Watching conservatives trying to use the liberal counter-culture of the 1960s against liberalism is disturbing. The folk music of the 60s was against conservatism. No if, ands, or buts about it. It was rebellious music FOR change; not rebellious music AGAINST change. So please, stop embarassing yourselves. Instruct the liddle lady to put back on her blue jeans, boots, cowboy hat, and flannel shirt.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Rebellious Song Against Change
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Josh wrote:
The Left Has No Monopoly on Political Music
First of all, the below song by Ash Soular is not AGAINST change. The song is obviously against Obama's change because it is not change. She pegs him as a hypocrite and Obama proved it during his campaign as he spoke out against FISA and then voted for it. He's for more war, more murder.
The attack on this amateur song-writer is solely fueled by one line in which she communicates some conservative thoughts against big government spending and high taxation. I guess its our job to randomly tear apart individuals who voice their opinions on YouTube? Very constructive.
Music from the 60s was not against conservatism generally. It was against big intrusive government causing wars that harm millions of people. It was against corporatism and big government. See: American Woman.
Remember, Barry Goldwater was the peace candidate as a conservative in 64 and lost by a landslide. George McGovern was the peace candidate as a liberal in 72 and lost by a landslide. Whether on the left, or the right, these types of candidates will never be elected because the powers at be profit from war and big government. This has nothing to do with socialized health care or a social safety net. The profits gained by big corporations from weapons sales and military contracts will always ensure the president is on the side of war.
This music comes out against the state. Yes, some of these artists lean more left than they do right, but that doesn't not mean the left has a monopoly on political music.
Here's a tune both those on the left and the right could find common ground with from 1967:
http://www.youtube.com/v/QLzUNDaF00U&hl=en&fs=1
Yes, it is against change. It assumes the categories of business that have existed for thousands of years. It is against change.
Obama might be a hypocrite not actually for change, but that doesn't mean she is for change. She is a reactionary in favor of reverting back to a primitive state of affairs.
As for attacks on her, judging by the YouTube comments I would say the attack is from the far right in the form of a loud whining sound. And no, I'm not just attacking her because she is a neanderthal. I'm attacking her because she used "obamanation" as the title for her little whinefest.
Music from the sixties was against conservatism. Bob Dylan and John Lennon did not sing songs about "big government" and "abominations". If you would like to pick through their lyrics song by song to prove they were anti-conservatives I will more than oblige you.
"Remember, Barry Goldwater was the peace candidate as a conservative in 64 and lost by a landslide. George McGovern was the peace candidate as a liberal in 72 and lost by a landslide. Whether on the left, or the right, these types of candidates will never be elected because the powers at be profit from war and big government. This has nothing to do with socialized health care or a social safety net. The profits gained by big corporations from weapons sales and military contracts will always ensure the president is on the side of war."
This might be true.
I never said the left had a monopoly on political music. I said it is very sad when the right uses liberal style music to try and gain followers.
Post a Comment