Obama's Secret War Profiteering Tax
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/obamas-secret-war-profiteering-tax-by-greg-palast/
I can’t make this up:
In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world’s top oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red line around Iraq and signed their names to it.
The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war. It explains this week’s rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.
It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.
Barack Obama knows this. Or, just as important, those crafting his policies seem to know this. Same for Hillary Clinton’s team. There could be no more vital difference between the Republican and Democratic candidacies. And you won’t learn a thing about it on the news from the Fox-holes.
Let me explain.
In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.
The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.
Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.
In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52 bombings by Bush Senior’s air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed by the “Food for Oil” program. Not much food for them, not much oil for us.
In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared, “Bring’m on!” and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world’s second largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40 a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87 billion.
In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly called a “windfall” profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn’t blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.
I wish to hell the Democrats would call their plan what it is: A war profiteering tax. War is profitable business – if you’re an oil man. But somehow, the public pays the price, at the pump and at the funerals, and the oil companies reap the benefits.
Indeed, the recent engorgement in oil prices and profits goes right back to Bush-McCain “surge.” The Iraq government attack on a Basra militia was really nothing more than Baghdad’s leaping into a gang war over control of Iraq’s Southern oil fields and oil-loading docks. Moqtada al-Sadr’s gangsters and the government-sponsored greedsters of SCIRI (the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq) are battling over an estimated $5 billion a year in oil shipment kickbacks, theft and protection fees.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the surge-backed civil warring has cut Iraq’s exports by up to a million barrels a day. And that translates to slashing OPEC excess crude capacity by nearly half.
Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007, Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.
It’s been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.
Obama’s war profiteering tax, or “oil windfall profits” tax, would equal just 20% of the industry’s charges in excess of $80 a barrel. It’s embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to 99% of the higher earnings).
Nevertheless, oilman George W. Bush opposes it as does Bush’s man McCain. Senator McCain admonishes us that the po’ widdle oil companies need more than 80% of their windfall so they can explore for more oil. When pigs fly, Senator. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40 billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in tax-free buy-backs. Even the Journal called Exxon’s capital investment spending “stingy.”
At today’s prices Obama’s windfall tax, teeny as it is, would bring in nearly a billion dollars a day for the US Treasury. Clinton’s plan is similar. Yet the press’ entire discussion of gas prices is shifted to whether the government should knock some sales tax pennies off the oil companies’ pillaging at the pump.
More important than even the Democrats’ declaring that oil company profits are undeserved, is their implicit understanding that the profits are the spoils of war.
And that’s another reason to tax the oil industry’s ill-gotten gain. Vietnam showed us that foreign wars don’t end when the invader can no longer fight, but when the invasion is no longer profitable.
I can’t make this up:
In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world’s top oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red line around Iraq and signed their names to it.
The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war. It explains this week’s rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.
It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.
Barack Obama knows this. Or, just as important, those crafting his policies seem to know this. Same for Hillary Clinton’s team. There could be no more vital difference between the Republican and Democratic candidacies. And you won’t learn a thing about it on the news from the Fox-holes.
Let me explain.
In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.
The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.
Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.
In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52 bombings by Bush Senior’s air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed by the “Food for Oil” program. Not much food for them, not much oil for us.
In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared, “Bring’m on!” and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world’s second largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40 a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87 billion.
In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly called a “windfall” profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn’t blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.
I wish to hell the Democrats would call their plan what it is: A war profiteering tax. War is profitable business – if you’re an oil man. But somehow, the public pays the price, at the pump and at the funerals, and the oil companies reap the benefits.
Indeed, the recent engorgement in oil prices and profits goes right back to Bush-McCain “surge.” The Iraq government attack on a Basra militia was really nothing more than Baghdad’s leaping into a gang war over control of Iraq’s Southern oil fields and oil-loading docks. Moqtada al-Sadr’s gangsters and the government-sponsored greedsters of SCIRI (the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq) are battling over an estimated $5 billion a year in oil shipment kickbacks, theft and protection fees.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the surge-backed civil warring has cut Iraq’s exports by up to a million barrels a day. And that translates to slashing OPEC excess crude capacity by nearly half.
Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007, Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.
It’s been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.
Obama’s war profiteering tax, or “oil windfall profits” tax, would equal just 20% of the industry’s charges in excess of $80 a barrel. It’s embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to 99% of the higher earnings).
Nevertheless, oilman George W. Bush opposes it as does Bush’s man McCain. Senator McCain admonishes us that the po’ widdle oil companies need more than 80% of their windfall so they can explore for more oil. When pigs fly, Senator. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40 billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in tax-free buy-backs. Even the Journal called Exxon’s capital investment spending “stingy.”
At today’s prices Obama’s windfall tax, teeny as it is, would bring in nearly a billion dollars a day for the US Treasury. Clinton’s plan is similar. Yet the press’ entire discussion of gas prices is shifted to whether the government should knock some sales tax pennies off the oil companies’ pillaging at the pump.
More important than even the Democrats’ declaring that oil company profits are undeserved, is their implicit understanding that the profits are the spoils of war.
And that’s another reason to tax the oil industry’s ill-gotten gain. Vietnam showed us that foreign wars don’t end when the invader can no longer fight, but when the invasion is no longer profitable.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
wow... that was seriously reaching
you... and that article.. are trying to link obama to the red line agreement made 90 years ago? an event that has been public knowledge forever? shit even i know about the agreement... the article should go more into the actual issue of the red line agreement instead of pathetically trying to discredit obama or paint him as a conspirator? that is just ridiculous. the articel is somehow speakign out against him actually wanting to tax the oil companies on these obscene profits? not only that but he wants to end the war in iraq for christs sake? also... iraq, because of the said red line agreement has never pumped much oil anyway?
so this article is total shit. i thin kit would have been much better to actually go into more detail about the red line agreement (which included much more then iraq by the way, to be acurate) instaed of somehow trying to include obama into that? i mwan that is just reaching for starws isnt it? lets be honest here...
not to mention your thread title is VERY misleading, to say the least :rolleyes: (whats so secret? and whats wrong with proposed tax again?)0 -
the deal not only arranged to control the flow (much like OPEC now, a sort of spinoff of the original agreement) but agreed to equally distribute the resources and output with all agreeing to maintain their fair share and not being aggressive towards the other parties in exploration.0
-
my2hands wrote:wow... that was seriously reaching
you... and that article.. are trying to link obama to the red line agreement made 90 years ago? an event that has been public knowledge forever? shit even i know about the agreement... the article should go more into the actual issue of the red line agreement instead of pathetically trying to discredit obama or paint him as a conspirator? that is just ridiculous. the articel is somehow speakign out against him actually wanting to tax the oil companies on these obscene profits? not only that but he wants to end the war in iraq for christs sake? also... iraq, because of the said red line agreement has never pumped much oil anyway?
so this article is total shit. i thin kit would have been much better to actually go into more detail about the red line agreement (which included much more then iraq by the way, to be acurate) instaed of somehow trying to include obama into that? i mwan that is just reaching for starws isnt it? lets be honest here...
not to mention your thread title is VERY misleading, to say the least :rolleyes: (whats so secret? and whats wrong with proposed tax again?)
what's a stretch is how you saw it saying obama was involved in the red line agreement from 1928...?
what is hard to understand? a lot of the price and increases of oil is artificial. they know this. they know wars are being fought over oil. so to tax profits of war is war profiteering, get it?
maybe he brought up iraq...i don't know, b/c we are fucking occupying it and obama will keep tens of thousands troops stationed there. see,
war in iraq
war for oil
tax of oil = profiting from war
so you are against it but you still wanna get your cut? doesn't make a lot of sensestandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
Actually, that is only part of the article. The rest goes on to describe this alien cover up Obama was involved with in the early 40's. Too bad they cut that out because it was a good read.0
-
mca47 wrote:Actually, that is only part of the article. The rest goes on to describe this alien cover up Obama was involved with in the early 40's. Too bad they cut that out because it was a good read.
funny, everyone loved palast when he wrote the best democracy money can buy but now, as i've learned, talk about obama and suddenly you are alex jones or some crazy kook and not a reliable source
thanks for the insightful comment, btw, it really added to your nonpoints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaststandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
I was expecting something sinister on Obama's part after reading the title. Not even close. You just threw his name at this hoping it would stick. Very weak.0
-
flywallyfly wrote:I was expecting something sinister on Obama's part after reading the title. Not even close. You just threw his name at this hoping it would stick. Very weak.
no, I copied and pasted what greg palast wrote. i thought it stuck, just another point of how obama is full of shit. maybe i should say i'm against child porn but i want to tax it. doesn't make sense, does it?
and ya know, for someone who swears they aren't even supporting obama you sure do spend an awful lot of time on here sticking up for and defending him....that's the only weak argument i can see
did any of you actually bother to read the article? b/c i was looking over it to repost some parts and it seems pretty obviousstandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
flywallyfly wrote:I was expecting something sinister on Obama's part after reading the title. Not even close.
thats what i am saying...
i wish Palast would have spent more of his time talking about the actual agreement (which again was much larger then iraq, something he casually leaves out)
or another price fixing agreement, OPEC, and how they are fucking us...0 -
my2hands wrote:thats what i am saying...
i wish Palast would have spent more of his time talking about the actual agreement (which again was much larger then iraq, something he casually leaves out)
or another price fixing agreement, OPEC, and how they are fucking us...
nah, i think he did fine w/ pointing out the tax is war profiteering. how can you say you are against the war if you are trying to profit from it? oh, that's right, a big part he was against the war in iraq was b/c we weren't done in afghanistan yet and will expand and 'modernize' the military
maybe you could write that article on the actual agreement?
and he did mention things other than iraq, for example;
'The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price.'
maybe he brings up iraq b/c, in case ya forgot, that's the country we are currently occupying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_Agreementstandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
El_Kabong wrote:and ya know, for someone who swears they aren't even supporting obama you sure do spend an awful lot of time on here sticking up for and defending him....that's the only weak argument i can see
PLEASE show me some examples of me spending an awful lot of time defending Obama (pointing out nader's inabilities isnt the same thing). As for this particular article, it's not defending Obama when I'm simply pointing out what a weak attempt it is at attacking Obama by you and the author.
Wow, who woulda known Nader was supporting war profiteering as well !! What a crazy world we live in.
Nader's Secret War Profiteering Tax:
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/05/15/nader-protest-oil-prices
"Nader/Gonzalez would also revoke federal subsidies to the oil industry, repeal multi-billion tax breaks and impose a windfall profits tax to fuel a transition to a solar energy economy."0 -
flywallyfly wrote:PLEASE show me some examples of me spending an awful lot of time defending Obama (pointing out nader's inabilities isnt the same thing). As for this particular article, it's not defending Obama when I'm simply pointing out what a weak attempt it is at attacking Obama by you and the author.
Wow, who woulda known Nader was supporting war profiteering as well !! What a crazy world we live in.
Nader's Secret War Profiteering Tax:
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/05/15/nader-protest-oil-prices
"Nader/Gonzalez would also revoke federal subsidies to the oil industry, repeal multi-billion tax breaks and impose a windfall profits tax to fuel a transition to a solar energy economy."
what kinda energy options is obama pushing? is it clean, renewable ones like nader? nope, it's coal, nuclear power....he only wants 25% renewables by 2025!
i don't think revoking federal subsidies to the oil industry and repealing multi-billion tax breaks is the same thing
and he wants to impose a windfall profits tax to fuel a transition to a solar energy economy. what are obama's plans for the money?
you're right, you don't get all pissy in obama threads, my bad, it must be the other flywallyfly
you're constant line of 'i'm not supporting obama, but....' is kinda weakstandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
El_Kabong wrote:what kinda energy options is obama pushing? is it clean, renewable ones like nader? nope, it's coal, nuclear power....he only wants 25% renewables by 2025!
i don't think revoking federal subsidies to the oil industry and repealing multi-billion tax breaks is the same thing
and he wants to impose a windfall profits tax to fuel a transition to a solar energy economy. what are obama's plans for the money?
you're right, you don't get all pissy in obama threads, my bad, it must be the other flywallyfly
you're constant line of 'i'm not supporting obama, but....' is kinda weak
LOL. "Nader's windfall tax is different". Good reflection with that.
I get pissy in the "Nader is god threads", not Obama. Again, SHOW me my quotes supporting Obama. PLEASE !!!!!
What is weak is your reaching for every little stone to throw at Obama. This story is weak and you know it. Switch Obama's name in the article with Nader and it would have the same implication but you choose to act like Nader's windfall tax is OK because he would use some of the tax for solar research. Seriously, think about it. Lesser of two evils argument comes to mind.0 -
flywallyfly wrote:LOL. "Nader's windfall tax is different". Good reflection with that.
I get pissy in the "Nader is god threads", not Obama. Again, SHOW me my quotes supporting Obama. PLEASE !!!!!
What is weak is your reaching for every little stone to throw at Obama. This story is weak and you know it. Switch Obama's name in the article with Nader and it would have the same implication but you choose to act like Nader's windfall tax is OK because he would use some of the tax for solar research. Seriously, think about it. Lesser of two evils argument comes to mind.
i know, you just go around trashing everyone but obama, whom you never say anything ill towards...then say you don't support him, but...
i dislike the tax either way. even naders. but at least nader's is going towards self reliance and independence from oil.
and it's funny, when ppl start nader threads and someone posts about obama they go running and crying about it and yet....
nothing to say about obama's energy policies?standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
El_Kabong wrote:i know, you just go around trashing everyone but obama, whom you never say anything ill towards...then say you don't support him, but...
i dislike the tax either way. even naders. but at least nader's is going towards self reliance and independence from oil.
and it's funny, when ppl start nader threads and someone posts about obama they go running and crying about it and yet....
nothing to say about obama's energy policies?
You got me...I'm a closet Obama fan. Damn, my shame has been revealed.
Me: My name is Mike and I'm an Obama supporter.
Crowd: Hello, Mike. Welcome to OA (Obama Anonymous).
Me: Just kidding! I'm voting for Nader because he promised me a shiny unicorn if he wins!!
So you agree Nader is helping war profiteering just as much as Obama according to this article's premise? Good, I know that was hard.0 -
It's wonderful to see the real issue and crime of it all, is being dismissed and ignored in favor of a partisan loyalties.
This whole thing is criminal and dispicable (the oil thing), but let's focus on Obama and his pointless campaign:rolleyes:
The guy's track record does all the talking anyone would need to hear; to make an educated choice. if one is willing to put aside any bias or partisan loyalties, to actually here it and have it sink in.
But the issue here is the big picture ......the corporate infuence......corporate control and the manipulation of the distribution of oil; and all the innocent lives lost in this horrific game. As well as the criminal aspect of the financial consequences.
Obama, much like Clinton and McCain will do nothing to change any of this.
They will all tow the line and cater to these very same corporate interests and the financial institutions built on oil.
And that is the most important factor, here.0 -
The media plays up Obama, just like Hillary.. It's the ones that don't get the all the media pomp and circumstance that are actually vote worthy.
Obama is just another good ol institution boy.Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")0 -
flywallyfly wrote:You got me...I'm a closet Obama fan. Damn, my shame has been revealed.
Me: My name is Mike and I'm an Obama supporter.
Crowd: Hello, Mike. Welcome to OA (Obama Anonymous).
Me: Just kidding! I'm voting for Nader because he promised me a shiny unicorn if he wins!!
So you agree Nader is helping war profiteering just as much as Obama according to this article's premise? Good, I know that was hard.
if anyone's promising shiny unicorns i'm sure we know who it is (i don't take money from lobbyists, just a couple hundred grand, let em be my campaign chair....) i can see him now at his next rally riding in on a unicorn pumping his fists shouting yes....we......CAAAAAAN!!!!!!
if you can't see the difference, like actually going towards something other than just profit and instead an actual REAL energy policy and also a tax/fine on pollution, look at where the tax money will go w/ obama compared to nader.... like how nader's would go towards energy dependency and actual change ....then i'm not gonna keep trying to explain it to yastandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0 -
El_Kabong wrote:if anyone's promising shiny unicorns i'm sure we know who it is (i don't take money from lobbyists, just a couple hundred grand, let em be my campaign chair....) i can see him now at his next rally riding in on a unicorn pumping his fists shouting yes....we......CAAAAAAN!!!!!!
if you can't see the difference, like actually going towards something other than just profit and instead an actual REAL energy policy and also a tax/fine on pollution, look at where the tax money will go w/ obama compared to nader.... like how nader's would go towards energy dependency and actual change ....then i'm not gonna keep trying to explain it to ya
I get it. A windfall tax = war profiteering EXCEPT when you hear Nader has the same idea. BUT THEN it is different because he will use it for solar research in his mythical presidency. Gotcha.
Just admit it - this article is a bogus attempt to connect Obama to war profiteering and you know it. HUGE REACH. Calling me a closeted Obama supporter and justifying Nader's SAME approach to the oil companies as Obama cannot hide that you posted a crappy opinion piece.
http://www.maxitees.com/store/images/uploads/obama1.jpg0 -
flywallyfly wrote:I get it. A windfall tax = war profiteering EXCEPT when you hear Nader has the same idea. BUT THEN it is different because he will use it for solar research in his mythical presidency. Gotcha.
Just admit it - this article is a bogus attempt to connect Obama to war profiteering and you know it. HUGE REACH. Calling me a closeted Obama supporter and justifying Nader's SAME approach to the oil companies as Obama cannot hide that you posted a crappy opinion piece.
http://www.maxitees.com/store/images/uploads/obama1.jpg
yeah, ya got it
i didn't get it, i should just settle for the mediocre reality many hold here that just settling will bring change. your type of rational held fire as mythical at one point until ppl strived to progress ahead to what seemed impossible but was well worth going against the odds in an effort to make things better
i think the piece was good maybe we should try realizing ppl hold different opinions than our own?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/El_Kabong/3warmongers.jpgstandin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 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