I agree with Keef

@millercarbon

Are you for, against or indifferent to the lyrics of Brown Sugar or just taking the opportunity to state a general position against censorship?

@millercarbon

I was just trying to figure out which side of the topic you were coming down on but you are so quick to come out swinging. So let me ask again, but more clearly this time: Are you a fan or foe of the song. Were you slamming Keith Richards and criticizing the Rolling Stones for choosing to remove the song from the rotation or criticizing his comments about them choosing to do so.

Man, why are you so sure that everyone is itching for a fight. Geez. When you evoke Stalin...was that against the Stones? Against those to whom they responded by removing the song?

I am neither Miller. 
You may recall I was the one and only in the crazy, crazy thread who expressed sorrow that your job was affected. Same went for Yvi’s friend.

As Ive said to you before, you and I come down on opposite sides of some things but at no point is it ever personal nor with malice. Heck, you have tubes so at least I know you value tone. As a matter of fact, I despise bullies and would proudly contribute resources toward rooting out and exposing the coward who sent you or your wife terrible correspondence.

Busting chops on an audio forum in a friendly manner is one thing….what you describe as happening to you is pure BS.

The Stones arent being censored, they are making a business decision to not play Brown Sugar at this concert. Full stop. They also made the business decision to announce their decision in the media. Full stop. Sounds like both decisions are achieving the goals of THEIR decision. Nothing more, nothing less.

A molehill out of a seven figure sponsorship deal. Everyone still has the right to say and feel as they wish. No one however has the privilege to say and feel as they wish without consequences. Thats not a new circumstance. There are some though who believe you should have unfettered free speech (we do) without having to face any blowback (not going to happen).


The Stones made a business decision….I don’t recall seeing boycotts or picketing. There is no “they” who sent down a directive forbidding them. Maybe even the Stones now recognize that singing about forced sex with those in bondage is pretty poor form. Same might call that rape.

@dadork

Elites? Which flavor of coolaid do you drink, holy mackerel.

I wish the content in the second paragraph of your post above was even remotely true. It would sure make us feel better about the ugly truth of slavery. When Jefferson penned those immortal words, he held slaves and was having children with one of those slaves. What an amazingly consistent person Jefferson was as evidenced by the fact that he held his own offspring that he had with Ms. Hemings as slaves.

Your knowledge of the civil war, its origins, the results, reconstruction and the postscript of Jim Crow for most of the following 100 years is convenient. At best.

I wonder if science will be able to discover that the consumption of some of these newsfeeds actually mimics the results of schizophrenia or CTE. WTF?

@dadork


I mean absolutely no offense but your grasp of history could use a little more balance than simply what youve pieced together, its as if your curriculum was derived from the study of Strom Thurmond.

Maybe if you are truly aggrieved you could speak out against slavery where it still exist today.

I do, through financial support of various charitable endeavors.

As I said if they wanted it to continue as a slave nation they could have enshrined it in our Constitution.

They were largely silent on the matter of slavery as two thirds of the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. They want to ratify a document. The three fifths compromise is clear evidence.

If you are really aggrieved you should renounce the Democrat party as they were the ones who instituted Jim Crow and fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act.

This statement is kindof detached from reality isnt it. The post civil war south was largely democrat because the Union had been republican. Unfortunately, that held true for more than a century following the civil war. If you even remotely understood history, even someone with your agenda to absolve even the hint of institutional racism wouldnt have been shallow enough to attempt this one. The voting tallies of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were almost universally along geographic lines (northern vs southern states) rather than party lines.

non-existant systemic racism.

Absolutely an idiotic statement.

@dadork

Please dont assume Im a member of a particular political party, I just happen to be honest rather than revisionist. The three fifths compromise, as EVERYONE who bothers to read objectively must recognize, was the result of contentious debate. How can objective people view the debate from either side as anything but systemically racist? One side argued that slaves should be counted as people if counting for represatation in the house, HOWEVER, that same group didnt want them counted as people for the purpose of taxation. The other side were in opposition in both cases. They were “people” if it benefitted their “owners” or “property” if it benefitted their “owners”. I dont believe this is in dispute by either of us is it?

I dont assign any noble points to either side of the debate who voted for that “compromise”. It was immoral then and it is immoral now. Why are we arguing that America fell short of its ideals for centuries. We suck less today than we did then when it comes to racial equity. 

I never voted for Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Fulbright nor Senator Byrd. Not quite sure why you inserted them into the conversation. As far as the idealized version of the America you communicate, I do very much hope we live up to those ideals someday. Recent voter suppression legislation doesnt give me much hope but I do still have high hopes. Peace.

Right now it seems we have a four party system....it would be great if there were just three. That's kindof what we have enjoyed post WWII, especially after McCarthy-Murrow.

It seems there is a far left (forgive all student loans, abolish law enforcement), an enlightened left, an enlightened right and a radical right. I seem to recall many in the radical camps used to tame their rhetoric in order to get things done. I also seem to recall the voting records of moderates in both camps would find middle ground without grandstanding. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan could have a beer. Not so much today. Javits, Dirksen...where are today's versions?