Pete Seeger, Where Have All The Flowers Gone ...

[Bogtrotter07]

Originally Posted by dshans
There is much that is misunderstood about the economic politics of socialism and the structural politics of communism as evinced by Stalin and too many who followed in his footsteps. What Seeger and many others embraced was not the totalitarian, iron-fisted politics but the hope for a more equitable dispersion of resources and reward for effort.

Much as we see today with the inequity between the 1% and the 99%. Silly slogans to highlight ugly realities.

Enough. Enough of this nonsense.

I read this as saying that Stalin and the Russians fucked up. And then I see that dshans said that he didn't think Seeger was in favor of any of that.

But I don't think that I see anywhere in dshans post where he outlines a problem or offers a solution. He just stated that in his opinion Seeger wanted a more equitable economic system (is all). Kind of like don't confuse taking the same highway as having the same destination.

I saw dshans as explaining by setting context, in a mild though intellectually more sophisticated explanation of Seeger's activity intended to preserve détente. He used the example of today's inequalities to show how it has existed in America, and could have affected his behavior. After all, today you do not have to go to the lengths to point out economic or class inequality. You can just go to the interwebs.

 

[dshans]

Oh, and it's SeegEr not SeegAr.

Research and accuracy have their place.

 

[palinurus]

Bogs, I didn't mention the dshan post now for the purpose of raising the debatability of its content. My only point is that that's where we started to get away from the memorial nature of this thread. Not that I even minded that, I was just tracking the history.

Taking your wise counsel, I opened a new debate thread on Pete, in case this horse isn't quite dead. Personally, I hope Seegar is in heaven.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Oh, and it's SeegEr not SeegAr.

Research and accuracy have their place.

Although I wouldn't mind a seegar, right about now!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uSsUoxlSADk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/c5MjzGyKmiw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DtMV44yoXZ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TTR-G9NpGNI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Catholics_Rule]

I apologize for my mistake and I stand up to it, FDR. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Regardless, we could go back and forth on him and get no where. You and I see him in a different light. Lets leave it at that.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I apologize for my mistake and I stand up to it, FDR. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And now you are making fun of FDR's wheelchair? Low, man.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I apologize for my mistake and I stand up to it, FDR. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Regardless, we could go back and forth on him and get no where. You and I see him in a different light. Lets leave it at that.

Just as long as you don't confuse Karl Marx with his much smarter brother Groucho.

And now you are making fun of FDR's wheelchair? Low, man.

If Grey brings his Holiday Kilmer into this thread I am out of here.

 

[Catholics_Rule]

And now you are making fun of FDR's wheelchair? Low, man.

No. Correcting myself with the proper response. Simply, replying that I own to my mistakes.

 

[Cackalacky]

Bogs, I am not going to argue this out here. But it wasn't Catholics Rule who pushed it out of "memorial thread" mode into a quasi-political one.

Yeah... that was you!

I blame the OP.

 

[dshans]

Although I wouldn't mind a seegar, right about now!

I do loves me some Groucho, especially when the topic turns political, sociological or historical. Hysterical even.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/n4zRe_wvJw8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>