Is Queen's 'Don't Stop Me Now' actually about the Brexit???

[DAnconiaLead]

Apparently, Ian McKellen (aka 'Magneto') is involved with shadowy organizations that oppose the right of the British people to self-governance and supports their continuing subjugation under the corrupt/totalitarian EU.


McKellen recently attempted to justify his involvement with these organizations with a series of statements which make very little sense, but seem to center on the belief that Britain's enslavement to the EU is somehow beneficial for homosexuals, though he never explains why this is. As a matter of fact, the closest thing he makes to a coherent statement is; “If you’re a gay person, you’re an internationalist.”


Upon reading this, I immediately thought of the Queen song 'Don't Stop Me Now' which was written by Freddie Mercury and appears to be a prophetically written song supporting the Brexit.


Of course, if you've been living under a rock since the '70's, Freddie Mercury is gay.


Let's examine the lyrics;


Tonight I'm gonna have myself a real good time (Now that Britain's leaving the EU)
I feel alive and the world (aka. the EU's) it's turning inside out Yeah!
I'm floating around in ecstasy
So don't stop me now don't stop me (from leaving the EU)
'Cause I'm having a good time having a good time

I'm a shooting star flying through the skies
Like a tiger defying the laws of gravity
(A 'Tiger' is a German MBT. This is clearly a warning to Merkel that if she attempts to use military force to stop a Brexit that shells from British tanks will send the turrets of her tanks "flying through the skies")
I'm a racing car passing by like Lady Godiva
(Lady Godiva is famous for protesting unjust taxation, such as those taxes levied by the EU)
I'm gonna go go go
There's no stopping me (From leaving the EU)

[Yoda]

Silly.

[SeeingisBelieving]

All I know is, it's my least favourite Queen song, and I cringe every time it's used in adverts (which is a lot:p).

[Thursday Next]

I was going to go with insane, but silly works too.

The interesting thing about this insistence on self-governance is that so many of the people who use this as an argument don't actually like the government we've got. If we leave the EU, who's going to stop them? Perhaps 'Can't stop me now' would be an apt theme tune for Boris Johnson if we do leave...

[honeykid]

No.

[christine]

Silly? No actually that's ridiculous

[DAnconiaLead]

The interesting thing about this insistence on self-governance is that so many of the people who use this as an argument don't actually like the government we've got.



By it's very nature, Government is a form of Slavery in which resources (money, etc.) are forcibly seized from the subjects in order to support the government.


The only difference is that a slave's masta forcibly seizes all of their slave's resources whereas government only forcibly seizes most of the resources of the citizens (though confiscatory taxation, 'fees', and restrictions on our God-given freedoms). So the only difference between a 'Government' and a 'Slave Masta' is the difference between 'most' and 'all'.


Since "many (all) of the people who use this as an argument" would rather be men then government slaves we want government to remain as small and local as possible to restrict the level of tyranny and other mischief it can engage in...

[Yoda]

By it's very nature, Government is a form of Slavery in which resources (money, etc.) are forcibly seized from the subjects in order to support the government.
Not if they have democratic representation and/or willfully agree to it, IE: the social contract.

The only difference is that a slave's masta forcibly seizes all of their slave's resources whereas government only forcibly seizes most of the resources of the citizens (though confiscatory taxation, 'fees', and restrictions on our God-given freedoms). So the only difference between a 'Government' and a 'Slave Masta' is the difference between 'most' and 'all'.
Also, the part where slaves can't vote their masters out and freely decide which of them gets to be the master. Which is kind of the most important part.

Since "many (all) of the people who use this as an argument" would rather be men then government slaves we want government to remain as small and local as possible to restrict the level of tyranny and other mischief it can engage in...
Saying government should be smaller is cool. I can dig that. But according to you that just makes it a slightly less evil slavemaster. So assuming you're not an anarchist, it would seem the whole slave/master thing is actually completely non-analogous.

[christine]

Hmm like I said

[honeykid]

If nothing else, this is a good illustration of how you can read what you want into just about anything you please.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm not up on Brexit and I'm not totally sure what that is, (is it about the UK leaving the EU?) Are there any UK people here who support leaving the UK?

[honeykid]

It is about the UK leaving the EU. From about 8 posts down to the end of the thread (which is only another page) is about it.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=25467&page=2

[The Rodent]

When Michael Jackson did the song "Bad"... was he trying to tell us something?

[honeykid]

As were The Doors with Break On Through. Maybe Light My Fire is about the riots if we leave? Who knew Morrison was such a prophet?

[The Rodent]

You know, Nirvana's lyrics "I'm so happy because today I've found my friends. They're in my head" fit perfectly with "I'm so happy because today I shot myself. In the head".


You think Cobain was trying to tell us something?

[Yoda]

When Michael Jackson did the song "Bad"... was he trying to tell us something?
New thread: Is Micheal Jackson's 'Bad' actually about the Queen/Brexit thread???

[The Rodent]

"Cause I'll tell you once again, eeyoo's Bad."

[DAnconiaLead]

Not if they have democratic representation and/or willfully agree to it, IE: the social contract.


The 'Social Contract' only functions when those creating law and those voting for those who will be creating laws are subject to the laws they, or those they have voted for create. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.


Taxes provide a perfect example;


Those who write laws deliberately install 'loopholes' to ensure that they are never personally subject to tax laws and/or vote themselves 'pay-increases' in excess of the very tax increase they voted for, to ensure that they do not feel the effect of the tax-laws they create.


With more then half the people in this country now receiving some form of 'government assistance', those who are voting for those who create tax law likely are not paying taxes either, if not benefiting from every 'benefit-increase' which is funded through 'tax increases'.


So neither the people who create tax increases nor those who vote for them are subject to the tax-increases they create.


Also, the part where slaves can't vote their masters out and freely decide which of them gets to be the master. Which is kind of the most important part.


Furthermore, we are now subject to a massive 'administrative state', with government organizations created by long-dead politicians now having the power to create their own laws and impose penalties without the input of the citizens.


The EPA is a perfect example of this. This 'Government Agency' can designate you PRIVATE PROPERTY an 'endangered species habitat' without mentioning which 'endangered species your property is allegedly a habitat for and, one this decision is made, there is no appeal, nor can the citizen review the decision-making process that lead to this. The EPA can then seize your property or place severe restrictions on its use.


If the EPA believes that you have violated the restrictions they imposed on you, they can bring you before an EPA magistrate who can (and will) find you 'guilty' without a jury and can impose fines or jail terms, from which there is no appeal.


Furthermore, to rehash my previous point, the easiest way to see where politicians live is to examine an EPA map, since the properties tat are completely surrounded by "endangered species habitat" (and under the EPA's iron-fisted control) but are themselves free of "endangered species" are the exact property lines of politicians houses (which, as a result, are not subject to the EPA's iron-fisted control)...Apparently "endangered-species" know to avoid the homes of politicians....


Saying government should be smaller is cool. I can dig that. But according to you that just makes it a slightly less evil slavemaster. So assuming you're not an anarchist, it would seem the whole slave/master thing is actually completely non-analogous.


YES, a less-evil slavemaster is preferable to a more-evil slavemaster.


While complete anarchy is undesirable, the Government of the United States (and many other governments) have moved so close to tyranny that 'freedom' and 'anarchy' are in the same direction and I have no problem joining with anarchists to drag/poke/beat the Government Leviathan in that direction...

[Yoda]

The 'Social Contract' only functions when those creating law and those voting for those who will be creating laws are subject to the laws they, or those they have voted for create. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

Taxes provide a perfect example;

Those who write laws deliberately install 'loopholes' to ensure that they are never personally subject to tax laws and/or vote themselves 'pay-increases' in excess of the very tax increase they voted for, to ensure that they do not feel the effect of the tax-laws they create.

With more then half the people in this country now receiving some form of 'government assistance', those who are voting for those who create tax law likely are not paying taxes either, if not benefiting from every 'benefit-increase' which is funded through 'tax increases'.

So neither the people who create tax increases nor those who vote for them are subject to the tax-increases they create.
Most of this is untrue, or else wildly exaggerated, and correspondingly void of specifics. People love to talk about "tax loopholes" in the abstract because, if you try to describe them with any level of detail, it becomes obviously that they aren't generally nefarious or unfair. More importantly, they don't even come close to exempting the wealthy and powerful from taxation, as you seem to be suggesting.

Even if I took this at face value, it still doesn't demonstrate slavery, for one very simple reason: we can stop this whenever we want. We can elect different people who promise to change these laws. If we, as voters, do not do this, then that's on us. It's apathy, not slavery.

Furthermore, we are now subject to a massive 'administrative state', with government organizations created by long-dead politicians now having the power to create their own laws and impose penalties without the input of the citizens.

The EPA is a perfect example of this. This 'Government Agency' can designate you PRIVATE PROPERTY an 'endangered species habitat' without mentioning which 'endangered species your property is allegedly a habitat for and, one this decision is made, there is no appeal, nor can the citizen review the decision-making process that lead to this. The EPA can then seize your property or place severe restrictions on its use.
This is false: Google "EPA court appeal" and you'll find many examples to the contrary. I'm open-minded about whether or not this process is effective, but it's simply not true to say "there is no appeal." Which, in turn, makes me wonder how seriously you're examining the things you're saying.

Furthermore, to rehash my previous point, the easiest way to see where politicians live is to examine an EPA map, since the properties tat are completely surrounded by "endangered species habitat" (and under the EPA's iron-fisted control) but are themselves free of "endangered species" are the exact property lines of politicians houses (which, as a result, are not subject to the EPA's iron-fisted control)...Apparently "endangered-species" know to avoid the homes of politicians....
Again, devoid of specifics. And again, this doesn't demonstrate your initial claim: if we wanted to elect people who promised to change this or abolish the EPA, we could. Ergo, it's not slavery, it's just voter disinterest. The fact that you're really really mad about it doesn't mean you get to use wildly provocative words like "slavery" to describe it.

[honeykid]

We can elect different people who promise to change these laws. If we, as voters, do not do this, then that's on us. It's apathy, not slavery.

True, but they're not going to, are they? So we elect others that say they will and they don't either and so it goes....

[Yoda]

I think every electorate has its breaking point. But if we don't snap out of it, it'll be on us. If this is slavery, then we're both the slaves and the masters.

[honeykid]

If you want strawberry but everything on the menu which says strawberry is something else, it means you never get strawberry. It doesn't matter how many times you order it.

That still doesn't make us slaves though. At least, not slaves in the way most of us think of it. Wages slaves, sure, but not slaves.

[Yoda]

If you want strawberry but everything on the menu which says strawberry is something else, it means you never get strawberry. It doesn't matter how many times you order it.
Sure, but in this analogy, we're the ones who control the menu.