Customer Discussions > Music forum

Here's the list: Musicians Backing Mitt Romney...and Those Supporting Barack Obama. Wild guess whose got the better list....

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 466 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 30, 2012 7:56:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 30, 2012 8:01:30 PM PDT
bass boy says:
Actually, I think many of the "better actors" don't voice their political leanings. You can't tell me Alec Baldwin (who is overly vocal about his beliefs on politics and planes. ;)) is a better actor than actors like Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman, who play it classy and don't spew their political beliefs every chance they get. Just sayin'. I'm not saying that I agree with one side or the other - it's just I'm sick to death and bored of hearing how actors/celebrities think we all should vote. :)

P.S. I'm not thrilled with either candidate ... at all. Not sure why there's so much arguing. Lol! :)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 5:44:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 6:05:57 AM PDT
S. Stalcup says:
"I'm not thrilled with either candidate ... at all. Not sure why there's so much arguing."

Acting out. No one really likes either one. There's no hope for any third party candidate. I say this as someone who, had The Green Party a stronger presence in Indiana, I probably would have voted for Stein.

Instead, you have a choice: Buzzsaw castration or Drano enema?

Romney: Clearly a rich white male theocrat. So see through he might as well be made of cheesecloth. We've seen this movie before if we've been on the planet long enough. We know how it ends. Not sure why people venerate Reagan so much, unless his strain of Alzheimer's became airborne. He restarted a war on drugs that was on the decline during the 1970s as people realized "Hey, this isn't opening our minds. This is hurting people." and escalated the Cold War. No fun if you grew up close to a military base, knowing it could all go up in a blinding white light.
Obama: Obvious product of "Da Machine." Made a lot of promises he didn't keep, which wouldn't be different from others who were elected Commander-in-Chief except, sakes alive! Who let "the help" run the country? And yet, what did he end up doing in the end? Elected President, but still cleaning up after a bunch of rich white idiots (One rich white idiot in particular).

I'm hoping Obama gets another shot at it because I really haven't liked the job I've seen the other side do in my 37 years on this planet. Unhelpful me into oblivion if you so desire people.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 6:00:49 AM PDT
club 7 says:
mike love supports mitt romney.
that says alot.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:00:04 AM PDT
Fischman says:
When I think of really excellent actors who voice their political leanings, I'm thinking of the likes of Kevin Spacey, Morgan Freeman, Susan Sarandon, Julianne Moore, etc (all of whom I place at or above Denzel as quality actors). Yeah, lots of great actors keep their opinions to themselves (which I appreciate), but the top caliber ones who don't always seem to be Dems.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:07:13 AM PDT
Fischman says:
Romney and Obama aside, you forget Reagan's escalation of the Cold War actually brought an end to the Cold War. The chances of it all going up in the blinding light you fear was greatly reduced.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:17:16 AM PDT
S. Stalcup says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 7:23:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 7:30:43 AM PDT
vivazappa says:
I want to see what bands they've each downloaded.

My guess:
Obama-Jay Z--and DMX
Mitt-Mormon Tab Choir--and The Osmond Brothers

Biden--Sinatra--and Zappa
Ryan--(well he already told us) AC/DC to Zeppelin

Any other ideas?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:25:50 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Plenty of historians give Reagan ample credit for helping to end the cold war. Others though share the opinion that Reagan heightened tensions and only increased the risk of conflict to slightly speed up something that was going to happen anyway (ie, the Russian economy was going to collapse anyway, but forcing them to keep up in an arms race just sped it along).

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 7:31:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 7:35:28 AM PDT
E. Dill says:
Let's not get carried away with this "intellectual" stuff. For years, the Dems held control of the House because of their odd mix of Eastern liberals and Southern racists, some of them in office. Then, in 1964, that mix began to crumble when LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed. Now, it is hard to remember when the Dems had control of the South, vote-wise.

As for intellectuals, one must ask themselves exactly what kind of intellectual do you want? Those that concocted the multi-layered scheme that led to the housing bubble bursting in 2008 were surely intelligent about making money using the system. They sold inflated mortages to people without jobs, with no colateral, etc. because they knew they could take their cut, package the crappy mortages together with a bow from their own rating agency who'd give the package a AAA rating (often bought by an unsuspecting pension fund as a "good investment"), sell them and then, ironically, bet thru the dervative system, that the mortages would fail and make profits on the failures.!! Wow!. Now THAT takes some smarts, huh? No feelings, but smarts. And there are those, including the millions of tea partiers who are NOT even close to being rich, who've bought into the system that failed so miserably. Maybe next time it will be THEIR turn to soak the soakable thru some nifty paper shuffling. I used to naively wonder how a billionaire from Goldman Sachs could face his family and friends with his millions/billions in bonuses for leading his company to that collapse. What I didn't understand then, but I do now is that these people feel "entitled". I want to laugh (and cry) when I hear the richest of the rich referring to those "entitlements" for the poor. Meanwhile, as bad as the economy can get, the rich keep getting richer here and the poor keep on getting poorer and the middle class sits with their head up their orifice waiting for their turn to soak somebody too (and, of course, blame it on the poor).

Obama or Canada.


In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:41:21 AM PDT
Fischman says:
" . . . but forcing them to keep up in an arms race just sped it along."
--thus shortening the period of heightened risk.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 7:54:05 AM PDT
Fischman says:
Why was an 8-year old so stressed? Were people putting unnecessary fear into you or did you come to the conclusion of dire outcomes on your own? The Soviets were highly risk averse and were unlikely to start something with a peer--far less likely than with someone they perceived as equal or stronger. We were never safer than we were with Reagan and immediately thereafter.

If I have any sympathy for your eight year old self, it's because you were either misled or too immature to form a well thought out opinion on your own. I'd love to go back in time and set you straight. But as for any mental or emotional trauma you may have suffered as the result of living on a military base which might be a prime target, no sympathy here. I grew up at the foot of Cheyenne Mountain--had the Soviets ever perceived they had the upper hand, we would have been the first to be consumed by the big bang.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 8:02:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 8:03:37 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Sure, but the question is: is a short period of heigtened risk better than a (perhaps slightly) prolonged period of lower risk? On the one hand, all it takes is one minor incident in a period of heightened risk to possibly trigger a major conflict (see Cuban Missile Crisis). On the other, an endless Cold War is not really desirable either.

I'm not saying which is right or wrong, only that there's an alternative view to the "Reagan ended the Cold War" song. For every historian that thinks he was the catalyst, there are others who think his escalation was wreckless and not needed as the Russian economy was already primed to collapse.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 8:20:51 AM PDT
Fischman says:
Funny how the greed of the evil banker is the only greed brought forth by some. What about the greed of the middle class guy who thinks a 3,000 sq ft home is not enough for a family of four and trades up to a 4,000 or 5,000 sq ft home, knowing full well, he's putting his family at financial risk. What about the greed of the person who can barely afford an apartment, but think he's entitled to a nice house. There are millions of greedy folks who thought they deserved more than they had and only a small percentage fo them were the bankers. None of this would have ever happened if there wasn't lots of greed on all sides.

Add to that, that many of those bad loans were knowingly made to candidates of unacceptable risk but had to be made for fear of being prosecuted for some sort of bias if they weren't. So the government policies, driven by liberals, also contributed.

You can bash Bush and I won't argue, but then Bush was not a true conservative. I'm not sure that "the poor keep getting poorer." Even if it is true today, it wasn't true under Reagan, when each year, after tax disposable income grew for every income level, including the poorest among us. I'm not poor, but I don't have a 40+" plasma tv like most of the "poor" I know. The poor I see are smoking 2 packs a day, have $1K wheels (per wheel) on ther POS cars, and certainly don't look like they've missed any meals. I'm not poor becaue I live within my means.

I'm also not rich, but I live on the edge of a very affluent neighborhood. The rich folks I know weren't born that way, but became that way through hard work and good decision making--and they did it honestly. Rather than consume myself with jealosy at not having their success, I appreciate their success, and the benefits it has for the people they employ.

For every Bernie Madhoff, theres a number of rich, honest people without whom, this country would really be hurting. The news only reports the bad ones--we never hear about the good ones who are most certainly out there. Contrary to what hollywood would have you believe, they're not all Gordon Gecko.

" . . and the middle class sits with their head up their orifice waiting for their turn to soak somebody too." Overgeneralize much? That's as dumb as Romney's 47% comment. I've never had a desire to soak anybody, nor as far as I can tell, do any of my friends or colleagues. I love Canada--beautiful country. Next time I'm up there, I'll buy ya' a beer and we can compare notes.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 8:26:06 AM PDT
Fischman says:
I understand the alternative point of view and will agree there's no definitive way to prove one was better than the other. I'll just hang my hat on the result and that works for me, but I won't try to shout down others beyond saying we know how this worked out and we don't know for certain how the other would have worked out.

WRT Cuba, that didn't escalate into a shooting conflict largely because of the resolve Kennedy demonstrated and the confirmation of the Soviet perception that the possible reward wasn't worth the risk--which is much like what Reagan did IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 8:50:02 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Kennedy and Reagan are apples & oranges to me: with Kennedy, there was a direct and immediate threat and he moved to defuse it thru diplomacy.

With Reagan, there was no immediate or direct threat (hence the term, "Cold war") and he moved to eliminate it not through diplomacy, but by escalating the arms race. Russia didn't bow out of that one for fear that the risk wasn't worth the reward so much as they just couldn't stay in the game anymore because they were busted.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 8:56:57 AM PDT
Fischman says:
That's fair WRT the immediacy of the threat and the overall assessment of apples and oranges. However, I think Kennedy's blockade was way beyond diplomacy and far more provacative than a cold war. I doubt any carrot would have worked without the stick.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 8:59:48 AM PDT
zlh67 says:
Sure, but even the blockade was more a defensive action than offensive. So I don't view it as provacative because it wasn't meant to provoke, so much as an action to communicate that we weren't just going to stand by and watch Russia establish prime position for a nuclear strike on the U.S. from Cuba.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 9:03:32 AM PDT
Fischman says:
It was a defensive action, but it came with the assurance that we would fire if someone tried to go through it--that's the provocative part--without that threat, it's impotent.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 9:08:41 AM PDT
NiggerPlease says:
They both are talentless. whats your point?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 9:55:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 10:00:13 AM PDT
S. Stalcup says:
Grew up sandwiched between Crane and Newport, Fischman. I'm one up on you there (though I'm not sure why this turned into a p***k measuring contest, dead is still dead. If the nukes didn't get you the VX would). If you weren't hearing it from the parents of friends, all of whom were military, you were getting it in pop culture: Frankie Goes to Hollywood's video for "Two Tribes," Genesis' "Land of Confusion," Nena's "99 Luftballoons," all the films (Red Dawn, WarGames, The Day After, et. al.).

I'm getting the feeling though that Reagan wasn't such a bad guy in your eyes, so it's probably best if we just walk off in opposite directions on this one.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 9:58:57 AM PDT
gusula says:
Why do celebrities make public endorsements of political candidates? I would guess that a number of motives are in play. For some, it's likely an ego thing -- they've spent decades in the spotlight, they "feel the love" from their fans, and they may actually believe that an endorsement will sway votes in one direction or the other. Talk about the ultimate ego trip: not only do they love my music, but they vote the way I tell them to! Glancing over the OP's list, I would suspect that a number of the endorsements are racially motivated -- and that's true for both candidates (some are supporting Obama simply because he's black, others supporting Romney simply because he's white). But I'm guessing that for a lot of these artists, the endorsements are about selling albums. I noticed, for example, that a whole of people on Romney's list are country artists -- so through their endorsements, they're playing up to the country music crowd, which tends to be white, Southern, rural and conservative. Obama's list is a bit more far-ranging. You've got people on there who are liberal-leaning from way back -- but for every Springsteen and Streisand on that list, you've got a handful of artists who are "kissing up" to their own fan base -- young music listeners who tend to be progressively minded rather than conservative. Let's not forget that the popularity bump works both ways. If you're an artist, you might actually convince some of your fans to vote for the candidate you're endorsing, but by aligning themselves with a popular presidential candidate, artists may also earn new fans who already support the candidate -- something that savvy musicians (and perhaps more likely in some cases, their handlers) have hardly overlooked...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 10:53:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 10:59:09 AM PDT
bass boy says:
Fischman says "Why was an 8-year old so stressed?"

Amen. When I was 8, I could care less about politics. I was more interested in being Han Solo and the Six Million Dollar Man in the yard. Lol! :)

People can say good and bad about every president. People love to love Clinton, but you could bring up Somalia, the Branch Davidian incident and all the dead bodies who were former Clinton associates. Also, hadn't Clinton's administration known for years about possible terrorist attacks that actually ended up happening long before 9/11? There's good and bad in every president, and in both parties. I just get tired of those people who argue until they're blue in the face that their guy/party is a flawless slice of heaven, and the other candidate/party is Old Scratch. :)

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 11:14:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 11:42:45 AM PDT
Re: "Why do celebrities make public endorsements of political candidates?"

From the opposite perspective, why SHOULDN'T Celebrities, like anyone else, be free to endorse whatever Candidates or Causes they happen to feel strongly about?

You & I & Joe The Plumber and Everyone Else are allowed to freely express our opinions. Why should they be singled out and criticized for doing the same? Just because Reporters happen to be following them around writing down everything they say?

Be honest! If YOU felt strongly about something or someone and knew that you had the ears of thousands of people I'm sure you would probably do the same thing for the sake of something you felt strongly about, whether it's a Political Candidate or Saving the Texas Prairie Chicken!

Case in point, John & Yoko were well aware that no matter WHAT they did, it would be reported by the press. And so, being passionate about the cause of promoting World Peace, turned their Honeymoon and many other events into "Commercials" for World Peace.

And, of course, it's always interesting to note that the "Celebrities" criticized for expressing their views are only criticized by those people who happen to OPPOSE their particular views while generally remaining silent on those "Celebrities" who they happen to agree with!

Again, it's exactly the sort of attempted "Censorship" that "Celebrities" in the Arts are opposing to begin with!

Personally I have no problem at all with "Celebrities" exercising their right of Freedom of Speech, whether it's Bruce Springsteen or Toby Keith.

And besides, I think it's an Overblown "issue" anyway. I'm sure the actual number of voters who vote for a candidate based SOLELY on a "Celebrity" endorsement is miniscule. I mean, really, how many people are going to vote for someone just BECAUSE Barbra Streisand or Meatloaf is?

An added edit: OK. Regarding that last sentence, I'll concede that if Teenage Girls could Vote, whoever Justin Bieber endorsed would probably win!

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 11:46:52 AM PDT
gusula says:
Point taken, Husky. I was in no way criticizing celebrities for voicing an opinion. In fact, I grant your observation that often these "endorsements" are media driven -- reporters scrambling for a relevant question after already having asked all the pat ones ("You just won a Grammy -- how does it feel?") taking advantage of the political season to ask about which candidate the celebrity favors, etc. My criticism is for the handful of celebrities who actually seem to believe that their opinion makes a difference -- the ones who are smugly sure of the fact that they're right that they can't seem to fathom that someone else might have a differing opinion (and celebrities like this obviously fit at both ends of the political spectrum). Yes, celebs have a right to voice their opinion just like anyone else, but do they have a right to claim a SUPERIOR opinion, just because they happen to be really good at playing guitar or making teenage girls swoon? You're right -- any of us would likely take advantage of "having the ears of thousands of people" by doing the same thing. And unfortunately, far too many "regular" people do just that every day -- in the blogosphere. In its infancy, the internet was optimistically touted as a forum that would truly enable all people to engage in the marketplace of ideas, to calmly and rationally debate the major issues of the day. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much of anyone -- celebrity or regular ol' Joe -- is doing a whole lot of listening in today's world. Everyone's dead-set instead on expressing an opinion, and blustering about how their opinion is the right one instead of honestly considering others' perspectives. So if I am guilty of complaining, I guess it's not about people's choosing to express opinions, it's about the whole idea of an opinion in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 12:13:26 PM PDT

You're so right about opinions and most everyone's inflated view of them.

Stephen Stills said it best over 40 years ago:

"Nobody's Right if Everybody's Wrong."
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  466
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions