Sir Noel bashes U2 on Politics and C. Martin over Drugs (Noel being a dick)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I doubt if he spent £1m on drugs. He was only using them for around three or four years, if he stopped in 1998. He wouldn't have had the money pre-Oasis to be a serious user.
 
If we had a thread for every time Noel bashed some other musician, there would be a sub-forum designated for the subject on this site.
 
Or in the absence of that, an ongoing thread in Bang & Clatter might be a better idea. :slant:
 
dan_smee said:
I don't want to respond to that drivel because I don't want to get into a fight.

I will answer that with a few points

Kyoto
Work choices
IWC
medicare levy

That is the kind of statement someone puts forward when they have a below arbitrary understanding of political process. I am beyond left. I am off the leftist scale, but I understand that the constituency is split 43% left, 43% right, and 14& swinging voters. Would you rather a moderate approach to leftist social change, bringing about a leftist agenda in a step by step process, or would rather lose an election straight away and have the Liberal party back where everyone can work 12 hour shifts with no breaks, penalty rates or sick leave for American standard wages?
Click to expand...

I'm right behind the ALP all the way and I understand the need for immediate moderation and relevative conservatism to a degree. But there were other areas where they could have really shown themselves to be especially progressive without necessarily drawing the ire of swingers and the entire right. I refer to the emissions target of a rather meagre 5%. I'm by no means one of those fundamental green crusaders, but I just felt establishing a target of 10 to 15% at the very least would have indicated to the consitituency that the Rudd Government were hyper-serious in their commitment to addressing the issue of climate change. Many in the Aussie right wouldn't have really understood what the issue was all about anyway. It was an opportunity lost, in my opinion, and this moment has raised some skepticism amongst many in the Aussie left as to how fair dinkum the Rudd Govt is in being progressive (not leftist). That's not to say that they did the right or wrong thing in setting that specific target of 5%, but more so that they could have appeased both swingers and the moderate and very moderate right who hoped that the Rudd Govt would be more assertive in establishing progressive policy.

The climate change issue need not be 100% associated with the left, just because of the Greenie association; it's become something more populist in the past decade if anything, and that's why it might have been an opportunity to properly capitalise on the hope many people had in Rudd Govt.
 
MadForIt;6232664 "At a [URL="http://www.u2.com/" said:
U2[/URL] or Coldplay concert there is always a message about poor people or people dying from hunger.
"OK, but can't we just have a nice evening? Do we always have to feel guilty?"
Click to expand...

Just think of that part as the designated beer or toilet break and everyone's happy. :)
 
Why "Sir Noel?" I don't think they'd give knighthood to a man who told another man he should "catch AIDS and die."
 
Nah, that's just the nickname that diehard Oasis fans use for him. They treat him like royalty, y'know, though some might think he's the opposite of that. :wink:
 
intedomine said:
I'm right behind the ALP all the way and I understand the need for immediate moderation and relevative conservatism to a degree. But there were other areas where they could have really shown themselves to be especially progressive without necessarily drawing the ire of swingers and the entire right. I refer to the emissions target of a rather meagre 5%. I'm by no means one of those fundamental green crusaders, but I just felt establishing a target of 10 to 15% at the very least would have indicated to the consitituency that the Rudd Government were hyper-serious in their commitment to addressing the issue of climate change. Many in the Aussie right wouldn't have really understood what the issue was all about anyway. It was an opportunity lost, in my opinion, and this moment has raised some skepticism amongst many in the Aussie left as to how fair dinkum the Rudd Govt is in being progressive (not leftist). That's not to say that they did the right or wrong thing in setting that specific target of 5%, but more so that they could have appeased both swingers and the moderate and very moderate right who hoped that the Rudd Govt would be more assertive in establishing progressive policy.

The climate change issue need not be 100% associated with the left, just because of the Greenie association; it's become something more populist in the past decade if anything, and that's why it might have been an opportunity to properly capitalise on the hope many people had in Rudd Govt.
Click to expand...

Climate change is generally associated with the left though, as it's main opposition comes from the ultra-religious right who feel that weather and anything on the earth is god-created and that god will fix things before they get out of hand.

I agree with you on the Emissions target. I really do. I just think being openly progressive this early in a Government's life is suicidal with a fickle and sometimes 'backwards' constituancy.

Look at what happened to Keating. The man tried to revolutionise IR, Arts and culture, indigenous affairs, foreign affairs, the anti-monarchist movement, opening trade pathways into asia, superannuation... the list goes on. So what does the consitituancy do? Elect a fucking social hermit who still thinks it's 1955.

I'm not claiming for a second Keating was a saint, but he is at least having a popular renaissance now, where people are actually realising just how good he could have been.

Startling statistic re Keating/Howard:

Keating wanted to raise the compulsary super contribution from 9% to 15.4% of wages. Howard/Costello promised to match it as an election committment. When Howard/Costello broke that promise, it cost the AVERAGE Australian worker $300,000 a tthe end of their working lives.

In the end, of course I, they and erveryone involved in the Government believe in progressive (and leftist) social change. But realists also acknowledge that you can't effect any social change from opposition, and a conservative approach needs to be taken.

Howard took 10 years to be brave enough to float workchoices, and he, and all his collegues genuinely believed it was the right thing to do. The constituancy is fickle, and there is such a unique and delicate balance in Australia that 99% of the time, policy is directed to the swinging 14% of the population. 43% will always vote for you, 43% will always vote against you. You have to win the battle for the middle ground, and work on chipping away at your agenda.
 
It's not even veiled anymore. Noel has shows on at Wembley, Noel doesn't want people to forget Oasis, Noel slags off someone in the media that will cause controversy, Oasis play their shows, the papers do the big "they be be arrogant, unconventional blah blah, but great show" article, Oasis disappear again.

I was a huge oasis fan until the last record. It is boring as batshit, and not even the strength of their all too familiar signature moves save them anymore
 
dan_smee said:
Climate change is generally associated with the left though, as it's main opposition comes from the ultra-religious right who feel that weather and anything on the earth is god-created and that god will fix things before they get out of hand.

I agree with you on the Emissions target. I really do. I just think being openly progressive this early in a Government's life is suicidal with a fickle and sometimes 'backwards' constituancy.

Look at what happened to Keating. The man tried to revolutionise IR, Arts and culture, indigenous affairs, foreign affairs, the anti-monarchist movement, opening trade pathways into asia, superannuation... the list goes on. So what does the consitituancy do? Elect a fucking social hermit who still thinks it's 1955.

I'm not claiming for a second Keating was a saint, but he is at least having a popular renaissance now, where people are actually realising just how good he could have been.

Startling statistic re Keating/Howard:

Keating wanted to raise the compulsary super contribution from 9% to 15.4% of wages. Howard/Costello promised to match it as an election committment. When Howard/Costello broke that promise, it cost the AVERAGE Australian worker $300,000 a tthe end of their working lives.

In the end, of course I, they and erveryone involved in the Government believe in progressive (and leftist) social change. But realists also acknowledge that you can't effect any social change from opposition, and a conservative approach needs to be taken.

Howard took 10 years to be brave enough to float workchoices, and he, and all his collegues genuinely believed it was the right thing to do. The constituancy is fickle, and there is such a unique and delicate balance in Australia that 99% of the time, policy is directed to the swinging 14% of the population. 43% will always vote for you, 43% will always vote against you. You have to win the battle for the middle ground, and work on chipping away at your agenda.
Click to expand...

Fair call on Keating, but we'll see with Rudd....

Though I do think that the issue of climate change has, to some extent in the past few years or so, lost it's hardline leftism, and the ultra-religious right is not as prevalent in Australia as it is in the Us of A.

Actually, twas funny to hear Senator Fielding undermining the severity and reality of climate change due to the lack of scientific proof. This coming from the God-botherer.
 
intedomine said:
Fair call on Keating, but we'll see with Rudd....

Though I do think that the issue of climate change has, to some extent in the past few years or so, lost it's hardline leftism, and the ultra-religious right is not as prevalent in Australia as it is in the Us of A.

Actually, twas funny to hear Senator Fielding undermining the severity and reality of climate change due to the lack of scientific proof. This coming from the God-botherer.
Click to expand...

Haha, fielding is a joke!
 
It's an opinion, not fact. I think NLOTH is a great album and miles better than DOYS.

I would liken Noels intelligence to a filthy street bum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
916
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
12 13 14
Replies
399
Views
11K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
735
lazarus
lazarus
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
33K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom