Why isn't PJ playing the Ron Paul Liberty Jam ???

unsung

brianlux wrote:

Let's remember that Pearl Jam is a band with six members.

Six? Did I miss something?

unsung

UpSideDown wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

a corporate sponsored obama-fest is more 2012 PJ's speed

lol

Come to think of it, I haven't heard much of anything political from PJ since Bush left office........

It's hard to do when your foot is in your mouth.

inmytree

PJ_Soul wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I'd be willing to bet PJ was concerned they couldn't stack up against the likes of Jordan Page, The Industry, The Axis Experiment w/TMOT, the Patrick Sowell Project and Sailing to Denver....

with that kind of line up, who needs Pearl Jam....?

Also, I think PJ hates liberty...

edit: for those who enjoy a good read....take a look at the comments section of link for this epic Paul-a-palozza....

Are you serious or kidding??

yes and yes....

PJ_Soul

I thought this was supposed to be a FAN club, not a hater club. Wtf.

inmytree

PJ_Soul wrote:

I thought this was supposed to be a FAN club, not a hater club. Wtf.

I believe the hater club membership is a few bucks cheaper...

WaveCameCrashin

I think anybody who puts any faith in a politician needs to have their head examined. I could peronally care less what Pearl jam thinks when it comes to politics. I will say this though, I am amazed how many people are going to vote for their own enslavement and demise and dont even care..

PJ_Soul

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

I think anybody who puts any faith in a politician needs to have their head examined. I could peronally care less what Pearl jam thinks when it comes to politics. I will say this though, I am amazed how many people are going to vote for their own enslavement and demise and dont even care..

Agreed - it's just stupid as fuck to put faith in a politician, especially someone who is running for president.

Okay... It's "I COULDN'T care less." Why do Americans say "could care less"? It doesn't make any sense at all. It means the exact opposite of what they're actually trying to say. Off topic, yes... but it really bugs me!!! Pet peeve! An explanation of why Americans say this nonsensical phrase would interest me.

gibbits

PJ_Soul wrote:

gibbits wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yes... and they would not play this if they were all available and healthy. Why would they play a show endorsing a politician they don't endorse? ... This conversation makes no sense.

Dunno, I'm still trying to figure out WTF was with Rock Around Barrack LOL. Good job on choosing the right guy boys! War expansions, still secret torture camps, and still rocking the patriot act. YES WE CAN.

Barrys a good guy though, just ask his cabinet full of Federal Reserve and Trilateral Commission buddies he took care of as soon as he got in office.

Whatever - that's not what this conversation is about - should not be turning the convo into how much you or anyone else hates Obama. 50% of Americans still support him, so.... Who was PJ supposed to support last election? The Republican? They are left wing. Also, they have not endorsed any politician for this election as far as I know. Get over it. :roll:

Wait, where did I say I hate Obama? You're the one trying to toss us off the wayside. You must be confused, many of Pauls policies are more left wing than Obamas, but I guess all that matters to you is the color of the backdrop behind him. As far as who they should have supported, it's obvious last election both parties were giving us Bush 2.0 (would it be 3.0?) these parties have been tossing the football back and forth since Eisenhower left office, regardless of which you voted for. In other words, they could have abstained from backing any candidate, knowing Obama was going to just continue the neo-con agenda. (And lets face it, that was pretty obvious... though I'm sure the rallies felt good)

PJ_Soul wrote:

Agreed - it's just stupid as fuck to put faith in a politician, especially someone who is running for president.

Why don't you just admit you know nothing about Ron Paul? normally I'd be right there with you but this is the one politician with a 30+ year voting record that backs up all the "promises" he makes. If you are uneducated I suggest you read up on him before commenting!

kenny olav

taurustraci wrote:

fortheloveofpearljam wrote:

ok my bad. I have had very little time to follow closely a race that is clearly going in Mitt Romney's favor. I should have not responded to your ridiculous thread. I took this literally:

"In the long drama that is Mitt Romney's relationship with the Tea Party, symbolism can mean a lot.

Like the candidate's red-meat speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that likely helped him win a straw poll. Or sharing the stage with Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Tea Party love. And, most recently, meeting in secret with Rand Paul, a freshman senator who is the son of Ron Paul, the last Republican presidential candidate to drop out of the race, and favorite of the Tea Party brand."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mee ... 8Pb1sXrSSo

Actually we won't know who is winning or has won until the GOP convention in August in Tampa. Candidates are picked by delegates and so far Ron Paul has the most unbound delegates in the race. Votes really don't count and even with the all-in states delegates are considered unbound. There have been about 12 state conventions to pick these delegates and so far Ron Paul has won just about all of them. You can't rely on Faux news for your news.

Romney needs 172 delegates to win this. Texas votes today - they have 152 delegates. Ron Paul, despite being from Texas, will lose most of those delegates to Romney. A week from today, California and a few other states vote, with over 250 delegates to be won, and by then, Romney will have this clinched. Ron Paul would need to somehow win more than 1000 delegates. There aren't that many unbound delegates. It's not going to happen. He never had a chance to begin with. His political philosophy is too extreme for most people. He claims that America is a Libertarian-minded country, but it's just not so.

Yes, Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin. Yes, the Americans government needs some kind of fundamental shake-up. But Ron Paul is not the man to do it. I don't know who is. The Green Party can't do it either - by the way, Dr. Jill Stein from Massachusetts is the almost-certain nominee for the Greens this year, but she is 'too nice' to get anywhere, and the Green Party platform is, sadly, too radical for most Americans.

America has always been ruled by an elite class. I don't see how that will ever change. I've given up trying to change it. I admire the passion that Ron Paul's supporters have, but it's destined to lead to disappointment. Speaking as a former Nader supporter.

PJ_Soul

gibbits wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

gibbits wrote:

Dunno, I'm still trying to figure out WTF was with Rock Around Barrack LOL. Good job on choosing the right guy boys! War expansions, still secret torture camps, and still rocking the patriot act. YES WE CAN.

Barrys a good guy though, just ask his cabinet full of Federal Reserve and Trilateral Commission buddies he took care of as soon as he got in office.

Whatever - that's not what this conversation is about - should not be turning the convo into how much you or anyone else hates Obama. 50% of Americans still support him, so.... Who was PJ supposed to support last election? The Republican? They are left wing. Also, they have not endorsed any politician for this election as far as I know. Get over it. :roll:

Wait, where did I say I hate Obama? You're the one trying to toss us off the wayside. You must be confused, many of Pauls policies are more left wing than Obamas, but I guess all that matters to you is the color of the backdrop behind him. As far as who they should have supported, it's obvious last election both parties were giving us Bush 2.0 (would it be 3.0?) these parties have been tossing the football back and forth since Eisenhower left office, regardless of which you voted for. In other words, they could have abstained from backing any candidate, knowing Obama was going to just continue the neo-con agenda. (And lets face it, that was pretty obvious... though I'm sure the rallies felt good)

PJ_Soul wrote:

Agreed - it's just stupid as fuck to put faith in a politician, especially someone who is running for president.

Why don't you just admit you know nothing about Ron Paul? normally I'd be right there with you but this is the one politician with a 30+ year voting record that backs up all the "promises" he makes. If you are uneducated I suggest you read up on him before commenting!

I have read up on him.
He's running for President. Whole different ball game to say the least. Also, having read up on him (I do actually have the exact same access to info as you do!), I also know about all the stances that he's basically flip flopped on over the years simply because of how he thinks the public will react to what he really thinks. He actually has some very socially conservative beliefs that's he's back off on because of public perception... that doesn't mean he doesn't still believe them.

PJ_Soul

gibbits wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

gibbits wrote:

Dunno, I'm still trying to figure out WTF was with Rock Around Barrack LOL. Good job on choosing the right guy boys! War expansions, still secret torture camps, and still rocking the patriot act. YES WE CAN.

Barrys a good guy though, just ask his cabinet full of Federal Reserve and Trilateral Commission buddies he took care of as soon as he got in office.

Whatever - that's not what this conversation is about - should not be turning the convo into how much you or anyone else hates Obama. 50% of Americans still support him, so.... Who was PJ supposed to support last election? The Republican? They are left wing. Also, they have not endorsed any politician for this election as far as I know. Get over it. :roll:

Wait, where did I say I hate Obama? You're the one trying to toss us off the wayside. You must be confused, many of Pauls policies are more left wing than Obamas, but I guess all that matters to you is the color of the backdrop behind him.

No, I'm not confused. Ron Paul's economic beliefs are very right wing. He also actually doesn't believe in gay marriage (although he doesn't think government should be involved in the issue), and he's strictly pro-life, and pro-gun, and he is NOT a friend to the environment judging from his ideas about regulations. MOST of his viewpoints are actually quite right. He has some strong libertarian views, but he is NOT left where it matters most. And most liberals aren't libertarians. Yeah, believe it or not I do know something about his stance, and I don't like him anyway!

unsung

He is pro gun, therefore he is pro personal liberty. He isn't Obama or Romney, those are the reasons I'm writing him in.

gibbits

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, I'm not confused. Ron Paul's economic beliefs are very right wing. He also actually doesn't believe in gay marriage (although he doesn't think government should be involved in the issue), and he's strictly pro-life, and pro-gun, and he is NOT a friend to the environment judging from his ideas about regulations. MOST of his viewpoints are actually quite right. He has some strong libertarian views, but he is NOT left where it matters most. And most liberals aren't libertarians. Yeah, believe it or not I do know something about his stance, and I don't like him anyway!

Fair enough, but your gay marriage point only strengthens the argument for Paul. Regardless of his personal stances he understands its everyones right to liberty, not just his ideal.

Please illustrate us the various flip flops you're suggesting.

brianlux

unsung wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Let's remember that Pearl Jam is a band with six members.

Six? Did I miss something?

Ed
Stone
Mike
Jeff
Matt
Boom

And I've never heard one of them say anything in support of Ron Paul. Again, like I said, I think they all think independently regarding politics.

unsung

So Boom is now a full share member? I didn't see that.

kenny olav

I was wrong in my previous post. Romney had more delegates than I was led to believe. So after yesterday's primary in Ron Paul's home state, Romney now has 1191 delegates - 47 more than needed to clinch the Republican nomination.

Romney Takes Republican Nomination With Texas Primary Win
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1wNMBjrrs


How will Ron Paul justify his campaign if he doesn't end it now?

mikepegg44

kenny olav wrote:

I was wrong in my previous post. Romney had more delegates than I was led to believe. So after yesterday's primary in Ron Paul's home state, Romney now has 1191 delegates - 47 more than needed to clinch the Republican nomination.

Romney Takes Republican Nomination With Texas Primary Win
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1wNMBjrrs


How will Ron Paul justify his campaign if he doesn't end it now?

that isn't the correct delegate number

they giving him credit for delegates that haven't been selected yet at caucuses and congressional district conventions.
They are still giving him delegates from Maine he didn't win, and I am pretty sure there are others.

Why didn't the others end their campaigns and simply suspend them?

There is a reason to continue to amass delegates that goes far beyond winning the nomination.
My bigger question would be, what would be the point of not attempting to gain more delegates that are like minded to the convention. More things are decided there than who is running for president.

kenny olav

mikepegg44 wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

I was wrong in my previous post. Romney had more delegates than I was led to believe. So after yesterday's primary in Ron Paul's home state, Romney now has 1191 delegates - 47 more than needed to clinch the Republican nomination.

Romney Takes Republican Nomination With Texas Primary Win
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1wNMBjrrs


How will Ron Paul justify his campaign if he doesn't end it now?

that isn't the correct delegate number

they giving him credit for delegates that haven't been selected yet at caucuses and congressional district conventions.
They are still giving him delegates from Maine he didn't win, and I am pretty sure there are others.

Why didn't the others end their campaigns and simply suspend them?

There is a reason to continue to amass delegates that goes far beyond winning the nomination.
My bigger question would be, what would be the point of not attempting to gain more delegates that are like minded to the convention. More things are decided there than who is running for president.

The reason candidates "suspend" their campaigns rather than "end" them is because then they can still collect contributions, which they usually need to pay off campaign debt. For example, Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign is still in the "suspended" category because she is still paying off debt. In fact, the FEC does not allow them to terminate their campaigns until the debt is paid off.

You may have some point about delegates in caucuses and congressional districts... I know that the delegate selection process is ridiculously complicated for both parties. Frankly, I don't care to research the details. I mean, it's just ridiculous to even consider that Mitt Romney might somehow not be the Republican nominee. Ron Paul only got 12% of the vote in Texas. Those numbers don't lie, and they aren't meaningless. To argue that Ron Paul has a chance to be the nominee was ridiculous in the beginning of his campaign and it's been completely ludicrous for at least a few months now.