Tags for this video have been changed from 'folk, 60s, take over the world' to 'folk, 60s, take over the world, Peter Paul and Mary' - edited by Boise_Lib

No, "Puff, the Magic Dragon" is not about marijuana, or any other type of drug. It is what its writers have always claimed it to be: a song about the innocence of childhood lost.


The poem that formed the basis of the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon" was written in 1959 by Leonard Lipton, a nineteen-year-old Cornell student. Lipton was inspired by an Ogden Nash rhyme about a "Really-O Truly-O Dragon," and, using a dragon as the central figure, he came up with a poem about the end of childhood innocence. Lipton passed his work along to a friend, fellow Cornell student (and folk music enthusiast) Peter Yarrow, who put a melody to the words and wrote additional lyrics to create the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon." After Yarrow teamed up with Mary Travers and Paul Stookey in 1961 to form Peter, Paul & Mary, the trio performed the song in live shows; their 1962 recording of "Puff" reached #2 on the Billboard charts in early 1963.


The 1960s being what they were, however, any song based on oblique or allegorical lyrics was subject to reinterpretation as a "drug song," and so it was with "Puff." (For Peter, Paul & Mary, at least, the revelation that their song was "really" about marijuana came after the song had finished its chart run; other groups were not so fortunate, and accusations of "drug lyrics" caused some radio stations to ban songs such as the Byrds' "Eight Miles High" from their playlists.) "Puff" was an obvious name for a song about smoking pot; little Jackie Paper's surname referred to rolling papers; "autumn mist" was either clouds of marijuana smoke or a drug-induced state; the land of "Hanah Lee" was really the Hawaiian village of Hanalei, known for its particularly potent marijuana plants; and so on. As Peter Yarrow has demonstrated in countless concert performances, any song — even "The Star-Spangled Banner" — can be interpreted as a "drug song."


http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/puff.asp

Peter, Paul and Mary.

Peter, Paul and Mary.

As far as I know, tax audits are usually gun free, but if it makes you feel better, then no, I do not support government violence against you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I never knew you were a dancer. Haha. I see you dancing around the question. I promise I won't support any government violence against you, Paul. Can you promise the same?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The black helicopters will be arriving shortly. I'd suggest you put on some shoes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, tell me, Peter/Paul, will you/I send your/my men with guns to my/your house if I/you refuse to pay for your/my safety nets?

I never knew you were a dancer. Haha. I see you dancing around the question. I promise I won't support any government violence against you, Paul. Can you promise the same?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The black helicopters will be arriving shortly. I'd suggest you put on some shoes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, tell me, Peter/Paul, will you/I send your/my men with guns to my/your house if I/you refuse to pay for your/my safety nets?

The black helicopters will be arriving shortly. I'd suggest you put on some shoes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, tell me, Peter/Paul, will you/I send your/my men with guns to my/your house if I/you refuse to pay for your/my safety nets?

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.
And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!
I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"

Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.


So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.


As always, Schiff promotes spending cuts. He thinks the federal government should stop spending more than it takes in... now, or in the future.

Considering how few people there are promoting responsible spending I suppose it would seem like a "fringe" idea.

Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.

And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!

I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html

"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"


Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.

*promote

Yes, Peter Paul was convicted of attempting to defraud the Cuban government in Anti-Castro activities (very common among the Cuban American community here in Miami, believe me I grew up and currently live there), however I thought the US government was supposed to hate Communist Cuba anyway, so I really think that's a moot point in this.

Believe me the Clinton's would LOVE to blind you to the truth of the matter by throwing shiny objects around like a mistake the man made almost 30 years ago (sounds a lot like what the media is doing with Obama these days too *jangles keys in front of America's face*). LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE. Same old politics, same old shit.

Don't be sidetracked and pay attention to what they're saying and realize that both Clintons have law degrees... how else do you think they avoided being destroyed by all of their massive amounts of wrongdoing in the past? By exploiting loopholes and shutting it down before it gets to them, or pawning the blame off on other people.

this article in the Washington Post called HOUSE OF CARDS gives an very indepth history of Peter Paul, his associate Aaron Tonkin and their relationship with Clinton, their history and how the fundraiser came about and went down.

While I felt the author was fair to the everyone in the article, after reading it I felt even less inclined to believe most of the assertions Peter Paul makes in this video.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401150_pf.html

the author of the article then did a live blog about it here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/10/07/DI2005100701231.html

after watching the video take a read and then decide if what he is presenting here seems like the whole story.

gee, no one notices that around -7mins they say Peter Paul had a felony background? HELLO?!? I'm supposed to think the Clinton's are evil because they allowed a former con to help raise money for their campaign? Oh no, I'm supposed to think they're evil because when his background got out they disavowed knowledge of him yet still took his money? Oh no, wait, I'm supposed to think they're evil because Poor Peter Paul was being "scammed" for campaign contributions (in return for which he'd get a business association with a former president)??

I'm lost... did the Clintons do ANYTHING that hasn't been done before? Anything that other candidates aren't doing now? What was illegal about it again? I missed the layman's explanation of how receiving campaign fundraising efforts was illegal. Oh, cuz they didn't declare it? Says who? Poor Peter Paul former convict?

I'm not voting for Hilary, not a supporter but this crap is just stupid. Ooooo! Evil Clinton's run their campaign like everyone else. *snort*

qruel wrote:

I do have issues in general with assertions not being backed up. Like Paul saying that the judge on his case was appointed by the Clintons (that sounds implausible as they don't appoint judges and the video showed no proof of this).

They showed his name "Judge Howard Matz"...google it and you will see that he was a Clinton appointee.

a few other questions unanswered by the video
so what was Peter Pauls felon (from 2 decades prior ?).

The video showed that too. It was for cocaine possession and trying to swindle money from the Cuban Government (whatever that means)...he pled guilty and served 3 years in prison.

Was he a fugitive at the time of his arrest in a foreign country?

Not a fugitive for the prior felonies....it said he was detained for extradition because he was being investigated in connection for misuse of his brokerage accounts.

I like the guy who says "it's the largest election fraud in the United States ( I guess I considered that laughable for what goes on and doesn't get reported or caught...meaning that's not just a Clinton thing, as it's a problem on both sides of the aisle).

Talk about making accusations without providing anything to back it up. I don't know if the Clinton's are guilty here or not...but to take the stance that "if they are guilty it's no big deal because they aren't the only ones" is what I find laughable.

(i personally don't care about eithers fundraising...it's the policy they push once in office that concerns me)

Well they usually go hand in hand. You can pretty much count on it...if their fund raising is shady then so will the intentions of the policies they push.

This video was about Campaign finances, not policy that she would implement.

A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician.

I'd like to explain my downvote.

Mark Mcgrath was singing REALLY out of tune. But it was made up for by the hotness of Peter Pauls wife (Yeowzaa ! that was sexist!)

I thought this was interesting and fairly well put together. there was some really neat behind the scenes footage and overall it was edited really well.

I do have issues in general with assertions not being backed up. Like Paul saying that the judge on his case was appointed by the Clintons (that sounds implausible as they don't appoint judges and the video showed no proof of this). And the the opinion / commentary of David Chippers (DOJ prosecutor, Clinton Impeachment Manager) that the judge was biased is not coming from an unbiased source (himself - look at his creds)

I guess I also don't understand why the Clintons would "do in" a major donor. biting the hand that fed them doesn't really make sense. That is not to say it didn't happen. But why would her campaign finance manager take a fall for her if she was the one actually to be held accountable.

a few other questions unanswered by the video

so what was Peter Pauls felon (from 2 decades prior ?). Was he a fugitive at the time of his arrest in a foreign country ?

on a side note...

I like the guy who says "it's the largest election fraud in the United States ( I guess I considered that laughable for what goes on and doesn't get reported or caught...meaning that's not just a Clinton thing, as it's a problem on both sides of the aisle). Through-out the video several of these people overstate what's going on to the point where it diminishes the real issue. While these events might or might not have happened the level of hysteria the whole thing portrays smacks of hypocracy considering the current administration (i personally don't care about eithers fundraising...it's the policy they push once in office that concerns me)

But as far as leaving the country if Hillary becomes prez... i had to laugh. (considering the people who are running the adminstration at the present and what they've done across the board to our government, freedoms, environment, etc....).

This video was about Campaign finances, not policy that she would implement. So in that regard, if something like this upsets you that much to move out of the country I would almost assume that you are blind, deaf, dumb and have been living under a rock for the last 7 years. (sorry for the ad hom :-)

QRUEL