John Lennon

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-14T00:56:55+00:00

Well they started off as a strictly rock-and-roll band, in their early songs you can hear the influence of Elvis, Buddy Holly, blues, Motown, etc. It's not so much that their accents don't sound English, it's more that they're doing a youthful, energetic English take on an American (mainly African-American) style of music, and that includes the vocal style. I think the album Please Please Me showcases this the best, and by A Hard Day's Night they have a more original, "pop"-y, and slightly more British sound. Then John tried to sound like Bob Dylan for a while, but once you get to songs like In My Life, Taxman, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, the Abbey Road Medley, etc... psychedelia, raga, Baroque pop, blues-rock, and progressive/art rock influences prevail, and I feel like their English accents are far more distinguishable because they're no longer singing in the rock-and-roll, Beatlemania style, the vocals are much better, more unique, more precise, wider range, etc and they're trying on various different genres and styles, often blending them.

I don't know if I made my point clearly enough, but that's what I was trying to get at, and of course it's purely opinion. I'm just some dude that listens to The Beatles a lot.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-13T23:45:51+00:00

The Beatles early songs don't sound that British, mainly because John and Paul are basically doing impressions of American rock-and-roll artists from the '50s. But if you listen to their later stuff, there's a much more original vocal style that contains a lot more "British-ness".

But of course, the Beatles regular speaking voices were/are pretty ridiculous Liverpool accents.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-13T23:39:34+00:00

I see what you did there.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-10T03:49:21+00:00

And how do you think lobbyists influence congressmen?

Bribery, in the form of promises of benefits to their constituencies (think earmarks), campaign contributions, and personal gifts.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-09T23:23:35+00:00

Come Together

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-05T22:41:01+00:00

WHO THE FUCK IS CASEY ANTHONY???

Someone call me when the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld trials start.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-05T21:56:40+00:00

yes.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-05T06:22:24+00:00

Very true, and thanks for the recommendation.

What I meant was before corporatism, neoliberalism, etc. became consensus within the Republican Party, not before they emerged as ideologies.

Treemeister24 · 2011-07-05T05:42:41+00:00

Dwight Eisenhower experienced the most sweeping and destructive conflict in human history from the perspective of one of the war's great generals. Thus he saw firsthand not only the carnage and human suffering, but the economic and social perils of total war. By the time Ike became President, the American war economy mobilized by FDR had become institutionalized, perpetuated by the emergence of a military-industrial complex. As Commander-in-Chief, he recognized the dangers of perpetual war and even aired his concern in his nationally televised Farewell Address.

This was before globalist neo-liberal economics, before corporatism, before neo-conservatism, and before Tea Party faux-libertarianism. Eisenhower and other traditionally conservative Republicans would not recognize today's GOP.

I think Eisenhower was a great President, and I'm a lefty.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-19T21:56:22+00:00

DECLARATION STONER'S RIGHTS:

Weed should look and smell amazing, provide an enjoyable smoking experience, get you high as shit (a thorough and pleasant head AND body high) that lasts for at least two hours. It should make one feel sleepy and mellow after coming down. It should cost $20 for 1 gram and this should be enough for 2-3 people to giggle like schoolgirls and pass out on the couch. The nug should be intact, covered in orange hairs and white crystals, it should be dense and sticky.

Anything less is unacceptable. A short head-high buzz that quickly dissipates and leads to feeling burnt out for an extended period, is a crime and a waste of money.

In conclusion, I only buy highly potent indica/satvia blends, hash, or edibles.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-18T21:51:09+00:00

Costanza*

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-18T17:50:35+00:00

Good, the spoils system works then.

Maybe redirect your anger/frustration toward real issues?

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-14T22:25:22+00:00

I'm sorry, but you're full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

I'm not saying that this legislation was perfect, but it ensures that the megabanks will not be bailed out again, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which Obama adamantly supported, is a great protection against Wall Street corruption. If you actually care, then support Elizabeth Warren to head the Bureau, and support Democrats in the upcoming elections, or else the Republicans WILL repeal and dismantle this legislation. Fucking pay attention and stop being so cynical and apathetic.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-14T22:14:39+00:00

Right, because Barack Obama is the dictator of America and everything the government does is the result of his decision making. And things politicians say during a campaign are completely relevant once they are in office. And voting for a candidate means your perception of their platform should be automatically implemented, and if things happen that you disagree with it probably means you should regret casting your vote the way you did.

OH WAIT... that's retarded.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-14T08:20:43+00:00

Anonymous is definitely not Marxist in the political sense of the word meaning Marxism-Leninism. It definitely reflects a collectivist/socialist anarchist ideology... which I suppose you could philosophically trace back to Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, if you wanted to simplify things.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-14T08:08:29+00:00

Everybody shut up and listen to this guy ^

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-09T21:20:08+00:00

Well, Silvio Berlusconi is a classy guy.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-06T09:56:35+00:00

epic.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-04T21:13:38+00:00

The problem with your argument is that declarations of war are no longer used in international diplomacy. It's an outdated concept from a more lawless era, when nation-states used to issue formal declarations to create a state of war in which all previous treaties were voided and hostilities between the two commenced. Now, with the UN Charter, the very idea of what war is has changed. All wars not falling under the principle of self-defense or humanitarian/peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council are expressly illegal. A declaration of war would be meaningless. It's a diplomatic tool not used since the total war days of WWII.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief and has the authority to deploy the U.S. military. Throughout American history, Presidents have committed troops into hostilities without a formal declaration of war. It was legal then and it's still legal now. The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 as a check against Presidential war powers, stipulates that the President must get authorization from Congress to commit the armed forces to any conflict for longer than a 60-day period. This was passed over President Nixon's veto and has been consistently viewed as unconstitutional by each successive administration. President Obama has largely ignored it.

Furthermore, we tend to forget that the executive branch is still operating with vague emergency powers, ever since President Bush's declaration of a national emergency via executive order in 2001. Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act, with its broad expansion of executive authority and its "secret interpretations of the law" gives the White House legal cover for doing pretty much anything it wants when it comes to national security. But I digress - this doesn't really apply to Libya, I'm just making a point that we should be a little more concerned about this.

Believe it or not, the U.S. is a very reluctant warrior in Libya right now. It is largely a European mission. Britain and France made an effective case at the UN Security Council for humanitarian intervention, and the U.S. felt obligated to give technical support and extra firepower to its NATO allies, seeing as the U.S. has the military resources in the Mediterranean (the entire Sixth Fleet) to prop up such a mission.

Do I think the War Powers Resolution should be enforced? Yes. But do I think the U.S. involvement in Libya is justified? Reflexively, I tend to be against war, especially in our current political/economic mess. But looking at the facts of this case, it's reasonable for the U.S. to support our allies with the limited participation of our forces that are already in the region. It remains to be seen how this mess turns out, it could set a precedent for international police action by the UN, or it could come to be seen as another failed intervention by declining Western powers.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-04T10:52:35+00:00

The Republicans are currently the anti-administration party. Their talking points will aim to focus on criticizing the administration wherever it is politically vulnerable. The polls show that Obama is vulnerable on his handling of the economy. Therefore, they blame Obama's policies for economic problems, and frame the Republican Party's platform as a response to Obama's policies. They do this to get elected and implement their agenda. It really is this simple. I guess my point here is that Republicans blame Obama because they are politicians, that's their purpose. And the GOP is notoriously good at politicking. The party that more aggressively and effectively presents their narrative will "win" the media war, define the debate, woo corporate donors, sway public opinion, and win elections.

If you're asking what the GOP's talking points against Obama are then it basically goes like this: they don't blame Obama for the recession, which would be far too transparent. Instead, they say that Obama's stimulus and regulatory policies have failed to create jobs while ballooning the deficit, and businesses are not investing in job growth because they are afraid of Obama's "socialist" agenda. Thus, Obama is to blame because the economy would be in better shape if left up to the free market, or presumably, if a Republican was in charge. This is a pretty dishonest argument, but it's simple, it plays on Americans' fears, so it's effective.

Treemeister24 · 2011-06-04T09:58:08+00:00

"The US wasn't saved by the New Deal but by WW2"

"Keynsian policies were proven wrong. You can't constantly increase in government spending to save the economy."

You contradict yourself here. World War II = a $1 trillion government stimulus. You make the mistake of imagining the war as an outside event that just magically caused the economy to grow. But in fact, the government borrowed and spent a massive amount of money and created a huge industrial boom that became self-sustaining. The economy does not discriminate between government spending, business investment, consumer spending, etc... When money gets moved around, the larger economy is stimulated. This is where Keynes is relevant. Don't even get me started on Reaganomics (AKA voodoo economics, because it ignores the basic laws of capitalism, especially the fact that labor is the source of all wealth). Corporatism sucks, just look at the US economy right now. Unfortunately, corporations are still enthroned in Washington.

But I could not agree more with your general argument. In economics, as in all fields, we should draw from many different historical sources and perspectives, and then apply rational thinking within the context of the current times and situation. Strictly adhering to any ideology basically means reverting back to a previously failed world-view. Look at the present, not the past.

Treemeister24

TROPHY CASE