T1B

That is not how spousal privilege works you stupid shit eating troll.

No problem, bro. Please explain how it does work. Frankly I thought it was one of the few valid reasons for Hillbillary to stick it out, but whatever.

The Clintons have a business relationship. Big business. A corrupt business. They have open personal lives. Bill still has the ho's and she has a dude or two when she so desires.

Y'know, Hillary has got to be getting just a little tired of being made to look bad by perverts.

The only silver lining to this horrible dark cloud is the realization that this stuff coming out is eating away at whatever soul she may have and has undoubtedly taken years off her miserable life.

Note to Bill; Better hide any ashtrays or candy dishes sitting around, dude. I would just keep a football helmet on if I were you.

Moving Sale wrote: He has already said he was going to do the opposite of everything he said he was going to do so I'm not sure wtf you are talking about.

Wait what?

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: He has already said he was going to do the opposite of everything he said he was going to do so I'm not sure wtf you are talking about.

Wait what?

That you have no idea what shortbustrump has said is not at all surprising, but I am sure you will vote for him anyways.

Why so cranky? Seater was just asking you to decipher your garbled nonsense.
Do you even read your posts before you mash Submit?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why so cranky?

Are you new here?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why so cranky?

Tiny lawyer can't help himself, he's always stuck on this...

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why so cranky? Seater was just asking you to decipher your garbled nonsense.
Do you even read your posts before you mash Submit?

He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Simple enough for you, you vapid fuck?

Smackie Chan wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why so cranky?

Are you new here?

No he is just as stupid as a bag of used tampons.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why so cranky?

Tiny lawyer can't help himself, he's always stuck on this...

Why do YOU think I post here tard? To get self validation from all the like minded posters? You know, the reason you are here. Is that what your dumbass thinks?

TVO is posting like mvscal, but from the left. I'm not sure why.

Innocent Bystander wrote:TVO is posting like mvscal, but from the left. I'm not sure why.

I'd say mvscal is a tad more original with his insults and has a better command of the English language. Moving Sale has a kitten walk over his keyboard then he hits submit.

No, bro. TVO is typing exactly like mvscal. It's a bit unnerving to see TVO dissed for what mvscal gets his knob slobbed for. If TVO has a kitten, then mvscal has a puss.

Are they going through the same shit right now?


Left Seater I'd also like to see the quote. I believe Trump is a closet lib. I don't mind. I trust him to push through certain social changes more than I trust Hillary to. Trump is about bang for buck. Hillary isn't.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Innocent Bystander wrote:TVO is posting like mvscal, but from the left. I'm not sure why.

I'd say mvscal is a tad more original with his insults and has a better command of the English language. Moving Sale has a kitten walk over his keyboard then he hits submit.

mvscal is much more original. Sale repeats the same tripe over and over. IB, if you read his garbage often enough, you would understand he is the worst typist on this or any other board.

Are there some similarities, yes. However, mvscal is far more intelligent, funny and of course taller than the wee, angry lawyer.

Innocent Bystander wrote:No, bro. TVO is typing exactly like mvscal. It's a bit unnerving to see TVO dissed for what mvscal gets his knob slobbed for.

If that's your take, then you're not a very perceptive individual.

Oh, and I'm not your bro, pal.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:mvscal is far more intelligent

I'm not willing to concede this aspect. TVO doesn't strike me as unintelligent. He's just a terrible communicator. When he logs on, he totally mails it in, because he comes here solely to vent. You can practically imagine his shaking sausage fingers hovering over his keyboard, ready to clack out another unintelligible post as the froth and spittle flying from the corners of his mouth rival that of a South Florida category five hurricane. He isn't dumb, just extremely angry.

I'm a counter puncher and you fucks are some stupid mother fuckers, so I don't need lg caliber weapons to finish one of you tards off. Step up your game fag and I will clock you, but for now the rope a dope is working just fine.

Yeah, nothing says you're getting over quite like claiming BODE.

Yeah my bad. I just didn't know any other way to explain why I use the style I use. We can go back to why the Ramones are not punk, but we all know that you will never go toe to toe. You will never trade fact for fact. You will slink away and wave a white flag or start talking about what I look like just like you fuckers always do.
And that is why you get what you get. Don't like it? As I said step up your game!

Moving Sale wrote:I'm a counter puncher and you fucks are some stupid mother fuckers, so I don't need lg caliber weapons to finish one of you tards off. Step up your game fag and I will clock you, but for now the rope a dope is working just fine.

Give me a sec. My back still hurts from carrying you to that tag team smackoff championship.

:o

Moving Sale wrote:Yeah my bad. I just didn't know any other way to explain why I use the style I use. We can go back to why the Ramones are not punk, but we all know that you will never go toe to toe. You will never trade fact for fact. You will slink away and wave a white flag or start talking about what I look like just like you fuckers always do.
And that is why you get what you get. Don't like it? As I said step up your game!

Who said the Ramones were punk? They were more of a pop/rock band than anything else.

Mgo,
Much better. More of that and less of the other.

J,
Dims did, because he is more retarded than you. Yeah I know I know, that is practically impossible.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Who said the Ramones were punk?

I did. And

Wikipedia wrote:Ramones - A band that is often regarded as one of the first punk rock groups to come out of the United States.

Grammy Museum in L.A. wrote:Hey! Ho! Let's Go: Ramones and the Birth of Punk

Rolling Stone wrote:Ramones, the band that launched punk rock

observer.com wrote:The Ramones' Debut Album Is Still the Best Punk Record of All Time

The New York Times wrote:'Ramones': The Story Behind a Debut Album From Punk Pioneers

allmusic.com wrote:The Ramones were the first punk rock band

Marky Ramone entitled a book he wrote about the band Punk Rock Blitzkrieg

And since the thread in which I made the claim was about the Rock & Roll HOF, let's see what they have to say about them:

When the punk-rock quartet from Queens hit the street in 1976 with their self-titled first album, the rock scene in general had become somewhat bloated and narcissistic.

If you want to make the argument that as time has gone by, their sound has come to sound more like pop and less edgy than hard-core punk bands that followed, or that their sound became more pop after their first few albums, I'd agree with that. But if you were around and paying attention when the term "punk rock" started to be used with any regularity by the music and mainstream press, the bands that were mentioned most often when discussing it were the Sex Pistols and, you guessed it, The Ramones.

But what do they know? Neither the members of the band themselves nor the R&R HoF consulted with the final arbiter of such labels, Moving Sale, and if he says they weren't punk, it must be so.

Smackie, I agree with what you said there. They absolutely did identify in the early days as punk, but underneath the veneer, was a pop band. As they aged it became more apparent. Some people considered bands like Blink and Green Day to be punk-ish at the beginning of their careers as well, but clearly they evolved into pure pop rock. I kind of gauge a band by their oeuvre as opposed to how they began, but you're reasoning is indeed valid. So they were a bit of both.

So because other people say it true that makes it true. There are many reasons why the Ramones are not punk.
One is danger. If Joey is not about to jump off the stage and punch you in the face then its not punk. He wasn't so it's not.
Another is lyrics. If you can understand most of them the first time thru then it's not punk. Anybody could so they aren't.
How about who they palyed with? You play with pop bands you are (most likely) a pop band. They did so they are (pop).
Content. Say punk in your songs too much and you are probably trying too hard. They did so they aren't.

Let's start there.

"Rolling stone: the band that launched punk rock."

No you stupid fucks, the term was coined before the band ever formed and was used (obviously) to refer to a completely different band. Or I guess you could just take their word for it because RS never makes a mistake.

Punk rock is defined as "A type of rock-'n'-roll, which reached its peak in the late 1970s and is characterized by loud, insistent music and abusive or violent protest lyrics." Just because a band doesn't punch its audience in the face or slash themselves with broken glass, does not mean they aren't punk. The Jam were punk, but later on, founding member Paul Weller went on to front the Style Council, as pure pop bubblegum as there is. Punk rock embraced danger, but it isn't defined by it completely. As to lyrics, I have no trouble understanding any Sex Pistol song, so that criteria is nonsense. Study rock history as Smackie has done Sale. Your opinion, and that is all it is, is wrong.

If you are going to go by what somebody tells you is punk then yes. You win. The suits all agree. So what? Anybody who lived punk rock in California (NY or the UK) knows you are full of shit. Danger was THE main theme. How many punk rock shows did you go to? How many other concerts have you been to? Are you smart enough to see a difference? I would not call the Jam punk, (suits and ties?) so the fact that a member went on to front SC is of no concern to me.
As far as the pistols lyrics being decipherable on round one. Yes the fact that you could basically understand them was the least punk thing about pistols, after MM.

So I am really proud of you J. You actually formed a semi coherent take. You only addressed 1/2 of my post but hey that is 50% and that is close to a D-, so much better than you usually do.

Who cares?

J cares, I care and SC cares. You can read right?

Moving Sale wrote:There are many reasons why the Ramones are not punk.
One is danger. If Joey is not about to jump off the stage and punch you in the face then its not punk. He wasn't so it's not.
Another is lyrics. If you can understand most of them the first time thru then it's not punk. Anybody could so they aren't.
How about who they palyed with? You play with pop bands you are (most likely) a pop band. They did so they are (pop).
Content. Say punk in your songs too much and you are probably trying too hard. They did so they aren't.

Let's start there.

OK, let's start there. You cite criteria for what isn't punk, implying that punk is defined by lead singers who are dangerous and jump off the stage to assault the audience, sing unintelligible lyrics, don't play with pop bands, and limit use of the word punk in their lyrics. Is this your definition? If so, how would anyone be expected to know what punk supposedly is without your having educated the world about it until now?

You wrote:So because other people say it true that makes it true.

Of course not. Just because MS says it's true doesn't make it true. It likely decreases the chances that it is.

For the record, this is a truly stupid discussion. We're arguing about semantics and a multi-defined label that has different meaning to different people. You wanna consider what The Ramones put out as being something other than punk rock? Knock yourself out, counselor. I won't try to convince you or others that you're wrong, even if you persist in trying to convince those who feel differently that they are wrong. If you ask any musicians to put labels on what type of music they produce, aren't they in better positions in general to assign those labels than the audience or consumers? Members of The Ramones considered what they did to be punk rock. You disagree because they enunciated their lyrics too clearly and didn't engage in sufficient face-punching. Fine. You define punk your way, others will assign alternate definitions. Your definition has more to do with the musician's behavior than with the sound of what the musician produces.

Your criterion of punk being at least partly defined by who its practitioners play with is pretty whack. Does that apply to other types of music as well? For instance, if a country music band shares a stage with a non-country pop band, does that mean they can no longer consider themselves country? Or does that just apply to punk rock because you have to earn your stripes off the stage to be considered a punk?

Other definitions of punk rock (with the acknowledgement that just because someone says it's true doesn't make it so) include:

1. a loud, fast-moving, and aggressive form of rock music, popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s
2. a type of rock-'n'-roll, reaching its peak in the late 1970s and characterized by loud, insistent music and abusive or violent protest lyrics, and whose performers and followers are distinguished by extremes of dress and socially defiant behavior
3. a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Rooted in garage rock and other forms of what is now known as proto-punk music, punk rock bands rejected perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock.
4. Any of the definitions/descriptions found here, and hundreds of others.

And btw, we've done a masterful job of hijacking this thread.

I can understand these lyrics quite easily... ergo (Latin), not punk.

Dinsdale wrote:I can understand these lyrics quite easily... ergo (Latin), not punk.

Well, duh. The Misfits aren't punk. They're emo.

Sin,

Rooster

For sure. The Misfits and Black Flag were Emo.

Scratch that -- I can't speak to any genre without consulting MS first.

Dinsdale wrote:I can't speak to any genre without consulting MS first.

Now you're learning.

Yes it's semantics. So what? That is how humans communicate, using words. At some point it is slicing the bologna awfully thin, but again that's what humans do. They argue on the margins. Ring of fire is not classical music. And Mozart never penned a metal tune. Were the Ramones a punk band? Even you admit they are not a quintessential punk band so even you admit they are on the margin.
I have told you why I think they are not. Can you tell me why you think they are other than because people say they are? Remember people call Elvis Costello a punk rocker.
I say they are not for (at least) the reasons I stated. Punk was a very specific genre. Not many bands acted like punks the way punk rockers did and part of that was the attitude. Read: bad.
As far as who they played with. Punks played (mostly) with other punks because that is what their audience demanded. It's not a criteria I would apply to others bands for that very reason.
You think they are punks? Fine, but you are wrong unless to care to prove me wrong. That's how argument works.

Dinsdale wrote:For sure. The Misfits and Black Flag were Emo.

Scratch that -- I can't speak to any genre without consulting MS first.

You got schooled the last time "the Ramones as punks" came up so you might want to slink back under your rock tardling.