Bruce Springsteen's Speech on The Election

lukin2006 wrote:

too say is isn't about making money is pure bullshit.

he's also one of the biggest anti-war musicians around...i guess he's really only anti war when the other guy is pro.

I'll forego the catty comment about "to, two and too" and just say that he's a performer who has made his money writing and performing. And that's kinda OK... in fact... I think "The American Dream," as some might put it.

"all about?"

No... he isn't. THAT is your "pure bullshit."

As far as being "anti-war," I'm not sure what you're getting at. The president hasn't started any wars and has done all he can to get us OUT of those wars... you can't just stop one day and leave. Besides... as many have pointed out... it's impossible to 100% support every policy of a politician. You choose who you think best matches your own goals. He has.

(and I don't see people crying about how recently, big mega stars have supported Mitt Romney... stars like... Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears and Sarah Michelle Gellar and Charlie Daniels and... um... Bo Derek. And I guess Kirk Cameron. Wow, you guys suck.)

At what point did conservatives all become weepy pacifists? I must have missed that very special episode of Blossom.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

too say is isn't about making money is pure bullshit.

he's also one of the biggest anti-war musicians around...i guess he's really only anti war when the other guy is pro.

I'll forego the catty comment about "to, two and too" and just say that he's a performer who has made his money writing and performing. And that's kinda OK... in fact... I think "The American Dream," as some might put it.

"all about?"

No... he isn't. THAT is your "pure bullshit."

As far as being "anti-war," I'm not sure what you're getting at. The president hasn't started any wars and has done all he can to get us OUT of those wars... you can't just stop one day and leave. Besides... as many have pointed out... it's impossible to 100% support every policy of a politician. You choose who you think best matches your own goals. He has.

(and I don't see people crying about how recently, big mega stars have supported Mitt Romney... stars like... Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears and Sarah Michelle Gellar and Charlie Daniels and... um... Bo Derek. And I guess Kirk Cameron. Wow, you guys suck.)

At what point did conservatives all become weepy pacifists? I must have missed that very special episode of Blossom.

Libya?

Drone Strikes?

I'm not a conservative...duh...I'm saying he could have supported someone who is totally committed to no war. I'm also not a democrat...I don't label myself politically.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

especially don't try and tell because he come from middle class roots he understands...the economy of today is much tougher than it was when he was growing up. I have an Uncle that worked at all of the Detroit 3...today...in 2012 if you land one of those jobs its like winning the lottery. I had cousin in the early 70's was working at GM 2 weeks out of high school...that doesn't happen today. He has no clue like most celebrities.

So in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. I thought this was a very good article on Springsteen.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ct_remnick

The Detroit analogy seems pointless. Because Detroit is in much worse shape than it was when 3 car companies were booming, Springsteen knows nothing of the economy? That is just brilliant :roll:

You are right. The people talking shit on Springsteen don't have a clue.

lukin2006 wrote:

THAT GUY is all about MAKING MONEY...he is all about making money

These kind of sayings annoy the shit out of me.
He's ALL about making money? As if thats his only defining motivation for anything. :?

Im at work right now -- i'm all about making money. :P

But if I had a marketable skill like Bruce, and I loved performing, I'd do it all the time. I'd rake it in, and I'd donate a ton of it, just as what was explained earlier. Why no comment on his charitable donations?

I really dont understand how people can assume they know and understand someones motives enough to bash them.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

If your anti war then war should be unacceptable under any circumstance.

Anti War and Anti-iraqi mess possibly/certainly be two different things.
Are you saying the USA was at war with Libya?

And Canada
provided military aircraft? correct?
provided naval support? correct?


2011 military intervention in Libya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_ ... n_in_Libya

lukin2006 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

If your anti war then war should be unacceptable under any circumstance.

Anti War and Anti-iraqi mess possibly/certainly be two different things.
Are you saying the USA was at war with Libya?

And Canada
provided military aircraft? correct?
provided naval support? correct?

Im not Ok with the Libya affairs either, but I can see quite a difference between Libya and Iraq.
isnt there an official definition of "at war with"?

And as PoD and many others have said: "it's impossible to 100% support every policy of a politician. You choose who you think best matches your own goals. He has."

JonnyPistachio wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Anti War and Anti-iraqi mess possibly/certainly be two different things.
Are you saying the USA was at war with Libya?

And Canada
provided military aircraft? correct?
provided naval support? correct?

Im not Ok with the Libya affairs either, but I can see quite a difference between Libya and Iraq.
isnt there an official definition of "at war with"?

And as PoD and many others have said: "it's impossible to 100% support every policy of a politician. You choose who you think best matches your own goals. He has."

I don't see the difference war is war. Were they their to protect the oil? Isn't this where Europe get a lot of oil? I don't. It was still likely over oil.

You're right...you can't agree with every policy...but supporting war is a major policy.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I don't see the difference war is war. Were they their to protect the oil? Isn't this where Europe get a lot of oil? I don't. It was still likely over oil.

I see a huge difference...to each their own. USA was conducting operations to assist in Libya for a few weeks/months? USA was wasting BILLIONS of dollars and lives in Iraq...on lies. Starting a fight over lies. Libya was a civil war that was already under way. (im not defending it, just pointing out the large differences.)

I dont know the oil implications...but thanks for that wiki link. There's a lot of stuff there I didnt know about.

btw, I'm not sure we've had ANY president in recent years who hasnt been in charge when a bomb was dropped somewhere. to be completely 100% anti-war as you state it, you just have to be anti government.

when you get right down to it ... musicians are supposed to be different.

And if what your saying is true ... then shouldn't that motivate him to speak out more ... bombs cost money ... money that could be spent solving so many worthwhile causes.