babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Garth Brooks & WalMart

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Garth Brooks & WalMart
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 22 August 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Country music superstar Garth Brooks is hanging his Stetson at Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Two months after ending his 16-year relationship with Capitol Records, Brooks has used his newfound freedom to cut a deal to sell his music exclusively through the world's largest retailer, the company announced Friday.

Capitol parent EMI is free to sell its remaining inventory of Brooks' albums but is prohibited from making new CDs because he owns his master recordings.

Brooks' arrangement is the first time an artist has made an entire catalog available only through one outlet.


LA Times


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 22 August 2005 04:34 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:

LA Times


Which points out how important it is for an artist to retain ownership of their material. Not a lot of people know that when an artist records, for the most part the recording company owns the masters. The artist is in the position of not being able to control their own output.

Just one more of the myriad ways the corporations steal from artists.

I'm not a huge fan of Garth Brooks, nor Walmart, but I am a fan of an artist having control over their material.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 August 2005 05:45 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Garth Brooks is a dirtbag, equalled only by "The Boss" (who unfairly gets credit from too many lefties). The *only* good thing Brooks has ever done is the tune "I've got friends in low places". Other than that, he's scum, IMHO.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HerculesRockefeller
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10207

posted 22 August 2005 09:38 AM      Profile for HerculesRockefeller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most people over 20 who call others dirtbags, or any other offensive name for that matter, have serious developmental challenges.
From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 22 August 2005 10:09 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most people over 20 who call others dirtbags, or any other offensive name for that matter, have serious developmental challenges.

And going on the net and suggesting that others are developmentally challenged because they name-called says what about you?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 August 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gee, sure does look to me like HerculesRockefeller is here to contribute productively - his first two posts have been sneering and sarcastic. Off to a great start!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 22 August 2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
he's just trying to be controllversial.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 22 August 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would appreciate some elaboration from Heph, on both points.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 22 August 2005 01:53 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a friend said about this development:

quote:
As if his fanbase shops anywhere else.

Yes, somewhat elitist, I know. u___u


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 22 August 2005 02:31 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Garth Brooks is a dirtbag, equalled only by "The Boss" (who unfairly gets credit from too many lefties). The *only* good thing Brooks has ever done is the tune "I've got friends in low places". Other than that, he's scum, IMHO.

I post this with trepidation.....

Although the poster who followed this is clearly a troll...what Hephaestion posted is every bit as useless.

I'm not a fan of Garth Brooks--at all--but I don't understand what purpose is served by calling someone "scum" without backing up the claim. I assume, only from having lurked at this place for 18 months, that he has done or said something that makes Hephaestion think he is homophobic. But I have no way of knowing this for sure because Hephaestion doesn't tell us.

I ask, I honestly ask, how does that post, or any of the 100s of other similar posts made by a few longtime regulars, contribute to this board? How does it "advance the Canadian progressive movement?" How is it not dragging down the board with juvenile clutter? How is it any better, or any less defamatory, than anything the trolls post?

I honestly ask.

To me, this isn't a right-left issue. It's an issue of decency and, well, maturity. As someone outside of the elite clique of babble regulars, posts like the one above (and especially posts that defame other babble posters) do not inspire me to contribute. I would imagine that there are many lurkers who look at this place, see how some members of that elite clique are allowed to flaunt the rules without being called on it, and say 'piss on it why would I bother?'

Although this particular post is somewhat benign --I can't imagine too many people are incensed by Hephaestion calling Garth Brooks "scum"--it is an example of how there appears to be two sets of rules and expectations at babble--one for the regulars, one for the rest of us.

As a response to this you can either fall back to the same, dull flippant sarcasm and dismissive attitude that is typical, or you can self-reflect.

I know what I expect.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 22 August 2005 02:49 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The only music I've ever heard from Garth Brooks was on a television program, long ago. Brooks didn't appeal to me at all - too polished, and it sounded like 'new country' or whatever it's called nowadays. The only country I listen to nowadays are older recordings by Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash (may he RIP), Merle Haggard, Patsy Cline, the greatest hits CD by Shania Twain (not particularly good, but I wanted to get an idea why she is so popular), and a few others. There's a 24hour C&W channel on Bell ExpressVu but it's truly awful. I much prefer older folk, blues, and rock. I'm listening to "The Who - Live at Leeds" presently.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 22 August 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I ask, I honestly ask, how does that post, or any of the 100s of other similar posts made by a few longtime regulars, contribute to this board? How does it "advance the Canadian progressive movement?" How is it not dragging down the board with juvenile clutter? How is it any better, or any less defamatory, than anything the trolls post?

I honestly ask.


I agree that Heph's post left a lot to be desired (like, a logical and rational explanation for his feelings/opinion). Hence, why there was a request for elaboration.

But, unlike a troll, Heph has shown himself to not only be capable of intelligent debate, but on most occassions, to be interested in it. Which doesn't mean that he can't be snide, snarky, flippant or anything else he wants to be at times. Take his and the "hundreds of similar posts by a few longtime regulars" in context, as humourous or angry or flippant comments in a much larger conversation. We're all human on this board.

Also, I'm thinking its a bit ridiculous to think that every single post is supposed to contribute to the grand scheme of moving the left forward in Canada. That type of attitude is deadly dull and boring IMHO. I'm here to build a community, to learn, to debate, to have fun and to sound off. To butcher a famour saying, if I cant have my cats, foodie and BWAGA threads, it ain't my revolution.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Joel_Goldenberg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5647

posted 22 August 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Joel_Goldenberg        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
T I'm listening to "The Who - Live at Leeds" presently.

Excellent choice.


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 22 August 2005 04:13 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And it's my third copy - I had it on LP, cassette, and I brought it on CD about ten years ago. The only other recordings that get as much play here are by Willie Nelson, the Stones, Beatles, and Linda Ronstadt. The one LP that I play almost every week is by Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels. Kick-ass rock 'n roll.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 22 August 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I kind of liked it when Garth Brooks did that lightning song about spousal abuse. That was alright. The Chris Gains stuff was pretty brutal, though!

I like The Boss, musically. He writes pretty cool songs. And he represents New Jersey. Him and Jovi. Come on, who doesn't love Bon Jovi?

"I'm a cowboy...on a steelhorse I ride, and I'm wanted...dead or alive"

or how about...

"Your love is like bad medicine! Bad medicine is what I need! (whoa-o-o) Lick it up just like bad medicine! There ain't no doctor that can cure my disease!"

Rock on, Jovi, rock on!


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 22 August 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I get "context."

And I agree, to a point, that it is important to take any individual post in context.

That said, and I'm not going to name names here, there are some regular posters that are given a lot of latitude--more than I think is fair.

Those same posters, in my opinion, should consider taking a break from posting because they rarely add anything other than insult to the discussion now. Perhaps they once did, but they are too tired/frustrated to do much more than snip now.

That snippiness contributes, and contributes just as much as the troll posts do, to what I see as an increasingly toxic and uninviting environment on babble.

It's just my opinion. Others could disagree.

quote:

Also, I'm thinking its a bit ridiculous to think that every single post is supposed to contribute to the grand scheme of moving the left forward in Canada.

To be clear, I'm not dreaming of a site without funny posts, or posts about cats (Love cats. My Russian Blue is my favourite "person" in the world. My Tabby is cool too, but she's more her mother's cat...but I digress). What I'm dreaming about is a place where civil debate, free of hyperbole and insult, can flourish. At times that happens here. At times it does not.

Maybe we can al just take a second before we press that "add reply" button to ask ourselves whether what we are posting is really something that adds to the discussion....

In this case, just tell me what is wrong with Garth Brooks-other than the obvious fact that he is a country artist ;-) , rather than calling him "scum" out of context. That's all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 22 August 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wonder if other music outlets (other than Wal-Mart) think of him as scum?
From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 22 August 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
I ask, I honestly ask, how does that post, or any of the 100s of other similar posts made by a few longtime regulars, contribute to this board? How does it "advance the Canadian progressive movement?" How is it not dragging down the board with juvenile clutter? How is it any better, or any less defamatory, than anything the trolls post?

I honestly ask.

To me, this isn't a right-left issue. It's an issue of decency and, well, maturity.


I think that is a great post. While swirrlygrrl is right, not all posts need “to contribute to the grand scheme of moving the left forward in Canada” (or to any other grand scheme, for that matter), the board would be a lot more welcoming if ad hominem attacks were simply not tolerated.

It may feel really good to totally flame someone you disagree with. But, posts that are respectful, logical and heart-felt will have a much greater chance of changing someone’s mind (or at least causing someone to reconsider a stance they have on a particular issue).

Of course, a troll would not be convinced to change a position by such “kindler and gentler” language (because that is not why they are here). But, that being said, there are other readers who may very well be influenced by a thoughtful response.

Perhaps it’s just the nature of this medium. It is so much easier to let loose on a blazing flame on a nameless, faceless poster via the Internet than it would be if you were sitting down together over a cup of coffee.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 22 August 2005 08:10 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it hard to imagine Garth Brooks as a country superstar, given that I haven't heard anything from him in almost ten years. We just have one radio station here on the coast, it's C&W almost 24 hours a day (ugh) and I've yet to hear anything from Brooks on it.

BTW, I used to lissen to Lynard Skynard before that terrible plane crash killed half the band. Are they still around? All I ever hear on the radio from them is that antique 'Sweet Home Alabama' stuff kicking Neil Young and praising Montgomery I think it is. What's up with that?
- by the way, where's the "spitting tobaccy into a spittoon" icon?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
The yodelling brakeman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10263

posted 01 September 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for The yodelling brakeman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Garth Brooks is a dirtbag, equalled only by "The Boss" (who unfairly gets credit from too many lefties). The *only* good thing Brooks has ever done is the tune "I've got friends in low places". Other than that, he's scum, IMHO.

I guess it takes one to know one.


From: west coast | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Banjo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7007

posted 01 September 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Banjo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The yodelling brakeman:

I guess it takes one to know one.


This isn't advancing anything. Every group has its ingroup, and you're never going to become a part of it if you post like this.

The internet is the best refuge of the cowardly. A person can be the most timid pussy cat you could ever meet face to face, but once, he is protected by the anonymity of a nom de plume, he can assume the stance of a tiger. It's time for revenge for all those years of wedgies and ridiclule.

When it's carried out by the ubiquitous ingroup, it makes new people not want to join. In the introductory forum, where one would think experienced members would be a little gentler, another poster and I suggested we did not like the 'fruit of the poison tree' doctrine of US jurisprudence.

For that, one of the frequent insulters of the ingroup accused us of supporting the torture at Gitmo, and the killing of civilians in Iraq.

This statement was of course made with no knowledge of how active we had been in the anti-war movement.

There were others who replied thoughfully to that legal point, but the one overly hostile response soured the whole experience.


From: progress not perfection in Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
The yodelling brakeman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10263

posted 01 September 2005 10:31 AM      Profile for The yodelling brakeman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Banjo:

This isn't advancing anything. Every group has its ingroup, and you're never going to become a part of it if you post like this.

The internet is the best refuge of the cowardly. A person can be the most timid pussy cat you could ever meet face to face, but once, he is protected by the anonymity of a nom de plume, he can assume the stance of a tiger. It's time for revenge for all those years of wedgies and ridiclule.

When it's carried out by the ubiquitous ingroup, it makes new people not want to join. In the introductory forum, where one would think experienced members would be a little gentler, another poster and I suggested we did not like the 'fruit of the poison tree' doctrine of US jurisprudence.

For that, one of the frequent insulters of the ingroup accused us of supporting the torture at Gitmo, and the killing of civilians in Iraq.

This statement was of course made with no knowledge of how active we had been in the anti-war movement.

There were others who replied thoughfully to that legal point, but the one overly hostile response soured the whole experience.



Are you finished?
And silly me thinking it was Garth's & the Boss's steadfast refusal to do a cover version of "It's Raining Men" that got all of you in a tizzy.


From: west coast | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 02 September 2005 04:11 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What dgrollins said (in general).

I suggest again an area on this board - just one - where people can debate with an expectation that they or their ideas will not be slandered or otherwise disrespected, ie. where the topic at hand will be discussed respectfully with regard to that topic, not to those discussing it and without backhanded commentary. Sounds reasonable, yes? Would this often not be the best way to discuss various topics? How often do snide remarks really add to the conversation? When they do, would well reasoned comments generally not better, if not similarly good in communicating worthwhile ideas?

It is said that there is a correlation between sensitivity and intelligence. How many more intelligent people could this board attract, if only to one area, if an area existed where these people could discuss things freely without fear of personal attack? It IMO would even be effective for those who have truly unfounded out-there ideas and who want to work them out. Heck, some of these ideas might even be beneficial for others, and would not get out otherwise if they were shouted down (metaphoricaly speaking) just because they went against the grain, or delved into areas people were unconfortable with.

Not that babble is a bad place for this, indeed the moderators seem to do a pretty solid job overall, if sometimes a little to soon banning posters with controversial views and (to a lesser extent) turning a blind eye to more established posters choosing more detrimental means for a time. Maybe a enforced ground rule of 2 warnings, 1 or 2 temporary suspensions, judgement of the first 10 or 20 posts, etc. I suspect this could be done simply enough.

These 2 ideas are not a contradiction, if people (both regulars and newbies) knew the rules, it wouldn't be too hard to ride this period out, while still getting many new ideas that would help keep us flexible and open-minded.

This said though, it's easier to criticize than do, maybe the moderators are overworked, maybe suffering from imperfection...

I do think the above would more ideal if adopted though, perhaps others would back me up here?


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 02 September 2005 04:21 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
I do think the above would more ideal if adopted though, perhaps others would back me up here?

I like it. I try hard to be respectful (but, tonight, I'll admit, I was miffed and yanked some chains...not undeservedly but rather harshly, nonetheless). And, I appreciate when others are, too. Discussions are so much more interesting and enlightening.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 02 September 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do you hate Springsteen,Heph?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 02 September 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can field this question.

Springsteen sucks.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 September 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Everything after 'The River', yes. But his stuff from the 70's - before he took himself too seriously - was truly wonderful.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 02 September 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which is the best Springsteen album, and is it available on CD? (I've never listened to the guy other than one acoustic album, the name of which escapes me).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 02 September 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the acoustic adventure was 'Nebraska'. I'd lean towards 'Darkness at the Edge of Town', followed close behind by by 'The River' and 'Born to Run'.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 02 September 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks. I think it was indeed "Nebraska". A bit of a downer, I didn't listen to it much. I think I'll order "Born To Run", that's the one I think Rolling Stone gave the 'thumbs-up' to. Is that his drummer on the Conan O'Brien show? He's fantastic.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 September 2005 02:16 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Edited mocking reply due to its excessive mocking nature

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 03 September 2005 05:23 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alas, I posted the same suggestion twice, and got just one agreement and one mocking reply.

All I'm asking for is one polite section. Just one.

Worth consideration, I hope. Kind of like a place for diplomats, or friends, or bona-fide free thinkers not wishing to indure certain mockery for holding different views...

For the hard-core leftists: think of how many right-wingers could be cured of their evil ways if they could be guaranteed respectful and well thought out arguments - which would probably usually win - and would force said rightists to either reply in part or quit/admit defeat. Why turn away (so to speak) those who are either willing to learn, or willing to teach, as the case may be.

Perhaps a primer on various topics for those hostile to left-wing views could be made, something summarizing the historical or present day truths of the views in question?

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 September 2005 07:07 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh ya, I forgot that it's the left who are the unreasonable ones who can't debate worth a hill of beans. We're surrounded by sober and cogent argument on the right everyday. I'm just going to have to work harder at brainwashing them to my points of view, because they're listening to us with bated breath. In fact, I've exorcised many a right-wing posession by hurling facts, figures and moral choices at them with the patience of Job
and come out on top many a time.

Sorry, I just couldn't help me sen'. I go. I know, more pearls and less swine.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 03 September 2005 10:30 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I did some searches for Garth Brooks political leanings and so far I've come up with this comment from Cjnetworks.com

quote:
Garth Brooks: Usually a listener of pop or rock music, I was surprised to read in "Newsweek" a few years back of Garth Brooks' trying to change country music to reflect more diversity. His CD "The Chase" includes the track "We Shall Be Free." Some of the lines: "When the last thing we notice is the color of skin, and the first thing we look for is the beauty within," and "when we're free to love anyone we choose, when this world's big enough for all different views..." This is one country CD I'm proud to have in my collection.

Also Ted Nugent hates him, that has to say something decent about Garth Brooks. Here's another interesting piece on Garth Brooks:

The Nation

And a quote:

quote:
Indeed, the first speakers announced were celebrities Anne Heche, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, Kristen Johnston and Martina Navratilova. They will be joined the night before the march by k.d. lang, Nathan Lane, Garth Brooks and the Pet Shop Boys at an HRC fundraiser concert (also helping to finance the Millennium March) called "Equality Rocks." The Millennium March "is going to be our Woodstock," then-co-director Malcolm Lazin (whose position was eliminated in another dispute this February) told the Washington Blade, leaving reasonable people to wonder whether he meant the original or last year's MTV-ish imitator.


Seems to me, judging by the pretty strong right wing dislike of Garth, he may be a-okay.

[ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Anonymous
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4813

posted 04 September 2005 07:04 AM      Profile for Mr. Anonymous     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel:

You missed my point. A section of the type envisioned would force people to rely on facts or well-reasoned theories, and not on personal attacks or trollish behaviours. It would be ideal for highlighting flaws in certain aspects of right-wing thought, or in left-wing though, insofar as these exist at present.

It would also make it harder for observers or short-lived participants to dismiss leftist thought based on similar replies (or pre-emptive attacks) related to said actions, and would make a good showcase of solid left-wing thinking for people in general, even moreso than the board does now.

It would go both ways, those breaching the rules could still be banned or suspended, either from that area or from the entire board.

You above most others would do well in such an area, as you seem to have obtained the documentation and life-experience to back up well-reasoned leftist arguements at will.


From: Somewhere out there... Hey, why are you logging my IP address? | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca