Paul Bashes Bush (WARNING: HIGH POLITICAL CONTENT)

[cjm320]

Paul, you continue to amaze me! Keep up the good work I couldn't agree with your comment more.

[amsterdam]

Interesting.

I am rather surprised a lot of Americans react so heavily on such a mild joke aimed at a former president. I wonder whether Americans realise what an impact an American president has on (foreign) policies of other countries:

The former president of America neglected international law, messed around with intelligence (towards its own people as well as towards its allies) and then simplified the world ("axis of evil", "you are with us or against us"). As you say: "Everything is fair game as long as FACTS are used". Well, I won't discuss the policies of your former president too much. By acting in this way, he just irritated a lot of people in befriended countries/allies of America such as Germany, France, UK and The Netherlands (where I am from), and America lost much credibility and esteem in the world. Is it so wrong for Paul to make a mild joke then about the former president, who was not portraying himself really as an intellectual?

Moreover, Paul has always been much into actions and policy: human rights, animal rights, anti-landmines, environment/nature preservation. He (and other Beatles) always has/have been picking on premiers and presidents, especially conservative ones (f.e. Marcos/Tatcher/Nixon): (I do not always necessarily adhere to, but) what is wrong with that?

And yes, I think it is pretty disgusting that (on a lot of internetfora) people grumble an spit around very easily...

Cheers.

See and I can understand your positions. I simply disagree with a few things. However I'm not going to insult you. I don't mind Paul believing what he believes but I just felt that the timing was simply unnecessary. A majority of Americans, heck, a majority of people in the world, didn't like Bush. As I said, I wasn't a big Bush fan either. I suppose that I simply felt that the time was inappropriate, and no matter who is a leader, or former leader, with the exception of Hitler (and don't compare Bush to Hitler), people of a country find it disrespectful when somebody insults their leader in such a way. Just my opinion. People may not like Bush, but using insults such as Paul did is not a very credible way of debate.

I get your point now. And I can see that event, location and time for this statement were inappropriate.

But art is more than mere entertainment in my opinion: it may trigger you to think in another way. Artists/musicians can make whatever political statements if they fancy: so also at a concert (for example Obama in the background of sing the changes). It is part of music, and especially of rock and roll culture. (The Beatles were early in this tradition by provoking their own Queen's house by making mild jokes while they were attending a Beatles concert. That was half a century ago: I wonder, was that inappropriate?)

Hahaha Derek, after all you did stir up a lot of political discussion and emotions!

Cheers!

[Mike]

Paul surely is free to say anything he wants but he has always been so careful in doing so not to alienate his fans. I have received emails from some very irate fans that just can't believe what Paul has done. I will not cut and paste any content but what some have said, putting it mildly: they disagree very strongly with the outright political alignment with Obama and in particular with his insults to a two term Harvard educated (MBA) former President.

Sure it was a joke but Paul obviously has made a grave error as he has upset basically 50% of his fans at a time where he's also announced a bunch of new concert dates in the US and Canada. A can of worms has been open and hopefully his PR team can put a lid on it and successfully steer clear of the likely political heat that will be directed his way during this tour.

This topic has of course stirred up a lot of emotions on both sides of the political spectrum and I have been asked privately to lock this thread to end discussion. Even Paul can put his own foot in his mouth or cut his nose of to spite his feet. Nobody should be shocked that people are upset, nobody should be surprised that people are polarized on this. If I keep this topic open, I honestly think it will do a lot of harm as some people will simply stop visiting or even stop listening to Paul's music. I don't for one minute think that Paul wants to clean house of conservatively thinking fans, but he's on his way of doing just that.

This is a forum discussing Paul and The Beatles and Paul certainly is the key topic here and by locking this down I would end this discussion. Fans seem to want to be able to want to be critical of what Paul has done and at this time I'll keep it open at the risk of loosing some long time fans of site. However, I reserve the right to lock this up at anytime without warning.

[derekjdavis]

Interesting.

See and I can understand your positions. I simply disagree with a few things. However I'm not going to insult you. I don't mind Paul believing what he believes but I just felt that the timing was simply unnecessary. A majority of Americans, heck, a majority of people in the world, didn't like Bush. As I said, I wasn't a big Bush fan either. I suppose that I simply felt that the time was inappropriate, and no matter who is a leader, or former leader, with the exception of Hitler (and don't compare Bush to Hitler), people of a country find it disrespectful when somebody insults their leader in such a way. Just my opinion. People may not like Bush, but using insults such as Paul did is not a very credible way of debate.

I get your point now. And I can see that event, location and time for this statement were inappropriate.

But art is more than mere entertainment in my opinion: it may trigger you to think in another way. Artists/musicians can make whatever political statements if they fancy: so also at a concert (for example Obama in the background of sing the changes). It is part of music, and especially of rock and roll culture. (The Beatles were early in this tradition by provoking their own Queen's house by making mild jokes while they were attending a Beatles concert. That was half a century ago: I wonder, was that inappropriate?)

Hahaha Derek, after all you did stir up a lot of political discussion and emotions!

Cheers!

lol I know and I really didn't mean to. I was just trying to have a discussion about the instance. I think that some people are taking it too far, but people are free to do what they wish.

[derekjdavis]

Paul surely is free to say anything he wants but he has always been so careful in doing so not to alienate his fans. I have received emails from some very irate fans that just can't believe what Paul has done. I will not cut and paste any content but what some have said, putting it mildly: they disagree very strongly with the outright political alignment with Obama and in particular with his insults to a two term Harvard educated (MBA) former President.

Sure it was a joke but Paul obviously has made a grave error as he has upset basically 50% of his fans at a time where he's also announced a bunch of new concert dates in the US and Canada. A can of worms has been open and hopefully his PR team can put a lid on it and successfully steer clear of the likely political heat that will be directed his way during this tour.

This topic has of course stirred up a lot of emotions on both sides of the political spectrum and I have been asked privately to lock this thread to end discussion. Even Paul can put his own foot in his mouth or cut his nose of to spite his feet. Nobody should be shocked that people are upset, nobody should be surprised that people are polarized on this. If I keep this topic open, I honestly think it will do a lot of harm as some people will simply stop visiting or even stop listening to Paul's music. I don't for one minute think that Paul wants to clean house of conservatively thinking fans, but he's on his way of doing just that.

This is a forum discussing Paul and The Beatles and Paul certainly is the key topic here and by locking this down I would end this discussion. Fans seem to want to be able to want to be critical of what Paul has done and at this time I'll keep it open at the risk of loosing some long time fans of site. However, I reserve the right to lock this up at anytime without warning.

I apologize for starting this thread then. I was hoping it wouldn't turn into strictly politics and more of a discussion, but I guess that's nearly impossible with people being so emotional about their views. which i believe is a good thing nonetheless.

[jjs]

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/72/427/Video:_Paul_McCartney_Bashes_Bush_at_White_House.html


Now I don't want to turn this into a political debate. However you should know that I am a registered independent and have several fairly liberal views. I agree with Macca on many issues he supports (animals rights, etc.) . However I must say I was disappointed by this comment. And let me explain why before you all hang me.

I wasn't a big Bush fan. I rarely agreed with him. HOWEVER, I believe no matter WHO is President, insults on things such as intelligence is simply disrespectful, and very cheap. However on policy, everything is fair game as long as FACTS are used. Even in simple discussions like the lyric boards on here. When somebody disagrees and they simply insult someone with an opposing view and calls them an idiot, it really discredits their cause and how people think of them as a fair-minded intelligent individual. And I thought Paul was that. However this comment was simply uncalled for and tremendously unneccessary. Even people who greatly dislike Bush should be able to admit that a comment such as his was completely unnecessary. Once again, I'm not meaning to discuss opinions of George Bush, if this turns into that I will simply not respond. I wish to discuss the character of someone who uses insults to things other than policy and actions.

Derek

I agree with you. Only a airhead is disrespectful to a president, former or otherwise.

Everyone disagreed with Bush. Yet the Patriot Act is still in place and stronger than ever, Guantanamo bay is still open for business, we're still in Afghanistan and still in Iraq and we won't be out of there any quicker than we would have. We went into Iraq so that we could close our bases in Saudi Arabia. We had bases in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi oil fields from Saddam. Saudi Arabia is, unfortunately a player in our economy and national security, so we defend them. We had to get the hell out of Saudi Arabia because our presence there, on Muslim soil, was fueling extremism, and that extremism was a threat to our security and the security of the Saudi government. Lets not forget how many of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. We got rid of Saddam, and closed our bases in Saudi Arabia two weeks after, oh... when the Saudi's "kicked" us out. How interesting that we already had somewhere to go, for those who might not think this was all well planned in advance. Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia... All pretty much the same as it ever was. Perhaps Mr. Obama has learned what our "idiot" president already knew? Things aren't quite as simple as they seem on the outside, or from the armchair. No one likes these policies... but they keeps us fat and immersed in cell phones and IPods, you know.

"Even in simple discussions like the lyric boards on here. When somebody disagrees and they simply insult someone with an opposing view and calls them an idiot ..."

It's not simply "opposing views" that provoke name calling and sh*tting contests. For example, h-atom loves "McCartney II" for all the reasons he loves it, and I think it's a pile of bile. He loves it, I don't love it so much. No "name calling" is going to go back and forth over this because such things are purely subjective. Neither person's "likes or dislikes" are any more valid than the other persons.

But, sometimes opinions aren't based on subjective things such as likes and dislikes. For example, whether or not a narrative is clear and complete is something that is measurable. Whether a metaphor strengthens or obscures a point is measurable. Whether or not literary tension is adequately resolved is measurable. If these things weren't measurable, then no one should ever receive anything less than an "A+" on a paper or report, because there are no rules and everything is perfect.

It's not opposing views that provoke name calling and sh*itting contests. Those things occur when people are ill-informed, and therefore, do not have informed opinions... Yet, they consider themselves entitled to receive equal merit for what amounts to their purely subjective "feelings".. that is, their likes and dislikes. It is frustrating when someone tries to counter facts with feelings. It is, whether you like it or not, a sure sign of a profound lack of intelligence.

[jjs]

Paul surely is free to say anything he wants but he has always been so careful in doing so not to alienate his fans. I have received emails from some very irate fans that just can't believe what Paul has done. I will not cut and paste any content but what some have said, putting it mildly: they disagree very strongly with the outright political alignment with Obama and in particular with his insults to a two term Harvard educated (MBA) former President.

Ooops... I think I responded after this... I hope I'm not in trouble again.

[jjs]

Wow. You are obviously a set-in-stone viewpoint left wing radical. There is so point in debating with people that are not willing to take in other viewpoints and that are on the edge of either side of the spectrum.

Now you know what I go through when I try to have intelligent debate about these terrible lyrics. No one wants to understand my point of view, they want to cling to their set-in-stone views the way a cantankerous 90 year old might.

Paul's an airhead. I think his brains have been scrambled from too much dope. I don't care about his political views any more than I cared about Lennon's. Let's go back to fighting about his airhead lyrics.

[derekjdavis]

Wow. You are obviously a set-in-stone viewpoint left wing radical. There is so point in debating with people that are not willing to take in other viewpoints and that are on the edge of either side of the spectrum.

Now you know what I go through when I try to have intelligent debate about these terrible lyrics. No one wants to understand my point of view, they want to cling to their set-in-stone views the way a cantankerous 90 year old might.

Paul's an airhead. I think his brains have been scrambled from too much dope. I don't care about his political views any more than I cared about Lennon's. Let's go back to fighting about his airhead lyrics.

Go on if you wish but preferably on a post that relates to that lol

[jgkojak]

Paul obviously has made a grave error as he has upset basically 50% of his fan

Mike- with all respect-

Paul has probably pissed off 15% of his fans, not 50.

Simple stat: 14% of people believe Obama was not born in the U.S.
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/20 ... orn-abroad

Thems your hard core teabagger crowd.

Bush's final approval rating was 22%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ ... 8399.shtml

Now, some of them teabaggers (maybe most) are included in that group.

I'd also venture that a solid percentage of the aforementioned group are not big Beatle/Rock Music fans-- probably close to 50 to be generous.

I'd also venture that a majority of Paul fans are closer to him on political issues than not. Does it surprise anyone where Paul stands politically? John certainly could have said something like that. Didn't he tell the royals to "rattle their jewelry?"

So really, claiming Paul pissed of 50% of his fans is not accurate.