-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 05:07:18 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Beach Boys playing for Trump
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys playing for Trump  (Read 43156 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2016, 03:16:47 PM »


But, regardless of political affiliation, bands should not have to tiptoe around what fans think as to whether they accept a gig.   

Except in the case of if someone like David Duke invited The BBs to play a David Duke rally gig, right? Would the band taking such a gig be objectionable to you?   Wouldn't that be worth tiptoeing around?

Trump disavowed David Duke back in February.  We are talking about taking a gig at a convention leading to the Presidency and not a meeting of the KKK.   

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-disavows-endorsement-of-white-supremacist-david-duke/article/20011301 

Obviously, Century Deprived was just using Duke as a random example of a roundly-objectionable character to test the "Mike's band should book gigs with whomever will pay them" theory.

While Century Deprived will still surely not get an actual answer, I would suggest two alternate questions:

1. Just pick someone other than Duke, unrelated to Trump in any way, that is relatively equally objectionable, and re-pose the question.

2. Or try this: Would a *private* function hosted by David Duke, outside of any organization or group, be an acceptable booking for Mike's band as long as it was another paying gig for which Mike and BRI could collect fees?
Hey Jude - are you trying to create an equivalency between Donald Trump, who is a businessman, who graduated from Wharton, with David Duke, the head of the KKK? 

The issue is hate directed at Trump who has won enough votes and delegates to go to the RNC.   We will see what happens in November. 

Can't we be patient and wait for what the American voters to decide?

FDP, can you kindly answer my hypothetical scenario...

And while you're at it, FdP, can you please explain your response to me earlier?
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2016, 03:22:22 PM »

What was Trump doing at an event for POWs?  I thought he only liked vets who weren't captured.  Roll Eyes

No matter the context, it's still a cringeworthy image.



Oh boy, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Not this one. These are what you call wannabes.  On the left is the one who will never be the President. On the right is the one who will never be The Beach Boys.  Razz
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2016, 03:26:56 PM »


But, regardless of political affiliation, bands should not have to tiptoe around what fans think as to whether they accept a gig.  

Except in the case of if someone like David Duke invited The BBs to play a David Duke rally gig, right? Would the band taking such a gig be objectionable to you?   Wouldn't that be worth tiptoeing around?

Trump disavowed David Duke back in February.  We are talking about taking a gig at a convention leading to the Presidency and not a meeting of the KKK.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-disavows-endorsement-of-white-supremacist-david-duke/article/20011301  

Obviously, Century Deprived was just using Duke as a random example of a roundly-objectionable character to test the "Mike's band should book gigs with whomever will pay them" theory.

While Century Deprived will still surely not get an actual answer, I would suggest two alternate questions:

1. Just pick someone other than Duke, unrelated to Trump in any way, that is relatively equally objectionable, and re-pose the question.

2. Or try this: Would a *private* function hosted by David Duke, outside of any organization or group, be an acceptable booking for Mike's band as long as it was another paying gig for which Mike and BRI could collect fees?
Hey Jude - are you trying to create an equivalency between Donald Trump, who is a businessman, who graduated from Wharton, with David Duke, the head of the KKK?  

The issue is hate directed at Trump who has won enough votes and delegates to go to the RNC.   We will see what happens in November.  

Can't we be patient and wait for what the American voters to decide?

FDP, can you kindly answer my hypothetical scenario with your honest answer that you would feel in your heart, where Duke is running for president and hypothetically asks Mike and The BBs to play a Duke rally. Does that hypothetical scenario bother you?

Mind you, I don't personally equate Duke to Trump.  I just think it's good to know that you, as well as most anybody, would have some level at which they'd actually draw a line and say that yes, in such a hypothetical situation, it would probably be a terrible move to play such an event. Is that something you can just say? I'll have no more questions about the matter if you would just be kind enough to answer that question... not trying to get into a debate of Trump vs. Duke.
CD - what you are asking is to equate Duke (who is not running for anything) and whose groups goals are not consistent with anything equivalent.  And, I am not equating him, either.

The issue is one of professional business discretion, as a license holder of the name.  And Mike's discretion to take a gig, is being questioned. Also, it is another scenario of a fan (tail) wagging the dog (license holder.) I doubt in his (license holder) discretion, that he would accept such a gig. It is absurd to propose that.  I will remind you that Trump disavowed Duke.  

But, I will share a discussion I had with some of my kids' friends today, who are nearly 30 (so you have a demographic.) All from Democratic families, all working class, and all planning to vote for Donald. They are active in a local veterans group and also from a highly Democratic stronghold and represents a departure from business-as-usual for the presidential election but not for local elections where they are big Dems.      

The Rasmussen poll reported today.  Trump is up by four points over Clinton.  44/39.  

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/30/rasmussen-poll-trump-leads-by-four/  
Logged
The_Beach
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2016, 04:09:14 PM »

What was Trump doing at an event for POWs?  I thought he only liked vets who weren't captured.  Roll Eyes

No matter the context, it's still a cringeworthy image.



Oh boy, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Not this one. These are what you call wannabes.  On the left is the one who will never be the President. On the right is the one who will never be The Beach Boys.  Razz
[/quote

Mike Love is a real Beach Boy and always will! I am sure he is more recognized as a Beach Boys then Brian Wilson is besides for hardcore fans like who realize is is equally part of the beach boys.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2016, 04:15:19 PM »


CD - what you are asking is to equate Duke (who is not running for anything) and whose groups goals are not consistent with anything equivalent.  And, I am not equating him, either.
 

Good grief. I am specifically NOT trying to equate Trump to Duke. I said that and I meant it.

All I am pointing out is that *everyone* should have *some* sort of barometer (which they themselves set) where they say that it's probably not a good idea for The BBs to play a rally for a particular politician who goes beyond any acceptable societal level of being a piece of sh*t. Right? It's the concept of the fact that there exist *some* politicians are just too controversial and/or just plain scumbags. That's a thing. That's not an impossibility.

You don't think Trump's a scumbag, that's cool. Your prerogative. I'm NOT debating that. I'm NOT trying to make you think that.

I'm simply trying to see if we can agree on the concept that (while peoples' own mileage may vary as to which politician is a racist scumbag of beyond epic proportions), that you'd agree there exist *some* politicians on planet earth (Trump excluded from the conversation) that you'd say it cannot be considered acceptable for there to be any BB association with them.  That's not a ridiculous concept, right?  

Duke was in fact running for office in past elections, so he's not just some random racist uncle in the back corner. He's a real guy.  I'm giving you credit by assuming that Duke's a politician you would think - if he were to have asked The BBs to play, and had they accepted - that you'd shake your head and think this is not a good thing. Am I right in thinking that?

Again - so you don't try to say I'm equating Duke to Trump: I'm NOT.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 04:19:41 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: July 01, 2016, 05:55:24 AM »


CD - what you are asking is to equate Duke (who is not running for anything) and whose groups goals are not consistent with anything equivalent.  And, I am not equating him, either.
 

Good grief. I am specifically NOT trying to equate Trump to Duke. I said that and I meant it.

All I am pointing out is that *everyone* should have *some* sort of barometer (which they themselves set) where they say that it's probably not a good idea for The BBs to play a rally for a particular politician who goes beyond any acceptable societal level of being a piece of sh*t. Right? It's the concept of the fact that there exist *some* politicians are just too controversial and/or just plain scumbags. That's a thing. That's not an impossibility.

You don't think Trump's a scumbag, that's cool. Your prerogative. I'm NOT debating that. I'm NOT trying to make you think that.

I'm simply trying to see if we can agree on the concept that (while peoples' own mileage may vary as to which politician is a racist scumbag of beyond epic proportions), that you'd agree there exist *some* politicians on planet earth (Trump excluded from the conversation) that you'd say it cannot be considered acceptable for there to be any BB association with them.  That's not a ridiculous concept, right?  

Duke was in fact running for office in past elections, so he's not just some random racist uncle in the back corner. He's a real guy.  I'm giving you credit by assuming that Duke's a politician you would think - if he were to have asked The BBs to play, and had they accepted - that you'd shake your head and think this is not a good thing. Am I right in thinking that?

Again - so you don't try to say I'm equating Duke to Trump: I'm NOT.
CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.  The real issue, in my view is one of equivalency creation with this narrative of mysogynist, or racist (and ridiculous given that his spokesperson Katrina Pierson, is biracial, his daughter is an Orthodox Jew convert, and two of his wives are from Eastern Europe.) 

His "optics" as a political newcomer, afford him clarity that someone who is not entrenched has. I am not getting excited when candidates are called almost any name in the book because you have to first, consider the source, and second, consider the motivation. I listen to the message to the opponents and compare it to whether it is true or false or spin control. Isn't it interesting that the FBI have blocked the Orlando law enforcement records?  Those are public records to which we all have a right to know what is contained. This is not a transparent administration.   

The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable. There are witnesses to counter that narrative from Hillary.  No one who has a vet, living or dead wants to know that their loved one could be left without aid, when it was begged for and not responded to. It sends the message that there is no value accorded to those soldiers and other Americans in harm's way.  Benghazi was 52 days before the election and there was lying to ensure the election would be won by the Dems.  (I could never have voted for Romney, anyway.)  I voted twice for Obama but now feel used that the video story was intentionally created to mislead the public. I believed the plausibility of that video at the time and I am done with their nonsense.  Like that old saying, "One lies and they all swear to it."     

It came to light last night that Loretta Lynch had a meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane on the day of the release of the Benghazi report.  Bill Clinton appointed her as a US Attorney in 1999.  Virtually every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety." Even if they truly talked about "golf and grandchildren" that meeting should never have taken place and those outside the plane were told there were to be "no pictures."  Do you really think that two lawyers (Clinton and Lynch) didn't talk about something legally related on that plane?   

These kinds of ethical violations are hard for me (and others) to swallow.  I guess it is the entrenchment is just too much.  The Clintons have asked for an additional 22 months to turn over all the emails.  Is that a joke? Is that speedy justice for the people?   

So, this nonsense of possibly accepting a non-profit whose mission is non-partisan, to play a show at the RNC, being tied to a false inflammatory narrative, that Trump must be the second coming of Adolph Hitler, is revolting. There is a big blind eye turned by many of those who have a poor or no understanding of the mechanics of electioneering.  The statement represents that Trump and not the non-profit is offering the gig.  It is an intermediary who did the same for the DNC with Fergie.  But, of course, a false inference arises connecting it directly to Trump when it is a non-profit who appears to be neutral. 

It did not even appear to be a person-to-person invite. There is a neutral entity (the non-profit) in the middle.   So you will have to excuse me if I cannot get all riled up over a 3rd party involvement in a political convention where they don't just involve themselves in Republican issues but have been involved on the Democratic party side as well. It is jumping to conclusions.  And, I can't inform your judgment; only my own, as to whom that vote in November will go.     

And, CD - it is a "business judgment decision" to accept or reject a gig, and a matter or discretion that only those charged with those responsibilities make.  And it doesn't matter if it is the BB's or the Stones, they all have that discretion of "business judgment."      Wink
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: July 01, 2016, 06:27:42 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 01, 2016, 06:53:55 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?


Good questions, some of the ZILLION similar questions one could pose that of course never get answered. I'm pretty sure Mike will re-record the entire "Sweet Insanity" album and sign over all of his songwriting credits to Melinda before you get a real, substantive answer to any of your questions.

Great thanks to Billy for sending this over to the Sandbox. Reading this Trump garbage and manufactured outrage, seeing how it always seems to be those with plenty of privilege who seem to comically act the most disenfranchised (gee, sounds like Mike sometimes too), reading this Trump bloviating, hack political "analysis" in this thread reminds me of why I didn't read the "Sandbox" for literally the first DECADE I was here.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: July 01, 2016, 07:01:50 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well. 

Trump misspoke - and it was stupid.

He is a political neophyte, as he has never held office. 

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: July 01, 2016, 07:31:50 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one.  

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well.  

Trump misspoke - and it was stupid.

He is a political neophyte, as he has never held office.  



The website that you link to confirms sweetdudejim's claims and it does not reinforce yours.

Also, I'm curious how you reconcile the seeming contradiction that Trump makes stupid remarks because "He is a political neophyte" and also that his status as a "political newcomer afford(s) him clarity that someone who is not entrenched has."
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 07:35:48 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: July 01, 2016, 08:18:32 AM »

Trump has political experience buying politicians and bribery of the court system. Which is far worse than having "no political experience". He broke the system and now sees to control it himself.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 01, 2016, 08:41:22 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well. 




1) Anybody can edit wikipedia,which is why it's not 100% reliable as a source

2) One of the things we mods are notating is that you *still* have not answered my question (asked twice now) above.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: July 01, 2016, 09:23:03 AM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well. 

Trump misspoke - and it was stupid.

He is a political neophyte, as he has never held office. 



I am not insulting. I am just speaking the truth. You have continually lied when it suits you and you also avoid answering any questions that do not fit into your preconceived notion of the truth.

Now in my personal opinion, HeyJude is a wonderful, wonderful person for trying to get straight answers out of you on nearly any topic, as you continually obfuscate and bring up random nonsense to throw threads off track. And then after throwing threads off track, you have the guts to attack other posters for bringing up things in threads that aren't "on topic" which is hilarious!
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2016, 09:26:23 AM »

Trump misspoke - and it was stupid.

Also, Trump never said he "misspoke" about our soliders supposedly stealing millions of dollars. So maybe you yourself think he misspoke but he sure as sh*t doesn't.

I'm gonna end my post with the cutesy little "drink" things that you use to try to mend any dumb sh*t you put in your posts. Beer
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2016, 09:29:40 AM »


But, regardless of political affiliation, bands should not have to tiptoe around what fans think as to whether they accept a gig.  

Except in the case of if someone like David Duke invited The BBs to play a David Duke rally gig, right? Would the band taking such a gig be objectionable to you?   Wouldn't that be worth tiptoeing around?

Trump disavowed David Duke back in February.  We are talking about taking a gig at a convention leading to the Presidency and not a meeting of the KKK.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-disavows-endorsement-of-white-supremacist-david-duke/article/20011301  

Obviously, Century Deprived was just using Duke as a random example of a roundly-objectionable character to test the "Mike's band should book gigs with whomever will pay them" theory.

While Century Deprived will still surely not get an actual answer, I would suggest two alternate questions:

1. Just pick someone other than Duke, unrelated to Trump in any way, that is relatively equally objectionable, and re-pose the question.

2. Or try this: Would a *private* function hosted by David Duke, outside of any organization or group, be an acceptable booking for Mike's band as long as it was another paying gig for which Mike and BRI could collect fees?

HeyJude was 100% right. I knew it at the time, but I still fruitlessly tried. I will never get an actual answer from FDP. I don't even know why I try. I guess the definition of insanity is trying continually when the same result is certainly around the corner. I have too much faith in believing in the general decency of people that a person will actually directly answer a question, like KDS politely did regarding the same question I posed. I feel like Mr. Rooney in Ferris Bueller's Day Off who rings the doorbell, asking a question, and keeps getting some pre-recorded mumbo jumbo answering anything but the question.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 09:31:14 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2016, 11:28:05 AM »

Quote
I will never get an actual answer from FDP

You and me both, apparently. Seems to be a disease running rampant across certain circles...
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2016, 12:32:07 PM »


CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.     
Lol. I'll say. And you've been a prime example of that.

"The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable."

Yup.


...every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety."

I'll bet you can't find a single comment about anything ever by anyone but yourself that something had "indicia of creating an appearance" of anything. Either it creates an appearance or it doesn't.
But I like how you went from "indicia of creating an appearance of impropriety" to full on "these kinds of ethical violations" in one paragraph. You're true to form. 
So Clinton optics are evidence of fact and Trump optics are just "oh, the poor naive boy."  Well, if he's so naive that he says statements that outrage big segments of the national and global population on a regular basis, perhaps he wouldn't be an ideal president.

And, regarding vets:

Gallup hasn't published yet, but Clinton seems to be doing a bit better among veterans than Democrats for the last 12 years (probably longer.)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/veterans-prefer-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton-/

47-38 trump-Clinton.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/veterans-solidly-back-mccain.aspx

56-34 McCain-Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/veterans-give-romney-big-lead-obama.aspx

58-34 Romney-Obama



http://www.gallup.com/poll/13696/who-will-get-veterans-votes-november.aspx

54-41 bush-Kerry


Over the last 12 years including midterms 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/11/veterans-are-voting-republican-and-thats-not-likely-to-change/

So, once again, your sample of friends and family is an unscientific survey. It's just your friends and family.

Thanks for moving this to the sandbox!
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2016, 01:18:52 PM »

Let's get back to how wrong the knee-jerk reactions to this topic are instead of the cover-up of hypothetical distractions since.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2016, 02:06:30 PM »

Let's get back to how wrong the knee-jerk reactions to this topic are instead of the cover-up of hypothetical distractions since.

Feel free to start whatever thread you would like, lil guy!
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2016, 02:24:25 PM »


CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.     
Lol. I'll say. And you've been a prime example of that.

"The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable."

Yup.


...every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety."

I'll bet you can't find a single comment about anything ever by anyone but yourself that something had "indicia of creating an appearance" of anything. Either it creates an appearance or it doesn't.
But I like how you went from "indicia of creating an appearance of impropriety" to full on "these kinds of ethical violations" in one paragraph. You're true to form. 
So Clinton optics are evidence of fact and Trump optics are just "oh, the poor naive boy."  Well, if he's so naive that he says statements that outrage big segments of the national and global population on a regular basis, perhaps he wouldn't be an ideal president.

And, regarding vets:

Gallup hasn't published yet, but Clinton seems to be doing a bit better among veterans than Democrats for the last 12 years (probably longer.)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/veterans-prefer-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton-/

47-38 trump-Clinton.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/veterans-solidly-back-mccain.aspx

56-34 McCain-Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/veterans-give-romney-big-lead-obama.aspx

58-34 Romney-Obama



http://www.gallup.com/poll/13696/who-will-get-veterans-votes-november.aspx

54-41 bush-Kerry


Over the last 12 years including midterms 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/11/veterans-are-voting-republican-and-thats-not-likely-to-change/

So, once again, your sample of friends and family is an unscientific survey. It's just your friends and family.

Thanks for moving this to the sandbox!

Emily - yes it is in The Sandbox.  A post with a 3rd party story reporting the BB's playing the RNC, sponsored by a non-profit which also did the same thing for the DNC with Fergie.  

Unscientific?  Talking with my kids and their friends who are heavily involved in veterans groups, is certainly a "barometer" of how young 4th generation Democrats, are voting for a Republican, notwithstanding not being "scientific."  

It is remarkable that kids who thought it was cool when Obama was elected when they were in high school have reversed party following altogether, for the Presidential election.    

Bill Clinton should never have met with his former protegée who is the top lawyer in the country charged with prosecuting his wife, a candidate for President.  It is not ok.

Bill Clinton optics with Lynch, appointed by Clinton, and meeting with him during the time the report was released is not acceptable.  

Rasmussen has Trump ahead by 4.  

Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2016, 02:40:16 PM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one.  

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well.  




1) Anybody can edit wikipedia,which is why it's not 100% reliable as a source

2) One of the things we mods are notating is that you *still* have not answered my question (asked twice now) above.

Still waiting.

Explain why you posted this
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24118.msg583083.html#msg583083
in response to me.

If I see any  further posts in this topic from you  without a response to this, I will assume you were trolling me, and I will deal with it accordingly.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 03:33:02 PM by ♩♬ Billy C ♯♫♩ » Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2016, 03:47:25 PM »


CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.     
Lol. I'll say. And you've been a prime example of that.

"The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable."

Yup.


...every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety."

I'll bet you can't find a single comment about anything ever by anyone but yourself that something had "indicia of creating an appearance" of anything. Either it creates an appearance or it doesn't.
But I like how you went from "indicia of creating an appearance of impropriety" to full on "these kinds of ethical violations" in one paragraph. You're true to form. 
So Clinton optics are evidence of fact and Trump optics are just "oh, the poor naive boy."  Well, if he's so naive that he says statements that outrage big segments of the national and global population on a regular basis, perhaps he wouldn't be an ideal president.

And, regarding vets:

Gallup hasn't published yet, but Clinton seems to be doing a bit better among veterans than Democrats for the last 12 years (probably longer.)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/veterans-prefer-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton-/

47-38 trump-Clinton.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/veterans-solidly-back-mccain.aspx

56-34 McCain-Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/veterans-give-romney-big-lead-obama.aspx

58-34 Romney-Obama



http://www.gallup.com/poll/13696/who-will-get-veterans-votes-november.aspx

54-41 bush-Kerry


Over the last 12 years including midterms 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/11/veterans-are-voting-republican-and-thats-not-likely-to-change/

So, once again, your sample of friends and family is an unscientific survey. It's just your friends and family.

Thanks for moving this to the sandbox!

Emily - yes it is in The Sandbox.  A post with a 3rd party story reporting the BB's playing the RNC, sponsored by a non-profit which also did the same thing for the DNC with Fergie.  

Unscientific?  Talking with my kids and their friends who are heavily involved in veterans groups, is certainly a "barometer" of how young 4th generation Democrats, are voting for a Republican, notwithstanding not being "scientific."  

It is remarkable that kids who thought it was cool when Obama was elected when they were in high school have reversed party following altogether, for the Presidential election.    

Bill Clinton should never have met with his former protegée who is the top lawyer in the country charged with prosecuting his wife, a candidate for President.  It is not ok.

Bill Clinton optics with Lynch, appointed by Clinton, and meeting with him during the time the report was released is not acceptable.  

Rasmussen has Trump ahead by 4.  


Obviously, considering the statements you made above regarding veterans and the actual statistics regarding veterans, your barometer needs recalibrating.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2016, 04:03:00 PM »

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one.  

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well.  




1) Anybody can edit wikipedia,which is why it's not 100% reliable as a source

2) One of the things we mods are notating is that you *still* have not answered my question (asked twice now) above.

Still waiting.

Explain why you posted this
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24118.msg583083.html#msg583083
in response to me.

If I see any  further posts in this topic from you  without a response to this, I will assume you were trolling me, and I will deal with it accordingly.
Billy - that had nothing to do with you except that it was getting political and that stuff ends up here. 

The supposed gig was arranged by 3rd party groups who worked with both RNC and DNC. 
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2016, 04:05:46 PM »

Then why did you ask me to do fact checking on the dates?
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2016, 04:16:36 PM »


CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.     
Lol. I'll say. And you've been a prime example of that.

"The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable."

Yup.


...every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety."

I'll bet you can't find a single comment about anything ever by anyone but yourself that something had "indicia of creating an appearance" of anything. Either it creates an appearance or it doesn't.
But I like how you went from "indicia of creating an appearance of impropriety" to full on "these kinds of ethical violations" in one paragraph. You're true to form. 
So Clinton optics are evidence of fact and Trump optics are just "oh, the poor naive boy."  Well, if he's so naive that he says statements that outrage big segments of the national and global population on a regular basis, perhaps he wouldn't be an ideal president.

And, regarding vets:

Gallup hasn't published yet, but Clinton seems to be doing a bit better among veterans than Democrats for the last 12 years (probably longer.)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/veterans-prefer-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton-/

47-38 trump-Clinton.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/veterans-solidly-back-mccain.aspx

56-34 McCain-Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/veterans-give-romney-big-lead-obama.aspx

58-34 Romney-Obama



http://www.gallup.com/poll/13696/who-will-get-veterans-votes-november.aspx

54-41 bush-Kerry


Over the last 12 years including midterms 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/11/veterans-are-voting-republican-and-thats-not-likely-to-change/

So, once again, your sample of friends and family is an unscientific survey. It's just your friends and family.

Thanks for moving this to the sandbox!

Emily - yes it is in The Sandbox.  A post with a 3rd party story reporting the BB's playing the RNC, sponsored by a non-profit which also did the same thing for the DNC with Fergie.  

Unscientific?  Talking with my kids and their friends who are heavily involved in veterans groups, is certainly a "barometer" of how young 4th generation Democrats, are voting for a Republican, notwithstanding not being "scientific."  

It is remarkable that kids who thought it was cool when Obama was elected when they were in high school have reversed party following altogether, for the Presidential election.    

Bill Clinton should never have met with his former protegée who is the top lawyer in the country charged with prosecuting his wife, a candidate for President.  It is not ok.

Bill Clinton optics with Lynch, appointed by Clinton, and meeting with him during the time the report was released is not acceptable.  

Rasmussen has Trump ahead by 4.  


Obviously, considering the statements you made above regarding veterans and the actual statistics regarding veterans, your barometer needs recalibrating.
Emily - I completely disagree.  When one says "obviously" it means that their position is correct and not an opinion.  Veterans, I know as I am the parent of two.  

So, my vet kids, and many of their friends who are active in veterans affairs and I listen to what they are saying about who would make the best Commander-in Chief.  They enthusiastically say are voting for Trump. And Benghazi is the catalyst.  

My barometer that is working just fine.  You are entitled to your position but that does not make mine wrong, just different.  

We will see how the veterans actually vote and whether there will be a big suprise as was the Brexit vote, last week for those who relied on polling and got a shock.  Polls can go any number of ways depending on who does them, and whether those polled respond candidly.  


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.796 seconds with 22 queries.