PJ meets with Hillary

123457

Comments

  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    edited October 2016
    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?
    First off who anointed the US as the world police and decider of what good democracy stands for. I'm witnessing your fake pathetic democracy at work everyday...nothing to be proud of or no reason to promote your democracy throughout the world, it's not that great if these candidates are the best you can do out of 330 + million people. Isn't your military budget bigger than the next 22 countries or so combined? Why is that? It's not for defence, the nuclear weapons are your defence against attack. I would think after constant war in the Middle East and with the conclusion of one conflict another hotspot arises in the region and sometimes even worse than before someone would want try another approach, like getting the fuck out and quit using drones and machinery of war on innocent people...and leave the Middle East to their own devices, they'll either figure it out or they won't, their choice.
    Your anger is understandable and your answer to my question about measuring peace is imbedded in there.

    Also, would you say there was a time in the past where there was greater peace?
    Maybe after WW2 for a very short time. Lol. I'm under no illusion, the world is a dangerous place. But if Canada and the US can coexist without conflict with each other for over 200 years then I do think peace is possible...I just think these hotspots throughout the world has to be sorted out regionally without the west involvement. I don't mean to sound cold but I and many other Canadians had family members who served in both world wars so we could enjoy peace, freedom and our way of life peacefully...I no longer want Canadians coming back with PTSD, limbs missing, battle wounds and in body bags because our government actually thinks getting involved in these hotspots make a difference...I would like our military used for defence and peacekeeping only.
    Except the lesson of those wars is that evil when it exists must be confronted otherwise it spreads and eventually reaches one's shore. "Peace in our Time" was and still is an illusion.
    Then if you support war you, politicians and investors and upper management in weapons manufactures should be the first off of the landing craft...when that happens, let's talk, and if those were the rules of war, we'd have fewer wars. And enough with the paranoia about being invaded, holy shit...no one is invading us, no one was invading us during WW2 as well.
    Russia is positioning itself to enter Estonia. Do we know if they will? No but it is not paranoia and if anything it would be a dereliction of duty not to prepare for it. Estonia is a member of NATO and should an invasion occur we would have to invoke Article 5 and then we would be at war. The question is whether we would or whether it would become a Peace For Our Time moment just like when Czechoslovakia was served over to Hitler on a plate. Putin is betting that the west is made up of more individuals like you.
    Individuals lik me? Article 5 has been invoked once in natos history, after 911. Estonia, lol, joined in 1999 when the west was expanding NATO with former Warsaw Pact members, lol...once again not our problem.

    When article 5 is invoked, are you off to join the fight?
    Yes...individuals like you who would say "Estonia lol". Putin is relying on NATO saying "not our problem" and "lol". My guess is he'll be successful but at least you will still have your peace.
    Well you didn't answer my question, are you going? You know, join the good fight? And I'll worry about article 5 when Estonia needso it invoked....but so far only the big bad us have needed it.
    Oh. Is that your real question because it sounds like the classic "chickenhawk" dodge everyone on the AMT uses when questions of difficult foreign policy choices arise. Maybe all us citizens should say nothing and just let generals decide when to use the military, after all only they are qualified to speak on it. Hmmm...my guess is you wouldn't like that. Or let's reinstate the draft and force enlistment instead of sending individuals who have the passion and skills for that type of service....but my guess is you wouldn't like thay either. Anyways...not to dodge your question...in a time of war I will do what my country asks of me just like many Canadians did in previous global conflicts. I won't give you a hard time if you choose otherwise. Article 5 exists for a reason yet your attitude makes it meaningless. I'm sorry but to bring it back to the topic at hand, it will be the strength of that Article and not another live performance of Imagine that will bring peace in our time.
    Are you a drama queen? Just for the record I don't think for a minute that you'd join the fight, people like you that are so eager to commit our troops to conflicts on the other side of the world are blowhards...
    Post edited by lukin2006 on
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123

    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".

    But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.

    I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.

    Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
    they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.

    they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.

    lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
    I know I'm behind in this dicussion, but when have they openly regretted the ticket master fight? I've never seen that. I have always believed that had other bands joined them instead of allowing the band to fight it alone, they could have made a difference.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Posts: 36,982
    edited October 2016

    BS44325 said:

    brianlux said:

    I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".

    But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.

    I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.

    Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
    they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.

    they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.

    lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
    I know I'm behind in this dicussion, but when have they openly regretted the ticket master fight? I've never seen that. I have always believed that had other bands joined them instead of allowing the band to fight it alone, they could have made a difference.
    it was mentioned in the PJ20 book. It was either Kelly Curtis or Mike that said it.

    I think you are right, and I think the band probably hoped that would happen too. it's really too bad, it could have avoided the mess we're in with ticket prices and secondary sites if that had happened.
    new album "Cigarettes" out Spring 2025!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    mcgruff10 said:

    Japan dropped fire bombs a couple times on the Oregon coast. Only ine started a fire that they put out quickly. The town had the Japanese pilot visit several times since, and he gave the town, Brookings, his samurai sword. He also planted a tree at the site if the bombing as a gesture of peace. His daughter buried some of his ashes there, too.

    and balloons!
    1945:: A Japanese balloon bomb kills six people in rural eastern Oregon. They are the only World War II U.S. combat casualties in the 48 states.
    Made of rubberized silk or paper, each balloon was about 33 feet in diameter. Barometer-operated valves released hydrogen if the balloon gained too much altitude or dropped sandbags if it flew too low.

    In all, the Japanese released an estimated 9,000 fire balloons. At least 342 reached the United States. Some drifted as far as Nebraska. Some were shot down.

    Some caused minor damage when they landed, but no injuries. One hit a power line and temporarily blacked out the nuclear-weapons plant at Hanford, Washington.

    But the only known casualties from the 9,000 balllons — and the only combat deaths from any cause on the U.S. mainland — were the five kids and their Sunday school teacher going to a picnic.
    I honestly had no idea... interesting
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?
    First off who anointed the US as the world police and decider of what good democracy stands for. I'm witnessing your fake pathetic democracy at work everyday...nothing to be proud of or no reason to promote your democracy throughout the world, it's not that great if these candidates are the best you can do out of 330 + million people. Isn't your military budget bigger than the next 22 countries or so combined? Why is that? It's not for defence, the nuclear weapons are your defence against attack. I would think after constant war in the Middle East and with the conclusion of one conflict another hotspot arises in the region and sometimes even worse than before someone would want try another approach, like getting the fuck out and quit using drones and machinery of war on innocent people...and leave the Middle East to their own devices, they'll either figure it out or they won't, their choice.
    Your anger is understandable and your answer to my question about measuring peace is imbedded in there.

    Also, would you say there was a time in the past where there was greater peace?
    Maybe after WW2 for a very short time. Lol. I'm under no illusion, the world is a dangerous place. But if Canada and the US can coexist without conflict with each other for over 200 years then I do think peace is possible...I just think these hotspots throughout the world has to be sorted out regionally without the west involvement. I don't mean to sound cold but I and many other Canadians had family members who served in both world wars so we could enjoy peace, freedom and our way of life peacefully...I no longer want Canadians coming back with PTSD, limbs missing, battle wounds and in body bags because our government actually thinks getting involved in these hotspots make a difference...I would like our military used for defence and peacekeeping only.
    Except the lesson of those wars is that evil when it exists must be confronted otherwise it spreads and eventually reaches one's shore. "Peace in our Time" was and still is an illusion.
    Then if you support war you, politicians and investors and upper management in weapons manufactures should be the first off of the landing craft...when that happens, let's talk, and if those were the rules of war, we'd have fewer wars. And enough with the paranoia about being invaded, holy shit...no one is invading us, no one was invading us during WW2 as well.
    Russia is positioning itself to enter Estonia. Do we know if they will? No but it is not paranoia and if anything it would be a dereliction of duty not to prepare for it. Estonia is a member of NATO and should an invasion occur we would have to invoke Article 5 and then we would be at war. The question is whether we would or whether it would become a Peace For Our Time moment just like when Czechoslovakia was served over to Hitler on a plate. Putin is betting that the west is made up of more individuals like you.
    Individuals lik me? Article 5 has been invoked once in natos history, after 911. Estonia, lol, joined in 1999 when the west was expanding NATO with former Warsaw Pact members, lol...once again not our problem.

    When article 5 is invoked, are you off to join the fight?
    Yes...individuals like you who would say "Estonia lol". Putin is relying on NATO saying "not our problem" and "lol". My guess is he'll be successful but at least you will still have your peace.
    Well you didn't answer my question, are you going? You know, join the good fight? And I'll worry about article 5 when Estonia needso it invoked....but so far only the big bad us have needed it.
    Oh. Is that your real question because it sounds like the classic "chickenhawk" dodge everyone on the AMT uses when questions of difficult foreign policy choices arise. Maybe all us citizens should say nothing and just let generals decide when to use the military, after all only they are qualified to speak on it. Hmmm...my guess is you wouldn't like that. Or let's reinstate the draft and force enlistment instead of sending individuals who have the passion and skills for that type of service....but my guess is you wouldn't like thay either. Anyways...not to dodge your question...in a time of war I will do what my country asks of me just like many Canadians did in previous global conflicts. I won't give you a hard time if you choose otherwise. Article 5 exists for a reason yet your attitude makes it meaningless. I'm sorry but to bring it back to the topic at hand, it will be the strength of that Article and not another live performance of Imagine that will bring peace in our time.
    Are you a drama queen? Just for the record I don't think for a minute that you'd join the fight, people like you that are so eager to commit our troops to conflicts on the other side of the world are blowhards...
    Ahhh right...drama queen. Yes. People said similar about Winston Churchill prior to WWII. He was just "eager to commit troops to conflict on the other side of the world and was a blowhard". Now I wouldn't dare compare myself to Churchill but I would compare you to those that disparaged his foresight and/or encouraged the sellout of allies to Germany for a phoney "Peace for our time". Estonia is our ally as per NATO whether you like it or not and the only question is whether under a worst-case-scenerio we are willing to backstop our treaties with force.

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-missile-tests-western-border-iskander/28065301.html

    LOL
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?
    First off who anointed the US as the world police and decider of what good democracy stands for. I'm witnessing your fake pathetic democracy at work everyday...nothing to be proud of or no reason to promote your democracy throughout the world, it's not that great if these candidates are the best you can do out of 330 + million people. Isn't your military budget bigger than the next 22 countries or so combined? Why is that? It's not for defence, the nuclear weapons are your defence against attack. I would think after constant war in the Middle East and with the conclusion of one conflict another hotspot arises in the region and sometimes even worse than before someone would want try another approach, like getting the fuck out and quit using drones and machinery of war on innocent people...and leave the Middle East to their own devices, they'll either figure it out or they won't, their choice.
    Your anger is understandable and your answer to my question about measuring peace is imbedded in there.

    Also, would you say there was a time in the past where there was greater peace?
    Maybe after WW2 for a very short time. Lol. I'm under no illusion, the world is a dangerous place. But if Canada and the US can coexist without conflict with each other for over 200 years then I do think peace is possible...I just think these hotspots throughout the world has to be sorted out regionally without the west involvement. I don't mean to sound cold but I and many other Canadians had family members who served in both world wars so we could enjoy peace, freedom and our way of life peacefully...I no longer want Canadians coming back with PTSD, limbs missing, battle wounds and in body bags because our government actually thinks getting involved in these hotspots make a difference...I would like our military used for defence and peacekeeping only.
    Except the lesson of those wars is that evil when it exists must be confronted otherwise it spreads and eventually reaches one's shore. "Peace in our Time" was and still is an illusion.
    Then if you support war you, politicians and investors and upper management in weapons manufactures should be the first off of the landing craft...when that happens, let's talk, and if those were the rules of war, we'd have fewer wars. And enough with the paranoia about being invaded, holy shit...no one is invading us, no one was invading us during WW2 as well.
    Russia is positioning itself to enter Estonia. Do we know if they will? No but it is not paranoia and if anything it would be a dereliction of duty not to prepare for it. Estonia is a member of NATO and should an invasion occur we would have to invoke Article 5 and then we would be at war. The question is whether we would or whether it would become a Peace For Our Time moment just like when Czechoslovakia was served over to Hitler on a plate. Putin is betting that the west is made up of more individuals like you.
    Individuals lik me? Article 5 has been invoked once in natos history, after 911. Estonia, lol, joined in 1999 when the west was expanding NATO with former Warsaw Pact members, lol...once again not our problem.

    When article 5 is invoked, are you off to join the fight?
    Yes...individuals like you who would say "Estonia lol". Putin is relying on NATO saying "not our problem" and "lol". My guess is he'll be successful but at least you will still have your peace.
    Well you didn't answer my question, are you going? You know, join the good fight? And I'll worry about article 5 when Estonia needso it invoked....but so far only the big bad us have needed it.
    Oh. Is that your real question because it sounds like the classic "chickenhawk" dodge everyone on the AMT uses when questions of difficult foreign policy choices arise. Maybe all us citizens should say nothing and just let generals decide when to use the military, after all only they are qualified to speak on it. Hmmm...my guess is you wouldn't like that. Or let's reinstate the draft and force enlistment instead of sending individuals who have the passion and skills for that type of service....but my guess is you wouldn't like thay either. Anyways...not to dodge your question...in a time of war I will do what my country asks of me just like many Canadians did in previous global conflicts. I won't give you a hard time if you choose otherwise. Article 5 exists for a reason yet your attitude makes it meaningless. I'm sorry but to bring it back to the topic at hand, it will be the strength of that Article and not another live performance of Imagine that will bring peace in our time.
    Are you a drama queen? Just for the record I don't think for a minute that you'd join the fight, people like you that are so eager to commit our troops to conflicts on the other side of the world are blowhards...
    Ahhh right...drama queen. Yes. People said similar about Winston Churchill prior to WWII. He was just "eager to commit troops to conflict on the other side of the world and was a blowhard". Now I wouldn't dare compare myself to Churchill but I would compare you to those that disparaged his foresight and/or encouraged the sellout of allies to Germany for a phoney "Peace for our time". Estonia is our ally as per NATO whether you like it or not and the only question is whether under a worst-case-scenerio we are willing to backstop our treaties with force.

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-missile-tests-western-border-iskander/28065301.html

    LOL
    NATO is like the UN ant the EU just bloated bureaucracies, the original intent and signees of NATO I am fine with, as for these eastern block countries surrounding Russia that joined in late 1990's I am not fine with, simply put NATO signed these countries to take advantage of a weekend Russia...maybe these eastern block countries should form their own alliance to deal with Russia. I am always amazed at people wanting to commit our soldiers to armed conflicts on the other side of the world and for what? Well I'm not...
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    edited October 2016

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?
    And do you include the treatment of women around the world? Children? What about the caste system? Violent crime? Gang warfare?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    They haven't been as "political" because the person they endorsed has been in office for 8 years. If you want to see them as they were from 2000-2008, then vote for Trump!
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    my2hands said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    Japan dropped fire bombs a couple times on the Oregon coast. Only ine started a fire that they put out quickly. The town had the Japanese pilot visit several times since, and he gave the town, Brookings, his samurai sword. He also planted a tree at the site if the bombing as a gesture of peace. His daughter buried some of his ashes there, too.

    and balloons!
    1945:: A Japanese balloon bomb kills six people in rural eastern Oregon. They are the only World War II U.S. combat casualties in the 48 states.
    Made of rubberized silk or paper, each balloon was about 33 feet in diameter. Barometer-operated valves released hydrogen if the balloon gained too much altitude or dropped sandbags if it flew too low.

    In all, the Japanese released an estimated 9,000 fire balloons. At least 342 reached the United States. Some drifted as far as Nebraska. Some were shot down.

    Some caused minor damage when they landed, but no injuries. One hit a power line and temporarily blacked out the nuclear-weapons plant at Hanford, Washington.

    But the only known casualties from the 9,000 balllons — and the only combat deaths from any cause on the U.S. mainland — were the five kids and their Sunday school teacher going to a picnic.
    I honestly had no idea... interesting
    Me neither, and that is interesting. Seems like a really fucking stupid idea, lol, especially for the Japanese, who didn't normally tend to be so silly as that in war.
    That is really sad about the 6 people though. Little kids no less. Talk about shitty luck.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    BS44325 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Are you serious...
    Totally serious. I like to know how people perceive it. Do they look at number of global conflicts at the moment, number of casualties, number of bombs dropped, occurance of individual actions (e.g. Drone attacks). Do you include terrorist attacks?
    First off who anointed the US as the world police and decider of what good democracy stands for. I'm witnessing your fake pathetic democracy at work everyday...nothing to be proud of or no reason to promote your democracy throughout the world, it's not that great if these candidates are the best you can do out of 330 + million people. Isn't your military budget bigger than the next 22 countries or so combined? Why is that? It's not for defence, the nuclear weapons are your defence against attack. I would think after constant war in the Middle East and with the conclusion of one conflict another hotspot arises in the region and sometimes even worse than before someone would want try another approach, like getting the fuck out and quit using drones and machinery of war on innocent people...and leave the Middle East to their own devices, they'll either figure it out or they won't, their choice.
    Your anger is understandable and your answer to my question about measuring peace is imbedded in there.

    Also, would you say there was a time in the past where there was greater peace?
    Maybe after WW2 for a very short time. Lol. I'm under no illusion, the world is a dangerous place. But if Canada and the US can coexist without conflict with each other for over 200 years then I do think peace is possible...I just think these hotspots throughout the world has to be sorted out regionally without the west involvement. I don't mean to sound cold but I and many other Canadians had family members who served in both world wars so we could enjoy peace, freedom and our way of life peacefully...I no longer want Canadians coming back with PTSD, limbs missing, battle wounds and in body bags because our government actually thinks getting involved in these hotspots make a difference...I would like our military used for defence and peacekeeping only.
    Except the lesson of those wars is that evil when it exists must be confronted otherwise it spreads and eventually reaches one's shore. "Peace in our Time" was and still is an illusion.
    Then if you support war you, politicians and investors and upper management in weapons manufactures should be the first off of the landing craft...when that happens, let's talk, and if those were the rules of war, we'd have fewer wars. And enough with the paranoia about being invaded, holy shit...no one is invading us, no one was invading us during WW2 as well.
    Russia is positioning itself to enter Estonia. Do we know if they will? No but it is not paranoia and if anything it would be a dereliction of duty not to prepare for it. Estonia is a member of NATO and should an invasion occur we would have to invoke Article 5 and then we would be at war. The question is whether we would or whether it would become a Peace For Our Time moment just like when Czechoslovakia was served over to Hitler on a plate. Putin is betting that the west is made up of more individuals like you.
    Individuals lik me? Article 5 has been invoked once in natos history, after 911. Estonia, lol, joined in 1999 when the west was expanding NATO with former Warsaw Pact members, lol...once again not our problem.

    When article 5 is invoked, are you off to join the fight?
    Yes...individuals like you who would say "Estonia lol". Putin is relying on NATO saying "not our problem" and "lol". My guess is he'll be successful but at least you will still have your peace.
    Well you didn't answer my question, are you going? You know, join the good fight? And I'll worry about article 5 when Estonia needso it invoked....but so far only the big bad us have needed it.
    Oh. Is that your real question because it sounds like the classic "chickenhawk" dodge everyone on the AMT uses when questions of difficult foreign policy choices arise. Maybe all us citizens should say nothing and just let generals decide when to use the military, after all only they are qualified to speak on it. Hmmm...my guess is you wouldn't like that. Or let's reinstate the draft and force enlistment instead of sending individuals who have the passion and skills for that type of service....but my guess is you wouldn't like thay either. Anyways...not to dodge your question...in a time of war I will do what my country asks of me just like many Canadians did in previous global conflicts. I won't give you a hard time if you choose otherwise. Article 5 exists for a reason yet your attitude makes it meaningless. I'm sorry but to bring it back to the topic at hand, it will be the strength of that Article and not another live performance of Imagine that will bring peace in our time.
    Are you a drama queen? Just for the record I don't think for a minute that you'd join the fight, people like you that are so eager to commit our troops to conflicts on the other side of the world are blowhards...
    Ahhh right...drama queen. Yes. People said similar about Winston Churchill prior to WWII. He was just "eager to commit troops to conflict on the other side of the world and was a blowhard". Now I wouldn't dare compare myself to Churchill but I would compare you to those that disparaged his foresight and/or encouraged the sellout of allies to Germany for a phoney "Peace for our time". Estonia is our ally as per NATO whether you like it or not and the only question is whether under a worst-case-scenerio we are willing to backstop our treaties with force.

    http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-missile-tests-western-border-iskander/28065301.html

    LOL
    Hahaha. I'm sure if anyone who is anyone, you know, like a national leader or a military leader, starts talking about actually going to war with Russia he will take it seriously. But so far it's just you talking about it on a message board.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    BS44325 said:
    :dizzy: Wow, if those are the kinds of sources you're using and if that is the way you interpret them, no wonder your views seem so kooky.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:
    :dizzy: Wow, if those are the kinds of sources you're using and if that is the way you interpret them, no wonder your views seem so kooky.
    Oh...you have a problem with US Deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Michael Carpenter, and NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Sir Richard Shirreff as sources?

    Yeah...kooky people indeed.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:
    :dizzy: Wow, if those are the kinds of sources you're using and if that is the way you interpret them, no wonder your views seem so kooky.
    Oh...you have a problem with US Deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Michael Carpenter, and NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Sir Richard Shirreff as sources?

    Yeah...kooky people indeed.
    The information might be good but the sources are very iffy, BS. The first thing I saw on one of these sites was a bunch of goofy t-shirts. That does not bode well for an information web site. Can you find something more substantial? I don't doubt the concern for war, just the sources of info.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    edited October 2016
    brianlux said:

    BS44325 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    BS44325 said:
    :dizzy: Wow, if those are the kinds of sources you're using and if that is the way you interpret them, no wonder your views seem so kooky.
    Oh...you have a problem with US Deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Michael Carpenter, and NATO’s former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Sir Richard Shirreff as sources?

    Yeah...kooky people indeed.
    The information might be good but the sources are very iffy, BS. The first thing I saw on one of these sites was a bunch of goofy t-shirts. That does not bode well for an information web site. Can you find something more substantial? I don't doubt the concern for war, just the sources of info.
    Uhh...hello Brian but no t-shirt ads when I click. I'm not sure if you are aware how online advertising works but it generally mirrors what you have been searching so you must be a "goofy tshirt guy". It's called "Online behavioural advertising". Those are both legit news sites quoting real people. The ads are on you. It's amazing the lengths people will go on here to avoid talking about things makes them uncomfortable.

  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    Harry Patch?
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    No doubt, GB. I know my question is rather obviously rhetorical. What I don't understand is, with the ability today to disseminate information as widely as we do and with the facts of history plain to see and with the knowledge of the futility of war, why on gods green earth can we not have leaders who are opposed to war, in favor of finding more reasonable solutions and taking care of the planet that sustains us. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. That is why I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    No doubt, GB. I know my question is rather obviously rhetorical. What I don't understand is, with the ability today to disseminate information as widely as we do and with the facts of history plain to see and with the knowledge of the futility of war, why on gods green earth can we not have leaders who are opposed to war, in favor of finding more reasonable solutions and taking care of the planet that sustains us. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. That is why I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.
    After I did a little research I agree she might be the best candidate...

    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    lukin2006 said:

    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    No doubt, GB. I know my question is rather obviously rhetorical. What I don't understand is, with the ability today to disseminate information as widely as we do and with the facts of history plain to see and with the knowledge of the futility of war, why on gods green earth can we not have leaders who are opposed to war, in favor of finding more reasonable solutions and taking care of the planet that sustains us. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. That is why I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.
    After I did a little research I agree she might be the best candidate...

    She's out there mixing in with the real world. Her next stop is Poland. The others take their planes full of "professional journalists" and fly around doing this song and dance bullshit. Stein is down here in the real world. And she's very smart. That's good enough for me.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    No doubt, GB. I know my question is rather obviously rhetorical. What I don't understand is, with the ability today to disseminate information as widely as we do and with the facts of history plain to see and with the knowledge of the futility of war, why on gods green earth can we not have leaders who are opposed to war, in favor of finding more reasonable solutions and taking care of the planet that sustains us. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. That is why I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.
    After I did a little research I agree she might be the best candidate...

    She's out there mixing in with the real world. Her next stop is Poland. The others take their planes full of "professional journalists" and fly around doing this song and dance bullshit. Stein is down here in the real world. And she's very smart. That's good enough for me.
    I have to agree...

    Too bad more people don't think along your lines, she's smart, if she could get elected she'd figure it out...
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited October 2016
    Interesting, the second grid shows all

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    edited October 2016
    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    brianlux said:

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    No doubt, GB. I know my question is rather obviously rhetorical. What I don't understand is, with the ability today to disseminate information as widely as we do and with the facts of history plain to see and with the knowledge of the futility of war, why on gods green earth can we not have leaders who are opposed to war, in favor of finding more reasonable solutions and taking care of the planet that sustains us. Is that really too much to ask? I don't think so. That is why I HAVE to vote for Jill Stein.
    After I did a little research I agree she might be the best candidate...

    She's out there mixing in with the real world. Her next stop is Poland. The others take their planes full of "professional journalists" and fly around doing this song and dance bullshit. Stein is down here in the real world. And she's very smart. That's good enough for me.
    One might argue that this might be the reason she is nowhere near being a viable candidate for president though... I'm not blaming that on her, but honestly, if you're looking for reasons why she will get almost no votes you have to compare what she does to what the main candidates do. So the question is, how do you change the system so that what Stein is doing will get her votes, or how do you want Stein to change so that she can get votes? I don't think she could at all do what she's currently doing if she were actually a viable candidate, and not just because the system is "rigged". I think plenty of that blame lands directly on the American population. Chicken and the egg kind of dilemma. Or damned if you do and damned if you don't.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    JC29856 said:

    Interesting, the second grid shows all

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

    They admit it's pretty subjective, though.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    JC29856 said:

    Interesting, the second grid shows all

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

    God, Hillary is more right than Trump is. But we knew that.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087

    brianlux said:

    lukin2006 said:

    The only people who want war never end up going to war...




    When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?[11]

    — Harry Patch

    Great words. Absolutely fucking great. Do you suppose Hillary or Trump would agree with Mr. Patch?
    I think we already know how Trumps feels about Harry Patch.
    And we know how clinton feels as well....
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    I just think Harry Patch is a fantastic name.
Sign In or Register to comment.