Concerts for Change

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:14 am

I dont think this has been brought up yet. I don't know what you all think of them, but to be honest I am appalled. No, not because I am a Bush supporter. I would be as appalled if they were supporting Bush. I realize it is their right to do what they are doing, and I respect that, but that doesnt make it right.

I'll take Springsteen as an example. I LOVE BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN. I really feel like he is abusing his fan base. Everyone has known his political opinions his whole career. It was fine with me, just because you're liberal obviously doesnt mean I dont like you. I saw him in concert a few times last year and it was the time of my life. But, now he is telling me if i want to come see him him, I have to fund the Kerry campaign? He knows, sadly, that people will come see him and contribute regardless of political affiliation. The same thing that DMB did when he came to Penn State a little over a week ago. I really feel like this is an absolute abuse of his fans. It's why I havent listened to or bought his music over the last few months, and why ill continue to do so until Nov. 3.

I love you Bruce, but I really feel like you took it too far this time.

I suppose I'll make this a poll. Why not.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:22 am

If you go to see him, pay ticket prices and he contributes his cut of that money to a political campaign, you're doing the same thing. All he's doing is being transparently honest about it—and frankly, I prefer that out of people.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:00 am

I think Bruce is especially almost duping people on this. Your average concert goer is just going to think "OMG WICKED LINEUP!" and buy a ticket right there, not looking at where the money is going. Hell, I know if PMOP hadn't brought it to my attention, I wouldn't have known about the motivation behind the tour.

Also, Bruce said his last tour was the end of the line for him, IIRC. So then he goes and does this and all the Bruce fans jump up and want to go.

Thirdly, many of the acts appeal to kids. So, young, impressionable voters are going to show up to see acts they've been dyinggggggg to see, again without knowing its a politically based tour. They're then going to be forcefed anti-Bush and think hey, I don't know **** about this anyway, and 311 said Bush is bad and hell, they're musicians so they obviously know the politics.. and bam, Kerry vote.

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:13 am

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote: Also, Bruce said his last tour was the end of the line for him

I dont know where you heard that but he never said that.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:23 am

Hm. Someone had a 'last tour' last summer. Hmmmmmm.

Whatever. I'll remember in it three weeks.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:17 am

Its been made very clear what the tour is about. No one is getting duped.

I respect him for putting his neck on the line and taking a chance for the sake of something he believes in. He's had enough and wants change, and has the influence to make a difference.

Plus, he's still probably pissed off that 'Born in the USA' was abused as a Republican anthem back in the 80s.

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:32 am

spiderfrommars wrote:
Plus, he's still probably pissed off that 'Born in the USA' was abused as a Republican anthem back in the 80s.

No it wasnt. He said dont use it, so they didnt.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:07 am

Not officially, no, though it was certainly misinterpreted.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:47 am

this is cock and balls - republicans are moaning because someone is using their capitalist gains in the way they want - wtf?

Nebbie · Post by **Nebbie** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:48 am

It's been made very clear what this tour is about. If someone doesn't know then they're simply not paying attention. I'd go in a heartbeat if I could afford it, and I don't even like Bruce.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:41 pm

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote: Your average concert goer is just going to think "OMG WICKED LINEUP!" and buy a ticket right there, not looking at where the money is going.

You realise that other bands, companies etc. do this entirely without your knowledge?

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote: Thirdly, many of the acts appeal to kids.

"Won't somebody think of the kiiiiids!" Are you copy-typing from a textbook?

Teenagers have far more political savvy than you realise. And I suspect most of them have noticed that the domestic economy has been turning to sh*t, that they have a president who was talking about conscription for a political war, and that more than a few have relatives currently in the line of fire.

Kids can do anti-Bush all on their own.

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:22 pm

Best First wrote:this is cock and balls - republicans are moaning because someone is using their capitalist gains in the way they want - wtf?

You, sir, just won a prize.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:19 pm

Denyer wrote:
LeAtHeRnEcK wrote: Thirdly, many of the acts appeal to kids.
"Won't somebody think of the kiiiiids!" Are you copy-typing from a textbook?

Teenagers have far more political savvy than you realise. And I suspect most of them have noticed that the domestic economy has been turning to sh*t, that they have a president who was talking about conscription for a political war, and that more than a few have relatives currently in the line of fire.

Kids can do anti-Bush all on their own.

Hi, ********, or bollocks, whatever you prefer. I'm a member of said demographic, I think I might have a bit more of a handle on it than you. Most teenagers that I've found, IN MY COLLEGE DORM, when pressed, have no arguments to back up their positions. They're fed anti-Bush, they buy into anti-Bush, and they have no reason to be anti-Bush except Carson Daly and Bruce Springsteen said so. Some of them can rattle off 'facts' from F9/11 that have been disproved time and time again, others can say "OMG I'M GOING TO BE DRAFTED,' yet I've found a few small minority than can actually hold a conversation regarding the presidential election.

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:32 pm

Best First wrote:this is cock and balls

Who says that?

Best First wrote:republicans

I already said, it doesnt matter which side is doing it or which side you're on.

Best First wrote:moaning because someone is using their capitalist gains in the way they want - wtf?

My complaint is that he is doing a disservice to his fans by forcing them to fund Kerry if they want to see Bruce. Looking back at what Denyer said, there is actually a great difference between him donating his own money and donating my money to Kerry. Campaign finance laws would only allow Bruce to donate so much because he is an individual, private donor. However, these concerts for change are technically fund-raisers and might even fall into the special interest category, so it allows him to take the money from my pocket and give it to the Johns. He can give A LOT more this way. What it really comes down to is, I, like so many others, want to see Bruce. He wont be around for much longer. But how can I honestly bring myself to do this if I know I'm putting my money into the pot of the Kerry campaign. It's sad, people like me are missing out.[/i]

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:36 pm

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:[
I'm a member of said demographic, I think I might have a bit more of a handle on it than you. Most teenagers that I've found, IN MY COLLEGE DORM, when pressed, have no arguments to back up their positions. They're fed anti-Bush, they buy into anti-Bush, and they have no reason to be anti-Bush except Carson Daly and Bruce Springsteen said so. Some of them can rattle off 'facts' from F9/11 that have been disproved time and time again, others can say "OMG I'M GOING TO BE DRAFTED,' yet I've found a few small minority than can actually hold a conversation regarding the presidential election.

Honestly, this is really pathetic but true. All too often do I run into students here that say F Bush and he's going to get his ass kicked, but they can't hold a conversation. I'm always willing to give respect to opinions that can be backed up, but in this case, Denyer, you are giving teens entirely too much credit.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:37 pm

Best First wrote:moaning because someone is using their capitalist gains in the way they want - wtf?
My complaint is that he is doing a disservice to his fans by forcing them to fund Kerry if they want to see Bruce. Looking back at what Denyer said, there is actually a great difference between him donating his own money and donating my money to Kerry. Campaign finance laws would only allow Bruce to donate so much because he is an individual, private donor. However, these concerts for change are technically fund-raisers and might even fall into the special interest category, so it allows him to take the money from my pocket and give it to the Johns. He can give A LOT more this way. What it really comes down to is, I, like so many others, want to see Bruce. He wont be around for much longer. But how can I honestly bring myself to do this if I know I'm putting my money into the pot of the Kerry campaign. It's sad, people like me are missing out.[/i]

yeah, tragic.

so what you are actually saying isthat you want to deny Bruce his democratic right to organise fund raisers for the party he supports.

wELCome to The WorRLDs GREAtest democrcY!

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:42 pm

Best First wrote:
so what you are actually saying isthat you want to deny Bruce his democratic right to organise fund raisers for the party he supports.

wELCome to The WorRLDs GREAtest democrcY!

Yup, you caught me

I said in my first post, just because you have the right to do something doesnt mean you should. The question comes down to: Who should Bruce be more loyal to? The fans that have supported him over the last 30 years, or John Kerry? Now that is certainly not....

Cock and balls

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:48 pm

maybe he just doesn't give a crap about his republican fans?

edit - in response to your extended post, your question could be rephrased as:

"What should Bruce be more loyal to, people he never asked to buy his records, or his own beliefs?"

He doesn't owe you anything.

Powermaster Optimus Prime · Post by **Powermaster Optimus Prime** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:49 pm

Best First wrote:maybe he just doesn't give a crap about his republicam fans?

Maybe

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:20 pm

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:Hi, ********, or bollocks, whatever you prefer.

I usually go by Denyer, although I'll call you dickface and you can pick your choice of noun if you'd prefer.

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:I'm a member of said demographic, I think I might have a bit more of a handle on it than you.

Yet to see any evidence of this.

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:they have no reason to be anti-Bush

*) Health care. Blocking of medical research. Enforcing drug company monopolies.
*) Domestic economy.
*) State of education.
*) A 'Patriot' Act which pisses all over the Constitution.
*) Invading a foreign country under pretext.
*) A man who sees fits to block late-term abortion for rape victims and who would see children who've been abused by parents forced to disclose medical details to those parents.

Powermaster Optimus Prime wrote:However, these concerts for change are technically fund-raisers and might even fall into the special interest category, so it allows him to take the money from my pocket and give it to the Johns. He can give A LOT more this way.

He is not taking money from your pocket—you are going to a concert organised as a fundraiser, he is telling you what he is doing, and proceeding to do it. There is no gun to your head.

Springsteen has always been a political lyricist. Music and politics in general are no strangers to each other. You seem to want him to sit on-stage, play your pick of greatest hits and then go away again. My suggestion: buy an album. Rip it, delete the files of songs which have political messages, and burn what's left to CD.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:28 pm

'Do you think Bruce and Co. are abusing their fans?'

well technically speaking yes - if I was a really big fan of his music but not of his politics id be upset that other fans are getting 'Bruce time baby' and im not..

yes im being silly.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:19 pm

Denyer wrote:
LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:Hi, ********, or bollocks, whatever you prefer.
I usually go by Denyer, although I'll call you dickface and you can pick your choice of noun if you'd prefer.

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:I'm a member of said demographic, I think I might have a bit more of a handle on it than you.
Yet to see any evidence of this.

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:they have no reason to be anti-Bush
*) Health care. Blocking of medical research. Enforcing drug company monopolies.
*) Domestic economy.
*) State of education.
*) A 'Patriot' Act which pisses all over the Constitution.
*) Invading a foreign country under pretext.
*) A man who sees fits to block late-term abortion for rape victims and who would see children who've been abused by parents forced to disclose medical details to those parents.

The *'s were actually bulls**t, but see it as you like.

Health care, what about it? Accessible if you want it. No, we don't have socialized healthcare.. that's why our doctors don't suck ass.

Domestic economy? Unemployment is right were it was under Clinton. Also, please, tell me how a president can affect the economy.. Go on..

State of education.. public education is provided to everybody. SAT scores have been rising steadily the last few years.

I'll give you the Patriot Act.

Invading two foreign countries under the assumption that Washington can decide how to keep the US secure, not Paris. And we've all seen the evidence as to why France and Russia opposed the war. And you can find the evidence that OBL and Iraq had been in contact time and time again throughout the 90s.

If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is? And irregardless of the history between parents and children, the parents are still the legal guardians of said children unless ruled otherwise in a court of law. Until last year I couldn't use eBay without a parent doing it for me, so why could I have an abortion [assuming I was somehow pregnant] without parental consent?

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:14 pm

LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is?

Ooh, let's see shall we? How about the feelings of fear and shame caused by being raped? Or maybe the attacker threatening more of the same, or even death if the victim speaks of what happened? Perhaps the fear that no one will believe them? Or not actually realising they're pregnant until the last month or so?

First the brain goes into gear, and only then do we allow the fingers to touch the keyboard.

wideload · Post by **wideload** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:35 pm

I'm totally against celebrities endorsing political positions. When a celebrity does something like this he gets a way bigger audience than the average person does. Which results in basically more voting power. This is totally undemocratic. You can argue all you want about how its freedom of speech, but i think it just surpresses republicans that might like his music. As previously mentioned just because someone can do something doenst mean the should. A lot of the laws of democracy depend on good will and trust.

For instance i can go around calling everyone who votes a certain way an idiot, but that's not very democratic is it. Which is essentially what happens when a celebrity endorses a candidate. A celebrity also has a "cool factor" associated with them. Making people who vote the opposite way as the celebrity just as uncool as people who dont like the music.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:59 pm

Pissin' Poonani wrote:
LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is?
Ooh, let's see shall we? How about the feelings of fear and shame caused by being raped? Or maybe the attacker threatening more of the same, or even death if the victim speaks of what happened? Perhaps the fear that no one will believe them? Or not actually realising they're pregnant until the last month or so?

First the brain goes into gear, and only then do we allow the fingers to touch the keyboard.

Um being thr father of 2 children I feel the need to speak up. How in the HELL does a woman NOT notice until the last month or so that shes pregnant?

Post by **snarl** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:01 pm

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:
Pissin' Poonani wrote:
LeAtHeRnEcK wrote:If you're a rape victim, why are you waiting until late term for an abortion as it is?
Ooh, let's see shall we? How about the feelings of fear and shame caused by being raped? Or maybe the attacker threatening more of the same, or even death if the victim speaks of what happened? Perhaps the fear that no one will believe them? Or not actually realising they're pregnant until the last month or so?

First the brain goes into gear, and only then do we allow the fingers to touch the keyboard.
Um being thr father of 2 children I feel the need to speak up. How in the HELL does a woman NOT notice until the last month or so that shes pregnant?

It was only one suggestion and not ever stated by pissin to be the difinitive reason.

Like the way you sidestepped all the other possibilities. That was kool and clever.

Are you Christian by any chance?

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:07 pm

http://www.ivillage.co.uk/pregnancyandb ... 21,00.html

Enjoy.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:07 pm

wideload wrote: For instance i can go around calling everyone who votes a certain way an idiot, but that's not very democratic is it.

uh...how isn't it? I'd say this was more undemocratic:

"If you are a celebrity, you may not have a political opinin"

wouldn't you?

As an aside - its not uncommon for teenage girls to noy realise they are pregnant until quite late - many just don't have the education to realise.

Fortunatly Bush is all about sex ed, so i'm sure that won't be a problem much longer.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:09 pm

wideload wrote:I'm totally against celebrities endorsing political positions. When a celebrity does something like this he gets a way bigger audience than the average person does. Which results in basically more voting power. This is totally undemocratic.

Undemocratic? Do you really think people are that stupid that they can't make up their own minds on issues? Do you not think that people actually read candidate and party manifestos instead of a 2 minute soundbite from the candidate's celebrity buddy?

wideload wrote:You can argue all you want about how its freedom of speech, but i think it just surpresses republicans that might like his music. As previously mentioned just because someone can do something doenst mean the should. A lot of the laws of democracy depend on good will and trust.

I certainly won't be arguing that it's freedom of speech, because even you acknowledge that it is just that. No argument needed.

wideload wrote:For instance i can go around calling everyone who votes a certain way an idiot, but that's not very democratic is it. Which is essentially what happens when a celebrity endorses a candidate. A celebrity also has a "cool factor" associated with them. Making people who vote the opposite way as the celebrity just as uncool as people who dont like the music.

Calling people idiots is neither democratic or undemocratic. It's an irrelevance, just like your point about the perception of 'coolness/uncoolness' due to celebrity endorsement. If you or others you know take 'coolness' into consideration when voting for candidates it's a poor poor poor reflection on individuals if they do so.

I don't see any undemocratic coercion. Very broadly speaking, there are no militia that 'twist the arms' of voters in the US to vote a certain way. People can still freely make up their own minds one way or another. I see no problem with celebrities/musicians weighing in with political opinions.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:09 pm

What does my spiritual choice have to do with the fact that I didnt cut and paste the one freakin argument I said something about? Had I done such cut and paste I would have gotten the same statement from you with the added "How about you show the whole argument before you speak."

I was making a toungue in cheek statement about "not noticing" because I felt that was a ridiculous argument. If I wanted to really get into this issue I would dissect every statement. I dont. I believe there is alot of grey area on this topic and I dont feel like getting dragged into it.