How does Pearl Jam attract such extremists?

RW81233

What about when those idiots have a reason to be pissed at America for doing something to their country? I'm pretty sure I've seen people on here suggesting that racial profiling is ok during 'times of conflict'.

CJMST3K

"How does Pearl Jam attract such extremists?"

I think that this is probably a fair comment to say...

PJ's music is very intelligent, with an evolving sound and lyrics which are among the best of rock music's written word. Those of us who have stuck with them for so long, thru popular and unpopular times, recognize this in their music and it probably speaks well of our collective intelligence. However our intelligence probably also explains why we are passionate. And that's what I would call PJ fans. Passionate.

PJ has given us such a practical forum to post on, and allowed us (relative) freedom especially on AMT. Some people believe that certain things are a hoax, or a conspiracy. Others (like myself) are stern believers in animal rights. Those who believe in conspiracy theories may not believe strongly in animal rights, or vice versa. Or may have any other combination of beliefs.

While I don't agree with MUCH that is written here, I do believe that people on here have relatively well thought out and understandable positions, whether I agree with them or not.

Whether it's the abortion issue, 911 theories, or whatever. EVERY person has valid points.

I'm glad AMT is here (it's kinda like the messy closet of the home, to keep the mess from going elsewhere in the house). I just hope that people use it for discussions and not for arguments.

Anon

I remember in 2004 I was on certain forums as the only one who was against Bush and I was a 100% hardcore Democrat.

Since then I've bought a few properties, and have an excellent career. I see where my tax money goes and who it goes to.

I'm now pretty much dead set against voting Democrat ever again in my life.

RW81233

JB811 wrote:

I remember in 2004 I was on certain forums as the only one who was against Bush and I was a 100% hardcore Democrat.

Since then I've bought a few properties, and have an excellent career. I see where my tax money goes and who it goes to.

I'm now pretty much dead set against voting Democrat ever again in my life.

really who do you think your tax money goes to? No really follow the money.

vedder_soup

ummmmm, isn't there something in the First Amendment of the American Constitution relating to the Freedom of Speech???
Why should this place be any different? They are issues that need to be raised and talked about :roll:

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

catefrances wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

trust me, I'm mixing with the right people. people who actually understand the US is not some evil empire who is not out to kill everyone on earth. sure America has faults, we all do. its people like you and byzine who fail to see any good in America. maybe you were picked on as a kid, not the most popular in school, and still hold resentment towards the people on top. classic pattern.

bwahahahaha.
i get it now... you have a small penis. i should have seen it before.

is that the best you got?

hardly. by that stage i was just bored with you. *yawn*

catefrances

vedder_soup wrote:

ummmmm, isn't there something in the First Amendment of the American Constitution relating to the Freedom of Speech???
Why should this place be any different? They are issues that need to be raised and talked about :roll:

and you probably live in a country that doesnt even have a bill of rights.

g under p

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

They are a band:
-Whose singer "pledges his grievance to the flag"
-Who used to support Ralph Nader with extreme fervor, and probably still do, aside from the fact it takes away from the Democrat vote, which always is deemed "the lesser of two evils" by this band
-Who were going to play "Gimme Some Truth" at that celebrity all-star concert right after 9/11 before they changed their minds at the last minute to play "long road" with Neil Young.
-Who wrote and performed Bu$hleaguer, no matter how many boos it received, while dancing around in a Bush mask, flashy jacket, and later "impaling" (I still laugh at that term) the mask on the mic stand
-Whose singer has scribbled pro-choice on his arm during a live performance, and has openly stated that he wouldn't be where he was today if it wasn't for abortion.
-Who love the works of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc...

just to name a few. You can see how some of these actions might attract this type of crowd, and some of the "fringier" types.

Call me a nut, but most of those posts that you mention above are arguable one way or another (it all depends on where you stand, literally-- what country people are coming from when they express some of these ideas).

VINNY GOOBA wrote:

The music is pretty friggin great for one thing. People can be nutty and like good music. I find that nutty people have pretty great taste in music! Eddie would refer to them as "fellow freaks."

Well we don't quite expect everyone to come together here and basically have the same opinions do ya or maybe similar to yours Jlew? Music happens to be the catalyst why we are all here but how much fun would it be if we all had the same opinions on the various subject matters that come around here.

All opinions should be valued when voiced and matters none to me what the opinion of the band and it's members are. What matters to me about the band is there music which is what drove me to like them in the first place.

So like musician friend Michael Franti would say,
ALL THE FREAKY PEOPLE MAKE THE BEAUTY OF THE WORLD

BTW I chime in from the Nation's Capital Washington DC.

Peace

vedder_soup

g under p wrote:

So like musician friend Michael Franti would say,
ALL THE FREAKY PEOPLE MAKE THE BEAUTY OF THE WORLD

jlew24asu

vedder_soup wrote:

ummmmm, isn't there something in the First Amendment of the American Constitution relating to the Freedom of Speech???
Why should this place be any different? They are issues that need to be raised and talked about :roll:

first of all, no one is suggesting, namely me, that anyone should NOT be allowed an opinion. why does it seem you are implying that?

but unfortunately, this place is different. freedom of speech does not apply here. we are at the mercy of the dictators, I mean moderators but I have never seen anyone's posts edited or censored by the powers that be. barring some basic rules, this place very much allows freedom of speech. something I know I'm thankful for.

Anon

RW81233 wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I remember in 2004 I was on certain forums as the only one who was against Bush and I was a 100% hardcore Democrat.

Since then I've bought a few properties, and have an excellent career. I see where my tax money goes and who it goes to.

I'm now pretty much dead set against voting Democrat ever again in my life.

really who do you think your tax money goes to? No really follow the money.

The people that refuse to work and social services for illegal aliens are enough for me.

vedder_soup

jlew24asu wrote:

vedder_soup wrote:

ummmmm, isn't there something in the First Amendment of the American Constitution relating to the Freedom of Speech???
Why should this place be any different? They are issues that need to be raised and talked about :roll:

first of all, no one is suggesting, namely me, that anyone should NOT be allowed an opinion. why does it seem you are implying that?

but unfortunately, this place is different. freedom of speech does not apply here. we are at the mercy of the dictators, I mean moderators but I have never seen anyone's posts edited or censored by the powers that be. barring some basic rules, this place very much allows freedom of speech. something I know I'm thankful for.

i did not mean to suggest that you were saying that anyone should not be allowed an opinion
i just seems that you are taking offence to the extreme views of some that differ from your own and not seeing both sides of the argument...

actually, i don't know what i am trying to say can't find the right words for it, so i will check back when i can otherwise i will start to argue a point that may not be my point

RW81233

JB811 wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

JB811 wrote:

I remember in 2004 I was on certain forums as the only one who was against Bush and I was a 100% hardcore Democrat.

Since then I've bought a few properties, and have an excellent career. I see where my tax money goes and who it goes to.

I'm now pretty much dead set against voting Democrat ever again in my life.

really who do you think your tax money goes to? No really follow the money.

The people that refuse to work and social services for illegal aliens are enough for me.

what about the billions of dollars that go to corporations like wal-mart, aig, etc. and/or to local sports teams for their shitty stadiums? you do know that 80 percent of your tax money goes to paying for corporate kick-backs, tax cuts, or incentives right? 20 percent goes to those that you are complaining about...would you mind paying 20 percent of your taxes to help others? maybe even 30-50 percent? to me that'd be sweet, many, many people being helped by social services and rich fucks getting nothing, but maybe i'm wrong republicans (and corporate dems) know how they lose their money to lazy people (even though it is actually probably to lazy rich republicans who spend their efforts convincing semi-rich people that poor people are taking their money).

South of Seattle

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

yea, you're one of them. and my2hands is still around, just not in this forum. thank god Roland cant afford the 20 bucks for a membership.

I was given a temporary read-only ban on the last board, not a permanent ban.

That's how most of the ban's were on the last board. Unless they chopped your username like they did to Soulsinging.

South of Seattle

JB811 wrote:

I remember in 2004 I was on certain forums as the only one who was against Bush and I was a 100% hardcore Democrat.

Since then I've bought a few properties, and have an excellent career. I see where my tax money goes and who it goes to.

I'm now pretty much dead set against voting Democrat ever again in my life.

So this kind of implies that you're not voting Democrat just because of money? So your vote is bought then? Or are you an independent that votes for the obligatory 3rd party option?

Byrnzie

Chomsky: 'The most effective device [of thought control developed in democratic societies] is the bounding of the thinkable, achieved by tolerating debate, even encouraging it, though only within proper limits. But democratic systems also resort to cruder means, the method of "interpretation of some phrase" being a notable instrument. Thus aggression and state terror in the Third World become "defense of democracy and human rights"; and "democracy" is successfully achieved when the government is safely in the hands of "the rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations," as in Winston Churchill's prescription for world order. At home the rule of the privileged must be guaranteed and the population reduced to the status of passive observers, while in the dependencies stern measures may be needed to eliminate any challenge to the natural rulers. Under the proper interpretation of the phrase, it is indeed true that "the yearning to see American-style democracy duplicated throughout the world has been a persistent theme in American foreign policy," as Times correspondent Neil Lewis declared.

Reinhold Niebuhr once remarked that "perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." The point is well taken. There is a simple measure of hypocrisy, which we properly apply to our enemies. When peace groups, government figures, media, and loyal intellectuals in the Soviet sphere deplore brutal and repressive acts of the United States and its clients, we test their sincerity by asking what they say about their own responsibilities. Upon ascertaining the answer, we dismiss their condemnations, however accurate, as the sheerest hypocrisy. Minimal honesty requires that we apply the same standards to ourselves.

John Stuart Mill:

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides."

Byrnzie

Example: Anyone who sides with the Palestinians and who claims that they have a right to defend themselves and determine their own lives is considered an extremist. Never mind that America stands alone in the world in opposing a two-state settlement and has singularly vetoed every attempt at peace for the past 40 years. If you don't support Israel then you are an extremist because your views don't fall within the bounds of acceptable debate.

When people talk about Israel's bombardment of civilian areas the subject of proportionality is always mentioned; did Israel behave proportionately? Was their response proportionate? Never mind that Israel has no right to murder even one Palestinian. The only right Israel has is to get the fuck out of the Occupied territories. But then this kind of thinking is deemed extremist by those who follow the party line.

The same goes with acceptable debate on Iraq and Afghanistan; to suggest that the U.S had no right to remove Sadaam Hussein is considered an extremist position. Whereas if the head of state from another country began speaking of the need to remove George W Bush, or Obama, from power he'd be considered a lunatic.

There are countless examples of this type of hypocrisy.

To deem people extremist for thinking outside of the boundaries of acceptable opinion is just a common tactic of those who are subservient to power and who seek to stifle debate.

Fortunately though, they are all too transparent.

Smellyman

Byrnzie wrote:

Example: Anyone who sides with the Palestinians and who claims that they have a right to defend themselves and determine their own lives is considered an extremist. Never mind that America stands alone in the world in opposing a two-state settlement and has vetoed every attempt at peace for the past 40 years. If you don't support Israel then you are an extremist because your views don't fall within the bounds of acceptable debate.

When people talk about Israel's bombardment of civilian areas the subject of proportionality is always mentioned; did Israel behave proportionately? Was their response proportionate? Never mind that Israel has no right to murder even one Palestinian. The only right Israel has is to get the fuck out of the Occupied territories. But then this kind of thinking is deemed extremist by those who follow the party line.

The same goes with acceptable debate on Iraq and Afghanistan; to suggest that the U.S had no right to remove Sadaam Hussein is considered an extremist position. Whereas if the head of state from another country began speaking of the need to remove George W Bush, or Obama, from power he'd be considered a lunatic.

There are countless examples of this type of hypocrisy.

To deem people extremist for thinking outside of the boundaries of acceptable opinion is just a common tactic of those who are subservient to power and who seek to stifle debate.

Fortunately though, they are all too transparent.

AMEN

Commy

Smellyman wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Example: Anyone who sides with the Palestinians and who claims that they have a right to defend themselves and determine their own lives is considered an extremist. Never mind that America stands alone in the world in opposing a two-state settlement and has vetoed every attempt at peace for the past 40 years. If you don't support Israel then you are an extremist because your views don't fall within the bounds of acceptable debate.

When people talk about Israel's bombardment of civilian areas the subject of proportionality is always mentioned; did Israel behave proportionately? Was their response proportionate? Never mind that Israel has no right to murder even one Palestinian. The only right Israel has is to get the fuck out of the Occupied territories. But then this kind of thinking is deemed extremist by those who follow the party line.

The same goes with acceptable debate on Iraq and Afghanistan; to suggest that the U.S had no right to remove Sadaam Hussein is considered an extremist position. Whereas if the head of state from another country began speaking of the need to remove George W Bush, or Obama, from power he'd be considered a lunatic.

There are countless examples of this type of hypocrisy.

To deem people extremist for thinking outside of the boundaries of acceptable opinion is just a common tactic of those who are subservient to power and who seek to stifle debate.

Fortunately though, they are all too transparent.

AMEN

yeah man, well said.

g under p

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Example: Anyone who sides with the Palestinians and who claims that they have a right to defend themselves and determine their own lives is considered an extremist. Never mind that America stands alone in the world in opposing a two-state settlement and has vetoed every attempt at peace for the past 40 years. If you don't support Israel then you are an extremist because your views don't fall within the bounds of acceptable debate.

When people talk about Israel's bombardment of civilian areas the subject of proportionality is always mentioned; did Israel behave proportionately? Was their response proportionate? Never mind that Israel has no right to murder even one Palestinian. The only right Israel has is to get the fuck out of the Occupied territories. But then this kind of thinking is deemed extremist by those who follow the party line.

The same goes with acceptable debate on Iraq and Afghanistan; to suggest that the U.S had no right to remove Sadaam Hussein is considered an extremist position. Whereas if the head of state from another country began speaking of the need to remove George W Bush, or Obama, from power he'd be considered a lunatic.

There are countless examples of this type of hypocrisy.

To deem people extremist for thinking outside of the boundaries of acceptable opinion is just a common tactic of those who are subservient to power and who seek to stifle debate.

Fortunately though, they are all too transparent.

AMEN

yeah man, well said.

I can dig it and I'm one to question these authority figureheads just to cut through the BS. So call me an extremist if I don't fit neatly in your porposed catagories of hypocrisy.

Life these days
can be so complex
we don't make the time
to stop and relfect
I know from first hand experience
one can go delerious
seriously it can be like that
But before I put my foot in my mouth
'cause that's what I'm about to start
talkin about
please let me confess before all the rest
that I'm afflicted
by this addicted like most in the US
It's tough to make a living when you're an artist
It's even tougher when you're socially conscious
Careerism, opportunism
can turn the politics into cartoonism
Let's not patronize or criticize
Let's open the door and look inside
Pull the file on the state of denial

Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
Raise the Double Standard

The bass, the treble
Don't make a rebel
Havin' your life together does
AMERICA
has an image of a young one
fast livin' not give an expletive
no respect for his
or the lives of those around him
Suicidal, homicidal or at very least
extremely unbridled
How convenient for those
who would like to destroy him
The problem has never been our political logic
but the way we enact it
We can imagine a perfect society
but can't maintain a decent relationship
The failure found in the luxuries
not in the hardships

Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
Raise the Double Standard....Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy

Take the time sometimes to see through the BS.

Peace