|
Barudak posted:Did Harrison narrate Thomas the Tank Engine? I don't think so. Ringo did that.
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
I remember an old P.J. O'Rourke column where he went around asking senators who their favorite Beatle was. Hardly anyone picked John (and their answers showed that they barely knew their names). O'Rourke pointed out that John is the correct answer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I remember an old P.J. O'Rourke column where he went around asking senators who their favorite Beatle was. Hardly anyone picked John (and their answers showed that they barely knew their names). O'Rourke pointed out that John is the correct answer. I mean, as John's tax politics show, he was more than willing to sell out working-class interests for a few quid kept in his coffers, so I think it's debatable. (The correct answer is gently caress the Beatles, Rolling Stones; the most correct answer is gently caress the legacy of white musicians ripping off black musicians and getting paid for it.)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
The correct answer is Ringo. He's not the most important one, but he's the funnest. The most correct answer is Johnnie Johnson. And really, I think 1 for you, 19 for me, is a bit high. Slightly less than what's her name who wrote Pippi Longstocking had, though, hers was over 100%.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:(The correct answer is gently caress the Beatles, Rolling Stones; the most correct answer is gently caress the legacy of white musicians ripping off black musicians and getting paid for it.) The Rolling Stones were good friends and patrons to the black guys they "ripped off" (er, at least as far as blues and reggae goes, not so sure about disco). And it's really shallow to treat musical genres as something that are inherited or transmitted through skin tone.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The Rolling Stones were good friends and patrons to the black guys they "ripped off" (er, at least as far as blues and reggae goes, not so sure about disco). And it's really shallow to treat musical genres as something that are inherited or transmitted through skin tone. And the Beatles more stole from India for Sgt Peppers and beyond anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The Rolling Stones were good friends and patrons to the black guys they "ripped off" (er, at least as far as blues and reggae goes, not so sure about disco). And it's really shallow to treat musical genres as something that are inherited or transmitted through skin tone. Meanwhile Led Zeppelin who really didn't give credit to the blues musicians they got their music from got the Kennedy Center Honors...alongside Buddy Guy 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The Rolling Stones were good friends and patrons to the black guys they "ripped off" (er, at least as far as blues and reggae goes, not so sure about disco). And it's really shallow to treat musical genres as something that are inherited or transmitted through skin tone. Cultural appropriation is a tricky issue that's outside the scope of this thread, but the systemic exploitation of black artists by the music industry is academically interesting and really reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Cultural appropriation is a tricky issue that's outside the scope of this thread, but the systemic exploitation of black artists by the music industry is academically interesting and really reprehensible. I don't really doubt that, but at least with regard to the Stones, it's pretty well established that they did right by their inspirations. Howlin' Wolf's widow recounted that Wolf would affectionately refer to Mick Jagger as "my Mick Jagger." The Chess Records guys were basically delighted by the success of the Rolling Stones, who idolized them. And I don't think it's fair to regard that as racial exploitation.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Meanwhile Led Zeppelin who really didn't give credit to the blues musicians they got their music from got the Kennedy Center Honors...alongside Buddy Guy The same Kennedy Center Honors that got into a bit of a public poo poo flinging match when they were called out for only having named like two Latino artists in their history? They weren't sensitive to the fact that Zeppelin hasn't been explicit about their influences?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I don't really doubt that, but at least with regard to the Stones, it's pretty well established that they did right by their inspirations. Howlin' Wolf's widow recounted that Wolf would affectionately refer to Mick Jagger as "my Mick Jagger." The Chess Records guys were basically delighted by the success of the Rolling Stones, who idolized them. And I don't think it's fair to regard that as racial exploitation. Yeah, that's why I said "gently caress the Beatles, [pro-] Rolling Stones," because the Stones did right on an individual level (while participating in a lovely system).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Buddy Guy Buddy Guy owns. Listen to Buddy Guy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Rand Paul addressed the Iowa GOP last night. He got a 25 second standing ovation (video at the link, go to 1:45) for suggesting that Benghazi should prohibit Hillary from higher office. And Politico notes that Paul's ideology will find a lot of sympathizers in Iowa and New Hampshire and that he's a better politician than his dad (admittedly: a low bar). It's very easy to dismiss Rand Paul because, well, he's Rand Paul and it'd be a disastrous general election with him at the top of the Republican ticket, but he'll do a lot of damage along the way and he's definitely running.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Who exactly is funding PPP to run ridiculous music polls.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rand Paul addressed the Iowa GOP last night. He got a 25 second standing ovation (video at the link, go to 1:45) for suggesting that Benghazi should prohibit Hillary from higher office. They really are poo poo scared of Hillary, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:Who exactly is funding PPP to run ridiculous music polls. Whomever they are, don't let them stop. We need more. I suggest The Ramones next.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:They really are poo poo scared of Hillary, aren't they? Think about it from a really broad perspective. The Democratic party has already fielded the first minority candidate for The Presidency and won...twice. That's gigantic..Its history and we got to witness it. Now, they'll run the first woman candidate for President...not Vice President..and win again. With the state that the GOP is in, it further calcifies the notion that the modern GOP is basically made by and totally for really angry, obstinate, completely off putting white guys. Guys that think The Civil Rights Act was governmental overstep. Guys that have no problem with women getting paid less than men for the same productive output in a job. Guys that will split hairs about rape. From a brand management perspective in a population of The United States context, this is not a good fit when seeking national office like the Presidency. Strip away the social wedge issues and the GOP is symbolized by some accountant or MBA basically wagging his finger at you and screaming about how taxes are too high. Life is more than that and people know it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Two terms for Hillary means it'll be 2024 by the time the GOP gets another shot at the Presidency. By that time the Supreme Court will be at least 6-3 towards the Dems, Obamacare will have been fully implemented for a decade, the Hispanic/Black vote will have increased further still etc. 2016 is literally the GOP's last stand.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Gentlemen, allow me to present what Intrade's shutdown makes  miss out on.Yes, those are 15 to 1 odds on Biden winning the nomination. Along with 2.75:1 on Hillary, for that matter:
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Jawidar posted:Two terms for Hillary means it'll be 2024 by the time the GOP gets another shot at the Presidency. By that time the Supreme Court will be at least 6-3 towards the Dems, Obamacare will have been fully implemented for a decade, the Hispanic/Black vote will have increased further still etc. 2016 is literally the GOP's last stand. People said the GOP was done as a party after 8 years of Bush and 2008 and then came 2010 which might have more horrendous long term implications than even 2008. There is always going to be a audience for what they push and they can do A LOT of damage to the country without holding the white house or senate.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
The GOP was also convinced it would keep the presidency for 100 years after Bush defeated Kerry. Yes, there's a demographic shift occurring, but that in no way lets anyone accurately predict the political landscape 10 years from now.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:People said the GOP was done as a party after 8 years of Bush and 2008 and then came 2010 which might have more horrendous long term implications than even 2008. There is always going to be a audience for what they push and they can do A LOT of damage to the country without holding the white house or senate. The Klan was still influential decades after their influence peaked in the 1920s. It's not exactly the same thing as that particular issue, but none of the factors mentioned assuming Hillary gets two terms (a very favorable SCOTUS to the Democrats, longterm appreciation of Obamacare, and increased minority demographics) are projected to change at all.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The Klan was still influential decades after their influence peaked in the 1920s. It's not exactly the same thing as that particular issue, but none of the factors mentioned assuming Hillary gets two terms (a very favorable SCOTUS to the Democrats, longterm appreciation of Obamacare, and increased minority demographics) are projected to change at all. Unless there is some kind of huge wave which doesn't seem to be realistic, the GOP has the upper hand to control the house and the majority of statehouses for the foreseeable future. The 2010 elections will still be screwing us in 20 years.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unless there is some kind of huge wave which doesn't seem to be realistic, the GOP has the upper hand to control the house and the majority of statehouses for the foreseeable future. The 2010 elections will still be screwing us in 20 years. The wave is ongoing, that's the point. Hell, just the fact that Hillary winning in 2020 would be enough to (theoretically) sweep the state legislatures. And again, holding the House has absolutely nothing to do with SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Looks about right for the players in the game. Nothing past 34 to one is going to run. Any of the Dwarves look like odds-buckers to you guys, if Hillary decides not to win?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Looks about right for the players in the game. Nothing past 34 to one is going to run. Any of the Dwarves look like odds-buckers to you guys, if Hillary decides not to win? Jim Webb would be funny. (He was Reagan's secretary of the navy) You could basically roll on any current or former Senator or Governor from a "southern" state being a decent dark horse prospect.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Jim Webb would be funny. (He was Reagan's secretary of the navy) A Virginian maybe but the days of a good ol' boy from Arkansas or Georgia having a premium on the nomination are over, the states are too stratified these days to think a favourite son candidacy will overcome the national map. Al Gore couldn't carry Tennessee and Mitt Romney never even had a chance in either of his home states.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Looks about right for the players in the game. Nothing past 34 to one is going to run. Any of the Dwarves look like odds-buckers to you guys, if Hillary decides not to win? Schweitzer... but he'll be a freshman senator by 2016. Pretty much if anyone outside this list becomes a contender it'll be a shocker.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Looks about right for the players in the game. Nothing past 34 to one is going to run. Any of the Dwarves look like odds-buckers to you guys, if Hillary decides not to win? Schweitzer, definitely. I'd take money on that right now.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Looks about right for the players in the game. Nothing past 34 to one is going to run. Any of the Dwarves look like odds-buckers to you guys, if Hillary decides not to win? If Hillary decides not to run, Biden will be able to take the nomination rather easily, which is why the 15:1 odds on him are silly.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Ted Cruz is at 33 to 1 for the Republican nomination!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Ted Cruz is at 33 to 1 for the Republican nomination! And if you really want to throw money away, they have some guy named "Mitt Romney" at 50 to 1.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Schweitzer, definitely. I'd take money on that right now. Clinton-Schweitzer '16 would be a legendary stomping. Really hope he's got some national ambitions; despite not being the perfect candidate on several issues, I'm really a fan of his. Edit: vvvv Well that's a boner killer vvvv mdemone fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Clinton-Schweitzer '16 would be a legendary stomping. Really hope he's got some national ambitions; despite not being the perfect candidate on several issues, I'm really a fan of his. Yeah... but a ticket with two 60 year olds and a Republican senate seat pickup?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Hm. Okay, let's check this guy out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer Youngish, ran some governors associations so he's got contacts, western. Irish-German. Speaks arabic, good international experience. Knows water, which is a hugely important thing I, personally, don't think is getting enough attention. Las Vegas worries the hell out of me. Got a good dog, and a rep for using a big stick. Won against a stacked republican side. Folksy sort... Guy's got solid potential, I tell you what.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Yeah... but a ticket with two 60 year olds and a Republican senate seat pickup? Wrong Clinton bud 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Schweitzer is going to run for the open Senate seat in Montana in 2014. If you're a fan of the guy, you'll want him to stay there rather than throwing away a Democratic seat in the Senate on a VP spot.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:They really are poo poo scared of Hillary, aren't they? They're absolutely correct to be poo poo-scared of Hillary. Which of course is why all they can talk about is Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. I'm convinced the reason they're firing the old 1990s Clinton Scandal Machine again is to remind Republicans why they hated her and her husband in the first place, and to drive down her support among Republicans. It's a necessary first step if they're going to have any hope of beating her in 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Schweitzer is going to run for the open Senate seat in Montana in 2014. If you're a fan of the guy, you'll want him to stay there rather than throwing away a Democratic seat in the Senate on a VP spot. Is there no one on the bench for the Democrats in Montana? Or is this just one of those assume the worst for the sake of planning type things?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Is there no one on the bench for the Democrats in Montana? I may be off-base here, but I'm not sure there are too many Democrats even eligible to run for office in Montana.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2013 19:16
|
|