The Hypocrisy that is Bu$hleaguer?

brianlux wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

to be honest, I wasn't sure if I was misinterpreting the lyrics, as a good portion of the lyrics in the song don't make a lick of sense to me.

this line: "This is such a happening tailpipe of a party."

honestly, this whole flippin' verse makes my head spin:

"A think tank of aloof multiplication
A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
Retrenchment and hoggishness
The aristocrat choir sings
"What's the ruckus?"
The haves have not a clue
The immenseness of suffering
And the odd negotiation, a rarity
With onionskin plausibility of life,
And a keyboard reaffirmation"

This sounds like poetry to me, not politics. I would take it as poetry and judge it on those merits alone.

thank you, brianlux. it is just fucking around with writing what is something, what might be something and what is bullshit and facts and having a party w/ it while fulfulling his writing chasm

Byrnzie wrote:

There's responsible, conscientious 'have's', and there's irresponsible, greedy 'have's'.

That's all.

:thumbup:

green mountain man wrote:

Raising awareness not proclaiming innocence.
I guess Madonna's hymen was intact when she sang "like a virgin"

She sang LIKE a virgin, as in whatever she's doing feels like the first time. Not I AM CURRENTLY a virgin. Actually helps prove the point.

he also has no clue if Jeremy was drawing mountain tops....

Gob wrote:

Alright, alright, in context with the lyrics, I'm pretty sure it's obvious that Eddie is not talking about himself and rather politicians and their lies.


Would it make you feel better if Ed gave all his money away before he is allowed to sing Bushleaguer again? Money will not change Ed's opinion.


What would you consider a "have"? I'm not rich, but have money to spend.


Basically, the song is not about money, so taken in context, "the haves" has nothing to do with Ed. It's about politics. Not wealth.

I don't care either way. It's a song, and it's clear what they are saying. But to respond.

1 clearly. Who thinks Eddie would ever criticize himself in his own song?

2 no. But he also doesn't have to pretend he's not part of the haves.

3 ask Eddie. He wrote the song. But, clearly Eddie is now a have.

4 that is not the common or poetic definition. There's nothing wrong with criticizing or finding hypocrisy in your favorite artist's art. It happens all the time. I hate the meaning of the song, but it is a cool tune. So, I'm a hypocrit too.

Smellyman wrote:

this thread is high on the 'It makes me dumber to read' meter

Only if you don't like hearing different viewpoints. Very typical. Listen. Occassional we learn from stupidity.

sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.

seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.

I have nothing to say other than LOCK!

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.

seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.

it is obvious he was talking about Bush. My question was how could he write a lyric such as he did, using such a broad term which can also be associated with them. very simple question. I guess I was going a bit deep with it.

I don't try to stir anything up here. I was asking a legit question. it has been answered.

done.

The song is just a simple shot at GW. Nothing more; nothing less. Is there an element of hypocrisy in a group of extremely rich individuals criticizing the rich? Of course there is. Is Bu$hleaguer rife with generalizations? I believe so. Does it dilute the song's message? Only if you didn't believe in the message to begin with.

This kind of debate has always looked a bit like a strawman argument. It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to argue with the idea. If we discredit the messenger we don't even need to deconstruct the message. I suppose the thinking goes; "a hypocrite has no credibility so the message is automatically discredited". You see this sort of thing all the time on the train. Read any Obama thread, or any thread on any of the Republican candidates and most of the posts focus on discrediting/insulting the individual rather than looking at their policies or platforms. The same can be said of many prominent political writers. Everybody is so partisan that any attempt real dialogue is pointless. Those posters will just be ignored.