Cancelled!

Lerxst1992

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I'm all for people and corporations supporting what they believe in and fighting what they don't believe in.  Having a side is a good thing, imo.

The one group can drink coke or sleep on their my pillows and the other group can avoid mlb or goya products.

Why have elections?  If the power lies with CEO's and corporations there is no need to vote.  Let the corporations dictate it. 

I don't understand the connection?
How does this impact your vote?

You can exercise your right to patronize a company, or not, but elections are still held

Are you thinking that because of people's loyalty to coke or my pillow that they will be made to think/vote in certain ways?

It is a simple connection.  People voted for politicians in Georgia.  Politicians passed laws.  Some large corporation steps in to pressure politicians to change laws.  Seems like said large corporation is exerting political power that liberals hated just years ago.  You might say that corporations are responding to what its customers want, but Georgia had a vote and that is how politics should work.  If the law passed is unconstitutional you fight it in court. 

Coke or some other company threatening to leave a state or not expand in a state is no different than Coke dangling millions of dollars in front of politicians.   I thought we wanted to get corporations out of politics?   But it is okay because right now they are doing what the liberals want them to do. 

I'm not taking any opinion on the law passed in Georgia.  I just don't agree with boycotts of companies that have nothing to do with politics to somehow usurp the power of politicians voted in by the public.  What is the point of a vote if a small group of people decide to start a twitter war against a public company until the company decides to pressure a state to change its laws?

pearl jam is a corporation. they exerted their influence in north carolina over laws written there. was that wrong of them to do?

A concert ticket is a contract. Pearl Jam broke a contract at the last minute, probably causing monetary loss for thousands of their fans over an incident probably most if not all of them had nothing to do with. 

Just sayin

I know a girl that flew in from Ireland for that show. She met up with my friend who lives in D.C. She probably spent around $1,000 between a flight and hotel. Bummer. 

It’s a really tough topic.

if PJ were to state “ we will never perform in a state that passes new laws restricting access to voting” it’s very difficult to get angry at them for that.

But with upward of 47 states considering new restrictive voting laws, domestic income opportunities may get thin.

gvn2fly1421

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I'm all for people and corporations supporting what they believe in and fighting what they don't believe in.  Having a side is a good thing, imo.

The one group can drink coke or sleep on their my pillows and the other group can avoid mlb or goya products.

Why have elections?  If the power lies with CEO's and corporations there is no need to vote.  Let the corporations dictate it. 

I don't understand the connection?
How does this impact your vote?

You can exercise your right to patronize a company, or not, but elections are still held

Are you thinking that because of people's loyalty to coke or my pillow that they will be made to think/vote in certain ways?

It is a simple connection.  People voted for politicians in Georgia.  Politicians passed laws.  Some large corporation steps in to pressure politicians to change laws.  Seems like said large corporation is exerting political power that liberals hated just years ago.  You might say that corporations are responding to what its customers want, but Georgia had a vote and that is how politics should work.  If the law passed is unconstitutional you fight it in court. 

Coke or some other company threatening to leave a state or not expand in a state is no different than Coke dangling millions of dollars in front of politicians.   I thought we wanted to get corporations out of politics?   But it is okay because right now they are doing what the liberals want them to do. 

I'm not taking any opinion on the law passed in Georgia.  I just don't agree with boycotts of companies that have nothing to do with politics to somehow usurp the power of politicians voted in by the public.  What is the point of a vote if a small group of people decide to start a twitter war against a public company until the company decides to pressure a state to change its laws?

pearl jam is a corporation. they exerted their influence in north carolina over laws written there. was that wrong of them to do?

A concert ticket is a contract. Pearl Jam broke a contract at the last minute, probably causing monetary loss for thousands of their fans over an incident probably most if not all of them had nothing to do with. 

Just sayin

I know a girl that flew in from Ireland for that show. She met up with my friend who lives in D.C. She probably spent around $1,000 between a flight and hotel. Bummer. 

It’s a really tough topic.

if PJ were to state “ we will never perform in a state that passes new laws restricting access to voting” it’s very difficult to get angry at them for that.

But with upward of 47 states considering new restrictive voting laws, domestic income opportunities may get thin.

I can see it now, PJ will not perform in states that restrict access to voting.  A vaccine passport will be required to attend the show.

Also, please present your valid ID as well as the tickets on your smart phone to enter.

Ledbetterman10

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

gvn2fly1421

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

That is kind of my point.  I could see them taking this "high ground" on states that require an ID to vote, yet none of the people they are trying to "protect" would have any chance to go to one of their shows, i.e. high cost of tickets, internet access, smart phone access, etc.

And the worst part to me is, hey, yeah, sorry about that canceled show because we decided to take a stand, but you can purchase all the merch from the show!

nicknyr15

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

bootlegger10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I'm all for people and corporations supporting what they believe in and fighting what they don't believe in.  Having a side is a good thing, imo.

The one group can drink coke or sleep on their my pillows and the other group can avoid mlb or goya products.

Why have elections?  If the power lies with CEO's and corporations there is no need to vote.  Let the corporations dictate it. 

I don't understand the connection?
How does this impact your vote?

You can exercise your right to patronize a company, or not, but elections are still held

Are you thinking that because of people's loyalty to coke or my pillow that they will be made to think/vote in certain ways?

It is a simple connection.  People voted for politicians in Georgia.  Politicians passed laws.  Some large corporation steps in to pressure politicians to change laws.  Seems like said large corporation is exerting political power that liberals hated just years ago.  You might say that corporations are responding to what its customers want, but Georgia had a vote and that is how politics should work.  If the law passed is unconstitutional you fight it in court. 

Coke or some other company threatening to leave a state or not expand in a state is no different than Coke dangling millions of dollars in front of politicians.   I thought we wanted to get corporations out of politics?   But it is okay because right now they are doing what the liberals want them to do. 

I'm not taking any opinion on the law passed in Georgia.  I just don't agree with boycotts of companies that have nothing to do with politics to somehow usurp the power of politicians voted in by the public.  What is the point of a vote if a small group of people decide to start a twitter war against a public company until the company decides to pressure a state to change its laws?

pearl jam is a corporation. they exerted their influence in north carolina over laws written there. was that wrong of them to do?

A concert ticket is a contract. Pearl Jam broke a contract at the last minute, probably causing monetary loss for thousands of their fans over an incident probably most if not all of them had nothing to do with. 

Just sayin

Because Bruce did it. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

in 1995 I don't think Ed thought concert tickets prices would explode the way they did. I remember laughing at my friends for shelling out $40 Canadian for Van Hager/Alice In Chains in 1991. I refused. 

how absurd would that price be now. 

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

in 1995 I don't think Ed thought concert tickets prices would explode the way they did. I remember laughing at my friends for shelling out $40 Canadian for Van Hager/Alice In Chains in 1991. I refused. 

how absurd would that price be now. 

I'm speaking more on the necessity to have a smartphone than ticket prices. In context on the interview, his 1995 quote was about inclusion/exclusion of people that want to see the show. Most of us take our smartphones for granted, while many others could never afford one. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

in 1995 I don't think Ed thought concert tickets prices would explode the way they did. I remember laughing at my friends for shelling out $40 Canadian for Van Hager/Alice In Chains in 1991. I refused. 

how absurd would that price be now. 

I'm speaking more on the necessity to have a smartphone than ticket prices. In context on the interview, his 1995 quote was about inclusion/exclusion of people that want to see the show. Most of us take our smartphones for granted, while many others could never afford one. 

isn't there an option for folks that don't have a phone? I recall before I finally entered the 21st century, looking at ticketmaster, there was an option. I don't recall what it was, but there was an option. 

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

in 1995 I don't think Ed thought concert tickets prices would explode the way they did. I remember laughing at my friends for shelling out $40 Canadian for Van Hager/Alice In Chains in 1991. I refused. 

how absurd would that price be now. 

I'm speaking more on the necessity to have a smartphone than ticket prices. In context on the interview, his 1995 quote was about inclusion/exclusion of people that want to see the show. Most of us take our smartphones for granted, while many others could never afford one. 

isn't there an option for folks that don't have a phone? I recall before I finally entered the 21st century, looking at ticketmaster, there was an option. I don't recall what it was, but there was an option. 

There wasn't any other option than smartphone for what would've been PJ's 2020 tour. Here's some discussion on it....

Accommodations for those without smartphones? — Pearl Jam Community

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I hate the smart phone tickets. In 1995, Eddie said in Spin Magazine that he couldn’t imagine only performing to a crowd that could afford $50-$100 tickets. Now you need a $700 supercomputer to get into the show. And yes, the majority of people have them. But not everyone does. 

in 1995 I don't think Ed thought concert tickets prices would explode the way they did. I remember laughing at my friends for shelling out $40 Canadian for Van Hager/Alice In Chains in 1991. I refused. 

how absurd would that price be now. 

I'm speaking more on the necessity to have a smartphone than ticket prices. In context on the interview, his 1995 quote was about inclusion/exclusion of people that want to see the show. Most of us take our smartphones for granted, while many others could never afford one. 

isn't there an option for folks that don't have a phone? I recall before I finally entered the 21st century, looking at ticketmaster, there was an option. I don't recall what it was, but there was an option. 

There wasn't any other option than smartphone for what would've been PJ's 2020 tour. Here's some discussion on it....

Accommodations for those without smartphones? — Pearl Jam Community

wow. that's surprising. 

Merkin Baller

Hobbes

Cancel racism!

Inspired by the trashing on Bill Maher in the Covid thread, I watched his interview with Sharon Osbourne who was recently fired for racist remarks. Watch these two racists defend their positions as racists. But don't dare call them racists. They try really hard to rationalize irrational beliefs. Fuck off, racists!

(Interview starts at the 5:50 mark.)

https://youtu.be/XO541UXciBU

Merkin Baller

Hobbes said:

Cancel racism!

Inspired by the trashing on Bill Maher in the Covid thread, I watched his interview with Sharon Osbourne who was recently fired for racist remarks. Watch these two racists defend their positions as racists. But don't dare call them racists. They try really hard to rationalize irrational beliefs. Fuck off, racists!

(Interview starts at the 5:50 mark.)

https://youtu.be/XO541UXciBU

How close was he to saying “girlfriend” when pretending to address Markle? 

gimmesometruth27

i can's stand bill maher anymore. he was so anti trump for all those years and now he is anti liberal.

i knew he was going to coddle her and take her side. otherwise he would not have had her on.

i guess you live long enough to see yourself become the enemy.

Merkin Baller

Bill Maher isn’t on the side of the democrats or republicans, he’s on Bill Maher’s side. 

F Me In The Brain

Yeah he can be very funny but he is a comedian....who likes to talk about his political beliefs.  Still a comedian.  

brianlux

F Me In The Brain said:

Yeah he can be very funny but he is a comedian....who likes to talk about his political beliefs.  Still a comedian.  

I think of Bill Maher somewhat the same way I do writer Edward Abbey:  both have/had a lot to say about a lot of different things and are/were very good at doing do.  I agree with many of the things they have said, and I strongly disagree with some of the things they said.  Both had have brilliant moments, though I don't agree with everything they say.  In fact, I would say if anyone claims to agree 100% with either man they may well be overcome by some misguided form of hero worship.    But I do respect both men for having the integrity to say what they believe and neither pull any punches or trying to please everyone.  I learned a lot that way from both of them.  I have found myself "in trouble" here before for saying things that were not widely popular on AMT or agreeable to all.  But I believe you can't go wrong being honest about what you believe. 

Hobbes

brianlux said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Yeah he can be very funny but he is a comedian....who likes to talk about his political beliefs.  Still a comedian.  

I think of Bill Maher somewhat the same way I do writer Edward Abbey:  both have/had a lot to say about a lot of different things and are/were very good at doing do.  I agree with many of the things they have said, and I strongly disagree with some of the things they said.  Both had have brilliant moments, though I don't agree with everything they say.  In fact, I would say if anyone claims to agree 100% with either man they may well be overcome by some misguided form of hero worship.    But I do respect both men for having the integrity to say what they believe and neither pull any punches or trying to please everyone.  I learned a lot that way from both of them.  I have found myself "in trouble" here before for saying things that were not widely popular on AMT or agreeable to all.  But I believe you can't go wrong being honest about what you believe. 

Even if what they have to say is defending a racist posture?

Respect? Integrity? Nope.

brianlux

Hobbes said:

brianlux said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Yeah he can be very funny but he is a comedian....who likes to talk about his political beliefs.  Still a comedian.  

I think of Bill Maher somewhat the same way I do writer Edward Abbey:  both have/had a lot to say about a lot of different things and are/were very good at doing do.  I agree with many of the things they have said, and I strongly disagree with some of the things they said.  Both had have brilliant moments, though I don't agree with everything they say.  In fact, I would say if anyone claims to agree 100% with either man they may well be overcome by some misguided form of hero worship.    But I do respect both men for having the integrity to say what they believe and neither pull any punches or trying to please everyone.  I learned a lot that way from both of them.  I have found myself "in trouble" here before for saying things that were not widely popular on AMT or agreeable to all.  But I believe you can't go wrong being honest about what you believe. 

Even if what they have to say is defending a racist posture?

Respect? Integrity? Nope.

Surely you do know I will strong disagree with anyone who defends a racist posture, Hobbes?  Besides, I don't see either Maher or Abbey as doing that.

And besides believing strongly one should always say what they believe, I also think one should know when to say nothing.  So I will probably not post here again. I really don't feel like arguing this morning, especially with someone like you whom I happen to like. 

Have a good weekend.

Hobbes

brianlux said:

Hobbes said:

brianlux said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Yeah he can be very funny but he is a comedian....who likes to talk about his political beliefs.  Still a comedian.  

I think of Bill Maher somewhat the same way I do writer Edward Abbey:  both have/had a lot to say about a lot of different things and are/were very good at doing do.  I agree with many of the things they have said, and I strongly disagree with some of the things they said.  Both had have brilliant moments, though I don't agree with everything they say.  In fact, I would say if anyone claims to agree 100% with either man they may well be overcome by some misguided form of hero worship.    But I do respect both men for having the integrity to say what they believe and neither pull any punches or trying to please everyone.  I learned a lot that way from both of them.  I have found myself "in trouble" here before for saying things that were not widely popular on AMT or agreeable to all.  But I believe you can't go wrong being honest about what you believe. 

Even if what they have to say is defending a racist posture?

Respect? Integrity? Nope.

Surely you do know I will strong disagree with anyone who defends a racist posture, Hobbes?  Besides, I don't see either Maher or Abbey as doing that.

And besides believing strongly one should always say what they believe, I also think one should know when to say nothing.  So I will probably not post here again. I really don't feel like arguing this morning, especially with someone like you whom I happen to like. 

Have a good weekend.

Not my intent to argue. Just looking for clarity. I don't take you for a racist or positioning yourself to defend racists, so that is why I inquired.

However, I stand by my original assertion that Maher is trying to rationalize an irrational belief (racism).