PJ meets with Hillary
Comments
-
Lolbrianlux said:
No one is happy about anything related to this election... except the possible miracle of Bernie winning!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:This is a strange thread.
You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.
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 Lennon0 -
$250 a plate is cheap as fuck.brianlux said:
From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.mickeyrat said:
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.mickeyrat said:
and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.Free said:
Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Not drone striking weddings would be a start.Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.
0 -
Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.mickeyrat said:
$250 a plate is cheap as fuck.brianlux said:
From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.mickeyrat said:
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.mickeyrat said:
and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.Free said:
Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
$250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.0 -
And a happy endingwhat dreams said:
Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.mickeyrat said:
$250 a plate is cheap as fuck.brianlux said:
From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.mickeyrat said:
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.mickeyrat said:
and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.Free said:
Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
$250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.
Kidding!0 -
The article says they reportedly got five minutes to talk to her. I give that a 10,000 price tag . . .in between cocktails and dinner. . .Behind door number 1 . . .hedonist said:
And a happy endingwhat dreams said:
Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.mickeyrat said:
$250 a plate is cheap as fuck.brianlux said:
From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.mickeyrat said:
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.mickeyrat said:
and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.Free said:
Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
$250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.
Kidding!0 -
Being an artist doesn't make them more qualified but if an artist speaks about a political message with their music, painting, film, etc. and this message resonates with millions of people then if they feel the need to garner support for a cause of course they are going to speak publicly.Who Princess said:
But fans tend to overlook the fact that people who become professional musicians hope to make a living at it and many ultimately hope to make a fortune. That aspect of popular music has always been there but for some reason people want to believe their idols are above all that.PJ_Soul said:Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.0 -
It's cool, I got your back:mickeyrat said:
...maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link....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.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/donate/?hfa=mkwan0 -
they attended as private citizens, not as an official endorsing entity.brianlux said:
Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.mickeyrat said:
and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.Free said:
Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Which is fine. But just because I like their music doesn't mean that I have to buy into their political beliefs, nor do I have reason to be disappointed if they don't support my causes. You're also assuming that as a listener I understand their message in the first place. Look at all the people who thought Born in the USA is a patriotic song.eddiec said:
Being an artist doesn't make them more qualified but if an artist speaks about a political message with their music, painting, film, etc. and this message resonates with millions of people then if they feel the need to garner support for a cause of course they are going to speak publicly.Who Princess said:
But fans tend to overlook the fact that people who become professional musicians hope to make a living at it and many ultimately hope to make a fortune. That aspect of popular music has always been there but for some reason people want to believe their idols are above all that.PJ_Soul said:Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.
The point I was trying to make and didn't very well is that no matter how altruistic or philanthropic the artist may appear to be, they are still trying to make money with their work. Whether fans like it or not, Pearl Jam is a business. If you don't think so, take a look in the shop at this site or the miles long lines at the merch booths at shows. As far as I know, the guys don't give away all their money to charities and causes. It's their money; they can do what they want with it, but don't expect me to believe they should spend it in a certain way because of political statements they've made in the past.
"The stars are all connected to the brain."0 -
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.
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 Lennon0 -
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:
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.0 -
as long as at least 2 human beings walk the earth there will never be world peace._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Agreed. The notion of global peace is utopian. Sounds good. Something we can strive for in an effort to make things better. But realistically will never, ever happen. It has never existed, and never will. Utopia is not an option.mickeyrat said:as long as at least 2 human beings walk the earth there will never be world peace.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
It's absolutely possible, although not easy. It's a fact that we're already at the point where people get along more than they don't. Because of this, international peace is possible and I believe will happen someday. Because of human ability to grow and change, referencing the past is not proof of out future.jeffbr said:
Agreed. The notion of global peace is utopian. Sounds good. Something we can strive for in an effort to make things better. But realistically will never, ever happen. It has never existed, and never will. Utopia is not an option.mickeyrat said:as long as at least 2 human beings walk the earth there will never be world peace.
0 -
Go Beavers said:
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:
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.
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.Go Beavers said:
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:
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.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 Lennon0 -
When will this happen? I obviously completely disagree with your premise, and we will never be able to definitively resolve this. So I guess I'll just say that I hope you're right, but I don't believe it for one second.Go Beavers said:
It's absolutely possible, although not easy. It's a fact that we're already at the point where people get along more than they don't. Because of this, international peace is possible and I believe will happen someday. Because of human ability to grow and change, referencing the past is not proof of out future.jeffbr said:
Agreed. The notion of global peace is utopian. Sounds good. Something we can strive for in an effort to make things better. But realistically will never, ever happen. It has never existed, and never will. Utopia is not an option.mickeyrat said:as long as at least 2 human beings walk the earth there will never be world peace.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
It'll take awhile. We'll be dead and gone. I see people resolve things peacefully all the time. Now visualize that happening in the broader realm. Global conflict is still the choice of humans. Emphasis on choice.jeffbr said:
When will this happen? I obviously completely disagree with your premise, and we will never be able to definitively resolve this. So I guess I'll just say that I hope you're right, but I don't believe it for one second.Go Beavers said:
It's absolutely possible, although not easy. It's a fact that we're already at the point where people get along more than they don't. Because of this, international peace is possible and I believe will happen someday. Because of human ability to grow and change, referencing the past is not proof of out future.jeffbr said:
Agreed. The notion of global peace is utopian. Sounds good. Something we can strive for in an effort to make things better. But realistically will never, ever happen. It has never existed, and never will. Utopia is not an option.mickeyrat said:as long as at least 2 human beings walk the earth there will never be world peace.
0 -
Your anger is understandable and your answer to my question about measuring peace is imbedded in there.lukin2006 said:Go Beavers said:
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:
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.
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.Go Beavers said:
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:
Are you serious...Go Beavers said:
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.
Also, would you say there was a time in the past where there was greater peace?Post edited by Go Beavers on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help