this one's for gordonzola

19 years ago

Tags:
Current Music: Dead Kennedys -- Goons of Hazzard ♬

33 Responses:

  1. balloonist says:
    19 years ago at 9:12 pm

    Some people proberly wish it was the other way around :)
  2. brutsid says:
    19 years ago at 9:33 pm

    It would be pretty cool if people would let punk be dead.
  3. coldacid says:
    19 years ago at 10:12 pm

    I'll bet the author of that is a fan of Dayglo Abortions.
  4. grumpy_sysadmin says:
    19 years ago at 10:12 pm

  5. gordonzola says:
    19 years ago at 12:24 am

    we'll be recording this week.
  6. evadnikufesin says:
    19 years ago at 12:51 am

    Punk is dead, too....

    RIP Reagan
    RIP Joey Ramone
    • ciphergoth says:
      19 years ago at 1:23 am

      RIP doesn't seem like quite the sentiment that springs to my lips. If I believed in that sort of thing I'd be more likely to say "RIP Joey Ramone, BIH Reagan"...
      • evadnikufesin says:
        19 years ago at 1:34 am

        Well I hope no one says "BIH ciphergoth" when your time comes... Tho I'm sure there will be a least a couple...
        • ciphergoth says:
          19 years ago at 1:45 am

          I sort of hope they do - I mean, I'd prefer to die having righted many global wrongs, and that would certainly mean some people cursing my name. But of course I don't believe in a heaven or a hell, so the threat that people might say that doesn't mean that much to me.
          • thealien says:
            19 years ago at 2:17 am

            Plus, most religions that have a bad place you can go when you die generally judge you on some criteria when you die. In that model, you won't arrive in Heaven and then a month later have angels show up and say "Hey, you're worthy and all, but people down on earth want you sent downstairs."
        • ronbar says:
          19 years ago at 8:14 am

          Personally, I collect and treasure in the deepest, most stagnant pits of my heart the insults, curses, and death threats I've gotten over the years. Most of the hate has arrived in newsgroup postings and on IRC from people who were fun to manipulate. Sadly, none of it was repeated in person the couple of times I met some of the people I tormented-- it would have made the get-togethers more tolerable.

          What drives insecure, easily-manipulated people crazy is when you mock them in ways clever and not-so-clever (in case (as is typical) they're a bit dim) and their return fire has no effect because you have a sense of humor about yourself.

          Disappointingly, I've mellowed with age into more of an occasional smartass from the outright button-pushing asshole I used to be. I also don't burn insects with magnifying lenses anymore, so the sum is a good deal.
          • evadnikufesin says:
            19 years ago at 12:22 pm

            And your point to your diatribe was, oh prolific nosepicker......?
          • rambletron3000 says:
            19 years ago at 3:03 am

            couple of more comments in the same vein:

            a) hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is the opposite of both. if someone's that invested in you to get that pissed off, at least you _matter_ to them, for good or ill.
            b) personally i just really enjoy a well-formed insult, especially at my expense. most of my hardest laughs have come at the expense of myself, as insulted by very clever friends. those are must more enjoyable than the ones that come from manipulation of the dim.
    • zotz says:
      19 years ago at 5:16 am

      And Robert Quine, alas.
  7. baconmonkey says:
    19 years ago at 6:43 am

    judging by the number of mohawked teenyboppers escorted by parental units yesterday at slims, mallpunk is, like, totally not dead at all.
  8. unsuspended says:
    19 years ago at 9:52 am

    posting to say that that is the best picture ive seen in awhile
  9. azul_ros says:
    19 years ago at 11:32 am

    I love that sign!!! Thanks for sharing it!! :D
  10. dsrt_faery says:
    19 years ago at 8:21 am

    wow. pictures great.
    thanks!
  11. transgress says:
    19 years ago at 11:54 am

    hehe.

    on a side note, because i simply couldnt just say 'hehe' and leave it at that, the only sad part about reagan's death is that he was afforded the gift of dying a quiet peacefull death at a rather old age- something that multitudes of people didn't get to have as a direct result of him. What's even more saddening, is that in his final moments he didn't have any nightmares about little kids in nicaraugua (sp?) dying horrible deaths because he didnt even remember what nicaraugua was.
    • simmonmt says:
      19 years ago at 12:15 pm

      But remember, whatever you do, concentrate on the bad things to the exclusion of the good. Reagan was in no way responsible for the fall of (or the speeding of of same) the Soviet Union, and it's just blind luck that he happened to be President at the same time that the economy got better all by itself.

      Was he a saint? No. Do you know anyone who is?
      • transgress says:
        19 years ago at 12:24 pm

        in other news, adolf hitler reportedly killed 4-6 million people in an attempt to exterminate all who was not white blonde and blue eyed- but to focus on the good things, he gave several small pure bred german children lollipops in an attempt to thank them for supporting the movement.

        Seriously, the bad outweigh the good with this guy, and aside from all the known problems of that administration, we have things like nicolou (sp?) coucousceu (sp?) the former dictator of romania who was supported by several administrations of our government, including reagan, who actually went so far as to say 'he's my kind of guy', there are so many problems that administration either created, amplified or just plain supported.

        in short, celebration of his death is the only thing i feel compelled to do, and hope for the death of the senior g. bush, as his track record is even worse.
        • simmonmt says:
          19 years ago at 12:53 pm

          So the continuance of support for Nicolai Ceacescu is somehow more bad than hastening the demise of the Soviet Union, in the face of all of the learned opinion that he was just making things worse, that the Soviet Union would never fall, etc etc?

          That and the minor little boom we just went through. No, I'm not saying that Reagan gets all of the credit for that, but at the same time, he gets a bunch for setting the stage.

          Or are we saying that four more years of Carter was just what the country needed? Mmmmm... stagflation.

          And to even attempt to draw a parallel between Reagan and Hitler is a bit of a reach.

          I'm not saying that we should ignore the bad things -- I'm simply saying that we should weigh the good against the bad. In this case, I think the good significantly outweighs the bad.
          • andypop says:
            19 years ago at 9:03 pm

            continuance of support for Nicolai Ceacescu is somehow more bad

            How about his support for Saddam Hussein? Good? Bad? Indifferent? El Salvadorean death squads? The Contras? The list is long.

            Mmmmm... stagflation

            Reagan tripled the national debt (without, incidentally, spending any of that borrowed cash on the American people, quite the opposite in fact). "Stagflation" indeed.
            • simmonmt says:
              19 years ago at 10:37 pm

              How about his support for Saddam Hussein? Good? Bad? Indifferent? El Salvadorean death squads? The Contras? The list is long.

              It may well be, and you'll note that I wasn't arguing that it was non-existant. Would it have been nice if he were perfect? Sure. Politics being the art of the possible, though, we really kinda need to take the good with the bad. Drastic reduction of the threat of WWIII, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the benefits of our revitalized economy. I would argue that these outweigh, without trivializing, the negative aspects of his Presidency. Judging by their comments in reaction to his death, I'd imagine that hundreds of millions of citizens of former Eastern Bloc nations would agree.

              Reagan tripled the national debt (without, incidentally, spending any of that borrowed cash on the American people, quite the opposite in fact). "Stagflation" indeed.

              Huh? Stagflation was a "combination of high inflation and slow economic growth. A term coined in the 1970s, stagflation described the previously unprecedented combination of high unemployment (stagnation) with rising prices (inflation)." What does raising the national debt have to do with that?

              As to the debt itself, if the cost of making the Soviet Union go away was an increase in the deficit, then so be it. As I recall, the ensuing boom took care of a big chunk of it.

              As to not spending the money on the American people, it wasn't just dumped in a hole. Regardless of your feelings towards individual programs, the money spent on, say, defense flowed in part to the people employed by the defense contractors. Quite the big business in California, as I recall.
              • andypop says:
                19 years ago at 12:59 am

                I think it's highly contentious to give Reagan the credit for the fall of the Eastern Bloc, though of course that's exactly what everyone's doing currently. The Berlin Wall fell because Gorbachev withdrew his support from East Germany. Russia's sudden shift towards Western-style democracy was the direct result of that and of his reforms, too.

                Would it have been nice if he were perfect?

                So, he oversaw death and repression on a vast scale, but hey, nobody's perfect? Politics may be the art of the possible, but that does not excuse deliberate participation in mass murder, sorry.

                Regarding "stagflation", I was assuming that was a word you'd made up. I simply meant that spending vast amounts of borrowed money needlessly on 'defence' projects, while letting social welfare projects rot, was bad for the US economy and bad for the US socially. I have a feeling you're unlikely to agree with that, obviously. But there's no evidence to support the so-called 'trickle-down' effect whereby giving lots of lucrative contracts to defence contractors, say, somehow has a long-term beneficial effect on the economy or the community. A few staggeringly rich businesses don't equal a financially healthy nation.

Comments are closed because this post is 19 years old.