klein to turn Apple round to profitability when the hippie experiment went sour... And yet John was quite happy to sit there and let Mother make millions for him... And yet Paul chose to live in squalor on Kintire for years... Life's not necessarily as simple as it appears to be. From a right-winger who does, at least, try to understand the opposing viewpoint. All very good points. But, in the end, the richest rocker off all time ended up being Paul. I'm not going to sit here and try to argue the point that millionaires were being created all around the Beatles. All due to their talent and hard work. Can't blame them for wanting to at least have something to show for it in the end. Due to their bad investments on their part, does not put all of them in the category of Right. I will give credit to Paul on this point. He was by far the shrewdest and smartest of the bunch when it came to business. But, he still had to work within the framework of all four. I can't blame him for being pissed off at the other three for siding against him. If he had proposed another independent party aside from Eastman, maybe the other three would have listened. He did not.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 13, 2008 16:49:08 GMT -5
After giving this further thought, I don't think money is the deciding factor as whether one is Right or Left. I think it has more to due with principle. Although, money is a major factor at times.
Let us take Warren Buffet for example. The richest man on the planet the last time I checked. He is a staunch Democrat. But yet, he gave billions to Bill Gates (a staunch Republican) for philanthropy reasons. Go figure. Both found middle ground for the right cause.
Let us take John Lennon for example. The most gifted musician on the planet the last time I checked. He was a staunch Democrat. Saw him at Jimmy Carter's inauguration. Saw him in the streets with a bullhorn protesting the Vietnam war. Saw him almost get deported by Nixon(a Republican) over a marijuana misdemeanor. But yet, he collaborated with Paul McCartney, who has since taken the title of Sir Paul McCartney. Getting ceremoniously knighted by the queen that his good buddy and colabarator dismissed as a joke.Go figure. Both found middle ground at one time for the music cause, and then unceremoniously drifted apart due to political and not monetary reasons.
Have I made myself anymore clearer? If not, I can elaborate even further if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 13, 2008 19:37:04 GMT -5
Both . . . unceremoniously drifted apart due to political and not monetary reasons. Have I made myself anymore clearer? . . . Um, actually, not. On what political issues did they disagree up to 1980? Northern Ireland? Apartheid? Gun control? Women's right to choose? Death penalty? Decriminalization of drugs? I know that John invested on a bull, so if it was for slaughter that could be a disagreement. If it was for stud purposes, then that might not put them on opposite ends. Am I just not getting your use of the word "political".
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 14, 2008 17:38:45 GMT -5
Both . . . unceremoniously drifted apart due to political and not monetary reasons. Have I made myself anymore clearer? . . . Um, actually, not. On what political issues did they disagree up to 1980? Northern Ireland? Apartheid? Gun control? Women's right to choose? Death penalty? Decriminalization of drugs? I know that John invested on a bull, so if it was for slaughter that could be a disagreement. If it was for stud purposes, then that might not put them on opposite ends. Am I just not getting your use of the word "political". Now I'm getting very tired and bored. You can throw all the different angles at me that you want. I'm talking about the Beatles when they were still together. How do I know that John and George were Left vs. Right? Real friggin easy. Paul appears on National television in Britain chastising reporters that he had done LSD and that they were spreading the news of his involvement in it. Well blimey!!! The other three liberals had tried to get him to try it all along without any sort of success. Now he is all over the news preaching how he is the man. Give me a friggin break. Opportunity knocks and Paul always answers. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 14, 2008 18:16:58 GMT -5
[ You can throw all the different angles at me that you want. I'm talking about the Beatles when they were still together. You brought this onto yourself. YOU brought up Jimmy Carter and Nixon. This would reasonably lead many people who are paying attention and want to address your post respectfully to think you are talking about post-Beatle political differences between John and Paul. Don't blame the receiver. If there is a misunderstanding, it's on the sender, which in this case, was you. PS. You tire easily!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 14, 2008 19:24:12 GMT -5
I don't know why the politics between John and Paul really matters. That was then, this is now.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 14, 2008 20:20:42 GMT -5
I don't know why the politics between John and Paul really matters. That was then, this is now. Amen Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering discussion...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 14, 2008 21:09:48 GMT -5
I don't know why the politics between John and Paul really matters. That was then, this is now. Amen Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering discussion... Yes but this is a Beatles Message Board, so isn't everything about then, or more appropriately, yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 16, 2008 11:52:48 GMT -5
Amen Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering discussion... Yes but this is a Beatles Message Board, so isn't everything about then, or more appropriately, yesterday? ;D Touche!
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 16, 2008 16:29:42 GMT -5
[ You can throw all the different angles at me that you want. I'm talking about the Beatles when they were still together. You brought this onto yourself. YOU brought up Jimmy Carter and Nixon. This would reasonably lead many people who are paying attention and want to address your post respectfully to think you are talking about post-Beatle political differences between John and Paul. Don't blame the receiver. If there is a misunderstanding, it's on the sender, which in this case, was you. PS. You tire easily! Yep, I kind of stuck my foot in my mouth. Actually, it was your stern rebuttal that got me all flustered. The fact of the matter is, is that it is impossible to separate Beatle and post Beatle . Your substance is what it is. 1 year from now or 10 years from now. Whether you are liberal or conservative can change to a degree, but not that much. Then again, in Paul's reefer world, anything is possible. Even conservatives smoke reefer. As far as the other poster's who do not think it is a relevant issue to be talking about political differences in the Beatles, stuff it. It is in my opinion a huge relevance as to where they ended up. I'm surprised it isn't bantered around more often around here. Final question. Does it take the ChokingSmoker to finally open some eyes on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 16, 2008 21:43:24 GMT -5
. . . Actually, it was your stern rebuttal that got me all flustered. Sorry if you thought I was being stern. I thought I was quite dispassionate and matter of fact. Oh, well. Such is one of the problems with the written word, so I can't blame you for how I came across to you. There will be times in the future will I will be quite rude, but in this thread, I haven't tried to be, so please accept this statement of intent.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 17, 2008 14:30:04 GMT -5
. . . Actually, it was your stern rebuttal that got me all flustered. Sorry if you thought I was being stern. I thought I was quite dispassionate and matter of fact. Oh, well. Such is one of the problems with the written word, so I can't blame you for how I came across to you. There will be times in the future will I will be quite rude, but in this thread, I haven't tried to be, so please accept this statement of intent. I did not take it as being rude. You were firm and honest on your opinion. Not a problem. I'll get called out from time to time, and I will do the calling out at times. No hard feelings?
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 19, 2008 0:22:42 GMT -5
You brought this onto yourself. YOU brought up Jimmy Carter and Nixon. This would reasonably lead many people who are paying attention and want to address your post respectfully to think you are talking about post-Beatle political differences between John and Paul. Don't blame the receiver. If there is a misunderstanding, it's on the sender, which in this case, was you. PS. You tire easily! Yep, I kind of stuck my foot in my mouth. Actually, it was your stern rebuttal that got me all flustered. The fact of the matter is, is that it is impossible to separate Beatle and post Beatle . Your substance is what it is. 1 year from now or 10 years from now. Whether you are liberal or conservative can change to a degree, but not that much. Then again, in Paul's reefer world, anything is possible. Even conservatives smoke reefer. As far as the other poster's who do not think it is a relevant issue to be talking about political differences in the Beatles, stuff it. It is in my opinion a huge relevance as to where they ended up. I'm surprised it isn't bantered around more often around here. Final question. Does it take the ChokingSmoker to finally open some eyes on this issue? Sorry, but no. I don't think your premise is accurate to begin with (i.e. that Paul was conservative and the other's were not). Paul McCartney is not (and has never been) a conservative (politically/socially). He has in the past (and may well still) donated funds to the Liberal Democratic party. There is no rulebook that I know of that says a left-leaning person can't take care of business.... and they ALL did. They were ALL capitalists with a social conscience and ALL were big on individual freedom. It comes down to HOW they made their money (not cheating or stomping on other people's toes to get it)...which doesn't seem to apply to ANY of them! John and Paul were (always) politically very stimilar (IMO). John's experiment with the 'pure-left' was brief and he turned against them and their ideas in the last years of his life. George and Ringo rarely every got into espousing lefty poltical causes. Here are a couple of intersting quotes: In the infamous 1980 Newsweek interview with Barbara Graustark, John said (as it appears in Jon Wiener's "Come Together: John Lennon In His Time"): "That radicalism was phony, really. What the hell was I doing fighting the American government just because Jerry Rubin couldn't get what he always wanted -- a nice, cuchy job?" From Ray Coleman's bio on John, p347 in my edition. During the filming of "Help!," and it seems to be Coleman talking: "In political beliefs John thought like a socialist but said he would have to vote Conservative because they knew how to manage the country. Money came into it quite strongly, he used to tell me. 'Deep down,' he said, 'I'm Labour. Politics is a state of mind but you've got to protect your money, haven't you?'
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 19, 2008 0:42:51 GMT -5
I love ya, man! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Aug 19, 2008 11:46:46 GMT -5
Yep, I kind of stuck my foot in my mouth. Actually, it was your stern rebuttal that got me all flustered. The fact of the matter is, is that it is impossible to separate Beatle and post Beatle . Your substance is what it is. 1 year from now or 10 years from now. Whether you are liberal or conservative can change to a degree, but not that much. Then again, in Paul's reefer world, anything is possible. Even conservatives smoke reefer. As far as the other poster's who do not think it is a relevant issue to be talking about political differences in the Beatles, stuff it. It is in my opinion a huge relevance as to where they ended up. I'm surprised it isn't bantered around more often around here. Final question. Does it take the ChokingSmoker to finally open some eyes on this issue? Sorry, but no. I don't think your premise is accurate to begin with (i.e. that Paul was conservative and the other's were not). Paul McCartney is not (and has never been) a conservative (politically/socially). He has in the past (and may well still) donated funds to the Liberal Democratic party. There is no rulebook that I know of that says a left-leaning person can't take care of business.... and they ALL did. They were ALL capitalists with a social conscience and ALL were big on individual freedom. It comes down to HOW they made their money (not cheating or stomping on other people's toes to get it)...which doesn't seem to apply to ANY of them! John and Paul were (always) politically very stimilar (IMO). John's experiment with the 'pure-left' was brief and he turned against them and their ideas in the last years of his life. George and Ringo rarely every got into espousing lefty poltical causes. Here are a couple of intersting quotes: In the infamous 1980 Newsweek interview with Barbara Graustark, John said (as it appears in Jon Wiener's "Come Together: John Lennon In His Time"): "That radicalism was phony, really. What the hell was I doing fighting the American government just because Jerry Rubin couldn't get what he always wanted -- a nice, cuchy job?" From Ray Coleman's bio on John, p347 in my edition. During the filming of "Help!," and it seems to be Coleman talking: "In political beliefs John thought like a socialist but said he would have to vote Conservative because they knew how to manage the country. Money came into it quite strongly, he used to tell me. 'Deep down,' he said, 'I'm Labour. Politics is a state of mind but you've got to protect your money, haven't you?' Well said, even though I don't agree. John changed his mind from one day to the next. That was John. Paul on the other hand had his own agenda. I leaving it at that and bowing out. Politics are going to come up, but they are a tad too touchy to mess with in general and especially around here. I love ya, man! ;D Cool.
|
|