Ginscpy's everlasting gobstopper Beatles thread - 69 threads combined!

[Bullfighter]

then came the Beatles and the 60s revolution

No. We had Beatniks in the 50's and early 60's before the Beatles & hippies who used drugs, especially pot, but they also used hard drugs.

But it wasn't poisoning American children until the 60's. By the early 70's in my neighborhood, schools were locking their doors to keep pushers out.

 

[uptownlivin90]

then came the Beatles and the 60s revolution

Link?

 

[Sheldon]

This sums it up pretty well.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0D8F_X7us[/ame]


"Remember that one day all this drug monkey business will be legal. They won't leave it up to people like me, not when they figure out how much money there is to be made. Not millions, fucking billions."

 

[Sheldon]

Comes down to obay the law.

Alcohol is legal.

Even soft drugs like weed are ilegall. Don'tlike it - change it.

Most freaking libs don't give a rats ass as to thelaw.

Umm...drug laws really only exist to keep minorities in prison. As a white person, you have to be a real jerk, or a major dealer, to get arrested for a drug violation. Even if you are arrested for dealing, if you have a large quantity of drugs, or, even better, cash, to turn over, you're not apt to do much time.

The best thing to come out of the War On Drugs was urine testing. Imagine owning your own urine lab...it's a gold mine! What else can you get for nothing and move for $50 an ounce...legally?

I don't know where you're getting any of this from. Cash to turn over? Get for nothing? Fifty an ounce?

The Feds can repo all your shit AND lock you up, so the amount of stuff you have doesn't influence your sentence; it's the connections you have in the underground and how willing you are to give them up, and the connections your lawyer has in the legal system.

Piss testing isn't a gold mine because of the War on Some Drugs. And those labs will still exist--and maybe expand--when drugs become legal. Employers will still want to know which applicants are getting stoned off the job, and they may test their employees more frequently under a legalized environment.

A black prisoner doesn't bring more government money than a white prisoner. Prison race is disproportionate to the general population, but is still roughly proportionate to high-trafficking areas. Racial correlation doesn't prove causation.

Drugs laws are still in place mainly because of the influence of the penal and law enforcement systems--a lot of those jobs go away if the drugs laws go away--and there's not much of a political upside to campaigning for the end of prohibition; it doesn't jive with "family values", and drug users have less societal sympathy than smokers.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah right, nothing bad ever happened until those dreadfull 60's came along huh Wally?

"That's right 'Beav'. You see everyone knew their place in society. It wasn' untill all them hippies came along with their legal LSD (until 1967) trips that just screwed up our society but good."

 

[judyd]

Those of us who grew up in the 50's and 60's did not have the information available that there is today. Although I was fortunate enough to not get involved with drugs (many of my jobs required a security clearance), I remember that there wasn't any information on them until it was too late--like LSD. That was even recommended by psychiatrists for increased self-awareness. Too late for many, the dire consequences were realized.

I also remember mainstream magazine articles which touted the new "chic" party drug--cocaine. The only drawbacks they noted were a sore nose and the expense.

Basically, the young people of the 60's did not have the historical information that is available today. So it is really nonsensical to blame the youth of the 60's for the increased drug use today. I don't understand why any teen of today would go near them with all of the information there is now.

 

[BlindBoo]

Comes down to obay the law.

Alcohol is legal.

Even soft drugs like weed are ilegall. Don'tlike it - change it.

Most freaking libs don't give a rats ass as to thelaw.

Slavery was the law before 1865. Should the abolishionist have stopped the undergroud railroad?

It took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional as well. The Federal Government has overstreched it authority in the war against Americans who use non-government approved recreational substances.

The law, in the case of Marijuana, causes more harm to society that the effects of marijuana do.

Marijuana is not a gateway drug. The first drug I (and most other normal people) ever tried was cigarettes, followed by alcohol. Weed was a distanct third.

Change is tough in the current political climate. But that's what we're working for. We have a corporate bought a governement including the MSM that propagate untruths in the war against Americans who use non-government approved recreational substances, nonstop, 24/7.

 

[beowolfe]

Comes down to obay the law.

Alcohol is legal.

Even soft drugs like weed are ilegall. Don'tlike it - change it.

Most freaking libs don't give a rats ass as to thelaw.

And like you wingnust do??? You don't give any more of a rats ass about following the law than anyone else.

 

[Franz Marc]

Was there any THIS IS THE BEATLES LAST PUBLIC CONCERT HOOPLA???

No - it just was............................... Nobody knew it at the time.

Then they did their best work after they quit touring - although the impromtu Abbey Road Rooftop session was historic and proof that they could still perform live.

just curious, bigger in what way, more people attended? what measure are you using?

not that I don't love the Beatles....

 

[ginscpy]

Best work The Beatles ever did.

 

[ginscpy]

Got John Lennon wrapped around her little finger.

She sings about as well as a cat-in-heat.

 

[uscitizen]

I never liked the beatles.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well she seems to have you all worked up.
And by the way...this is 2010.

 

[Sallow]

Beatles were going their own way anyways.

They were great.

And they did great work as solo artists.

Yoko had nothing to do with that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Beatles were going their own way anyways.

They were great.

And they did great work as solo artists.

Yoko had nothing to do with that.

Aye, but for me the biggest disappointment was seeing George Harrison go "80's" and took the MTV route.
That sucked.

 

[Revere]

Beatles were going their own way anyways.

They were great.

And they did great work as solo artists.

Yoko had nothing to do with that.

Aye, but for me the biggest disappointment was seeing George Harrison go "80's" and took the MTV route.
That sucked.

Meh. Paul McCartney was 80s in the 70s.

 

[Sallow]

Beatles were going their own way anyways.

They were great.

And they did great work as solo artists.

Yoko had nothing to do with that.

Aye, but for me the biggest disappointment was seeing George Harrison go "80's" and took the MTV route.
That sucked.

Traveling Wilburys? They had some good tunes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Beatles were going their own way anyways.

They were great.

And they did great work as solo artists.

Yoko had nothing to do with that.

Aye, but for me the biggest disappointment was seeing George Harrison go "80's" and took the MTV route.
That sucked.

Traveling Wilburys? They had some good tunes.

Heck no..TW was awesome.
I'm talking about..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_niy2ZM5Jo&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Aye, but for me the biggest disappointment was seeing George Harrison go "80's" and took the MTV route.
That sucked.

Traveling Wilburys? They had some good tunes.

Heck no..TW was awesome.
I'm talking about..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_niy2ZM5Jo&feature=related[/ame]

Oh..warmed over ELO.

Yeah..that sucked.

 

[jillian]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMgCHOLr6iI[/ame]