I think frequently the problem is that what people present as facts informing their opinions are actually not true. So people feel obligated to set the facts straight and this necessarily calls into question the points of view that are based on the original misinformation.
Agreed, but is there any chance that original misinformation can become real hard facts when it is misquoted, miscontextuallised, misused across a range of media and generally tailored to meet either sides need in any argument?
I'm speaking particularly about the internet, which is largely unpoliced and unregulated, where any old number can become a hard fact, whilst at the same time people feel more able to participate in debates without the normal contraints, as they are anonymous figures and can say whatever they feel without fear and thus they cross boundaries that they would not in normal life.
I'm not trying to knocked freedom of speecha dn freedom to debate, but I would say that I see the same facts being quoted by both sides with different spin - rather than allowing us to get to the bottom of the facts, I think the internet and increased voter participation in the information sharing process has simply led to more misinformation than ever before.
There was a time when I had no idea who I was voting for
That was until I looked at the record.
Obama can clain credit for ONE SINGLE PIECE of legislation that I can see.
It's called the Exelon bill, passed when he was a state legislator, which was watered down by lobbyists of the same nuclear power industry the bill was aimed at.
Maybe the smarter folks here can tell me what other legislation Obama has brought and was able to pass.
Google "obama exelon" for reference.
The guy is a media creation, plain and simple.
That's called forming my own thoughts, jimjed should try it sometime.
Thanks for the bump
As much as agree with you about Obama being all hype, I have to say, look at the man's voting record. He's good on social issues. What he's accomplished and what he fights for are two different things.
That being said, anyone who thinks the democratic party is any different than the republican party in Washington is fucking insane. These people don't care about you.
You've all been tricked into thinking that being a democrat makes you open-minded and artistic and enlightened. It's a scam. Just because your favorite celebrity likes something, doesn't mean it's good. Eddie Vedder is a great musician, but, I couldn't care less who he supports for president. I know that sentiment will make me unpopular but, it's a fucking message board, I don't care.
The democratic party is full of corruption and scandal, just like the republican party is.
McCain did in fact vote with Bush that often; 95% in 2007 alone. Just because you're right in your own head doesn't make you right in reality.
while this statement is true, it is carefully edited to avoid the bottom line in the article itself:
"So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time MOST RECENTLY, BUT LESS SO IN EARLIER YEARS. And Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."
THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOT A MIX TAPE. no hypocrisy allowed here. If you;re going to call me out for being partisan (which i proved was bs), you better hold yourself to the same standard.
while this statement is true, it is carefully edited to avoid the bottom line in the article itself:
"So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time MOST RECENTLY, BUT LESS SO IN EARLIER YEARS. And Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."
THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOT A MIX TAPE. no hypocrisy allowed here. If you;re going to call me out for being partisan (which i proved was bs), you better hold yourself to the same standard.
We weren't talking about Obama's record. I wasn't claiming Obama had a bipartisan record; he doesn't. We were talking about McCain's record, and when you were proven wrong you tried to change the argument. That, to me, is a partisan.
well, whatever. at least this partisan gave the WHOLE story, not just bits and pieces to fit my argument.
McCain has been in line on most votes, very true. But has departed from Bush on many key issues:
1. Constitutional ban on gay marriage
McCain does not support equal rights for homosexual couples (i disagree here), but believes that this is a states-rights issue.
2. Tax cuts.
McCain opposed the tax cuts before the financial "crisis," and has had to switch his position here in light of the recent economic developements, which is pretty fair.
"I think he recognizes that to allow these tax cuts to expire would be the equivalent of a tax increase at a time when the economy is really struggling," Thune said. "So, he believes, and I think rightly so, that extending the tax relief is important to the economy expanding and continuing to create jobs."
3. Energy policy
McCain and Bush are clearly at odds on energy policy. There is no dispuiting this. However, Obama voted in favor of the Bush/Cheney energy plan.
4. The war in Iraq.
McCain staked his career on saying that the surge was necessary to achieve victory, which Bush Sec. Def. Rumsfled opposed. McCain to this point has been proven right, and Rumsfeld cost himself his job largely due to being wrong on this.
So yeah, birds of a feather....but when you look at many of the issues that have been critical to our people, you can clearly see that McCain is a truly independent thinker.
McCain did in fact vote with Bush that often; 95% in 2007 alone. Just because you're right in your own head doesn't make you right in reality.
You see, you SAY that if McCain votes with the President 95% of the time, then he is pretty much George Bush II (or III I guess), but when Joe Lieberman voted 95% of the time with Liberals, your side thought he was a conservative and tried to vote him out as Senator.
You mean to tell me you think that John McCain changed his mind on the tax cuts because of economic developments? He shifted to the right to get the nomination; even the most ardent McCain apologists I've seen have been willing to admit that. Remember, these were the tax cuts he found 'offensive' in 2003. What changed between then and now? He ran for President.
Let's look at the backtracking he's done. Immigration policy? He now says that he would vote against his own legislation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvFkICnRoo) that allowed a path to citizenship. This is a far cry from the McCain who worked with Senator Kennedy on said bill. Tax policy? Well, take a look at this socialist; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY. What was McCain's ideology eight years ago is now 'socialism.' The candidate who decried 527s now uses them to do his dirty work. The man who harshly criticized President Bush for his abhorrent robo-calls in the 2000 South Carolina primary now uses robo-calls against his opponent. The man who said in 2000 that he would "not support repeal of Roe v. Wade" in 2008 considers it important that the Supreme Court overturn its' previous ruling. The candidate who called Jerry Falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" later praised him and accepted his support. He caved in on opposing Bush's use of torture when he initially opposed the administration.. And the list keeps going on and on. So, please don't try to sell us that McCain is still this "maverick" that he was in 2000. I respect him then and now, but he sold out his ideology to get the nomination. There's the evidence I gave above and far, far, far more.
And in regards to the war in Iraq, he was one of its' most ardent supporters at its' onset, unlike his opponent, if we really want to talk about bucking popular opinion.
But like I said; we weren't talking about Obama's record. We were talking about McCain's record. It's plain and simply not as bipartisan as you have been claiming; it is slightly, but only slightly less partisan than Obama. And the facts show this, so I understand why you wanted to change the argument; I can understand why you keep wanting to bring up Obama, because you have nothing to defend McCain with.
You see, you SAY that if McCain votes with the President 95% of the time, then he is pretty much George Bush II (or III I guess), but when Joe Lieberman voted 95% of the time with Liberals, your side thought he was a conservative and tried to vote him out as Senator.
I'll let your videos stand on their own merit, and I think they support the argument that McCain is an independent thinker.
By the way, no more 30 sec. mix tapes that cut off half the response. That is just rediculous.
If you knew how to reason, you could see that saying voting with Bush 95% of the time makes McCain the same as Bush, and at the same time your party saying Lieberman voting 95% of the time with the liberals actually makes him a conservative, does not seem to make sense.
Your party crucified Lieberman for voting 95% of the time with the Democrats, because then he wasn't a real Democrat. I guess under your vindictive party's logic, then McCain is not a true Republican.
I'll let your videos stand on their own merit, and I think they support the argument that McCain is an independent thinker.
By the way, no more 30 sec. mix tapes that cut off half the response. That is just rediculous.
How do they support McCain being an independent thinker? He's shifted on most of those major issues you spoke about since his first run for President in 2000. Which I find upsetting; I would have voted for him over Gore in 2000. However, he realized he was not going to win and sold out to win the nomination. I know every candidate moves to the respective right or left to win the nomination, and then moves back to the center for the general. But I don't really see how anyone could say that McCain hasn't shifted.
But like I said; we weren't talking about Obama's record. We were talking about McCain's record. It's plain and simply not as bipartisan as you have been claiming; it is slightly, but only slightly less partisan than Obama. And the facts show this, so I understand why you wanted to change the argument; I can understand why you keep wanting to bring up Obama, because you have nothing to defend McCain with.
the actual point of the thread is how Dems need poverty to stay in power, while GOP's require riches to stay in power, as the video portion of the original post suggests. Let's stay on-topic, indeed.
If you knew how to reason, you could see that saying voting with Bush 95% of the time makes McCain the same as Bush, and at the same time your party saying Lieberman voting 95% of the time with the liberals actually makes him a conservative, does not seem to make sense.
Your party crucified Lieberman for voting 95% of the time with the Democrats, because then he wasn't a real Democrat. I guess under your vindictive party's logic, then McCain is not a true Republican.
Well, "my party" is not my party. I'm voting for Obama; that doesn't make me a Democrat.
I consider 'reason' to stick to the argument at hand, not to try and change the argument when it becomes difficult to my side. I do not consider 'reason' to bring in something completely unrelated to the argument. And if I remember correctly, the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut were unsatisfied with Lieberman's stance on the war and did not want him representing their party in 2006. So they voted for Ned Lamont and Lieberman ended up winning. What does that have to do with McCain? They hated Lieberman's pro-Iraq stance and wanted something else. You know, with this whole voting thing, people are allowed to do that.
And I still don't see what Lieberman's election campaign in 2006 has to do with John McCain's presidential run in 2008. Seems to me that you're grasping at straws and have nothing to add to the debate prytoj and I were having. But maybe that's just my faulty 'reasoning.'
You mean to tell me you think that John McCain changed his mind on the tax cuts because of economic developments? He shifted to the right to get the nomination; even the most ardent McCain apologists I've seen have been willing to admit that. Remember, these were the tax cuts he found 'offensive' in 2003. What changed between then and now? He ran for President..
That and...
the tech bubble popping in 2000
the towers fell in 2001, prompting two highly inefficient wars
the housing crisis hit in '08.
These are pretty profound developements, game-changers really, as time has born out. You're saying McCain is pandering, but the evidence ovewhelmingly suggests the opposite.
the towers fell in 2001, prompting two highly inefficient wars
the housing crisis hit in '08.
These are pretty profound developements, game-changers really, as time has born out. You're saying McCain is pandering, but the evidence ovewhelmingly suggests the opposite.
Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.
Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.
Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.
Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.
but the consequences of these took time to bear out. The housing crisis started in the late 80's at least, and some would argue since the inception of mac/mae decades before.
Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.
Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.
you need MORE JOBS and MORE INDUSTRY to have MORE MONEY.
Govenrment is historically underachievers in handling our money. You cannot adequately increase revenue by raising taxes, but you can by raising econimic development. That's just econ 101
you need MORE JOBS and MORE INDUSTRY to have MORE MONEY.
Govenrment is historically underachievers in handling our money. You cannot adequately increase revenue by raising taxes, but you can by raising econimic development. That's just econ 101
You are reaching and dodging again. We are not debating the merit or lack thereof of raising or lowering taxes. We are talking about McCain's 'independent' streak, or lack thereof. And there is no evidence that proves your assertion. No one really knows whether he 'really' believes the tax cuts are a good idea now or if he is blowing smoke up our ass, but considering he has flip-flopped on practically everything else I'm going out on a limb to say it's another example of McCain selling out his principle to appeal to a base he needed to win the Republican nomination. He called these tax cuts "offensive" in 2003. Five years later, he says the exact opposite. He wants to make them permanent. You can try to spin this complicated web of how McCain really has our best interests at heart, but the fact remains that he completely reversed his position in five years' time. What happened between then? He ran for President. Makes you wonder.
Agreed, but is there any chance that original misinformation can become real hard facts when it is misquoted, miscontextuallised, misused across a range of media and generally tailored to meet either sides need in any argument?
I'm speaking particularly about the internet, which is largely unpoliced and unregulated, where any old number can become a hard fact, whilst at the same time people feel more able to participate in debates without the normal contraints, as they are anonymous figures and can say whatever they feel without fear and thus they cross boundaries that they would not in normal life.
I'm not trying to knocked freedom of speecha dn freedom to debate, but I would say that I see the same facts being quoted by both sides with different spin - rather than allowing us to get to the bottom of the facts, I think the internet and increased voter participation in the information sharing process has simply led to more misinformation than ever before.
Good luck on Nov 4th, though!
You're probably right about this. That's why people have to pay particular attention to their sources of information.
But, not having a TV, I have found forums like this helpful in my endeavor to learn the facts. That's not to say that I believe whatever people on here say, but there are so many people (with such varying views) here that many original sources are posted that I might not otherwise have found in the chaos of the internet.
Just because your favorite celebrity likes something, doesn't mean it's good. Eddie Vedder is a great musician, but, I couldn't care less who he supports for president.
I am so sick of hearing this bullshit.
Do you think that no one here other than you (or those who disagree with Eddie Vedder) can think for themselves? Given that so many millions of non-fans have come to the conclusion that they like Obama with no knowledge of who Eddie Vedder supports, is it really totally implausible for any Pearl Jam fan to come to that same conclusion on their own as well? Do you not think that perhaps some people either a) don't care what Eddie Vedder thinks about politics, or b) like Pearl Jam because PJ agrees with THEIR politics? Hell, maybe Eddie is copying me!
Regardless, I find this comment offensive, unoriginal, and just another tired line frequently used in an attempt to discredit what others believe without actually addressing the issues. Is that kind of thing really necessary?
Comments
Agreed, but is there any chance that original misinformation can become real hard facts when it is misquoted, miscontextuallised, misused across a range of media and generally tailored to meet either sides need in any argument?
I'm speaking particularly about the internet, which is largely unpoliced and unregulated, where any old number can become a hard fact, whilst at the same time people feel more able to participate in debates without the normal contraints, as they are anonymous figures and can say whatever they feel without fear and thus they cross boundaries that they would not in normal life.
I'm not trying to knocked freedom of speecha dn freedom to debate, but I would say that I see the same facts being quoted by both sides with different spin - rather than allowing us to get to the bottom of the facts, I think the internet and increased voter participation in the information sharing process has simply led to more misinformation than ever before.
Good luck on Nov 4th, though!
As much as agree with you about Obama being all hype, I have to say, look at the man's voting record. He's good on social issues. What he's accomplished and what he fights for are two different things.
That being said, anyone who thinks the democratic party is any different than the republican party in Washington is fucking insane. These people don't care about you.
You've all been tricked into thinking that being a democrat makes you open-minded and artistic and enlightened. It's a scam. Just because your favorite celebrity likes something, doesn't mean it's good. Eddie Vedder is a great musician, but, I couldn't care less who he supports for president. I know that sentiment will make me unpopular but, it's a fucking message board, I don't care.
The democratic party is full of corruption and scandal, just like the republican party is.
while this statement is true, it is carefully edited to avoid the bottom line in the article itself:
"So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time MOST RECENTLY, BUT LESS SO IN EARLIER YEARS. And Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."
http://arcanebliss.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/08/1552947-mccain-voted-with-bush-95-of-the-time-in-2007
THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOT A MIX TAPE. no hypocrisy allowed here. If you;re going to call me out for being partisan (which i proved was bs), you better hold yourself to the same standard.
what more do your need
Obama has voted PRETTY CLOSE TO 100 PERCENT IN LINE with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career
what more do you need
very clear hypocrisy to make your argument.
its so easy to use your own stuff against you
We weren't talking about Obama's record. I wasn't claiming Obama had a bipartisan record; he doesn't. We were talking about McCain's record, and when you were proven wrong you tried to change the argument. That, to me, is a partisan.
McCain has been in line on most votes, very true. But has departed from Bush on many key issues:
1. Constitutional ban on gay marriage
McCain does not support equal rights for homosexual couples (i disagree here), but believes that this is a states-rights issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/
2. Tax cuts.
McCain opposed the tax cuts before the financial "crisis," and has had to switch his position here in light of the recent economic developements, which is pretty fair.
"I think he recognizes that to allow these tax cuts to expire would be the equivalent of a tax increase at a time when the economy is really struggling," Thune said. "So, he believes, and I think rightly so, that extending the tax relief is important to the economy expanding and continuing to create jobs."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91544414
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808150005
3. Energy policy
McCain and Bush are clearly at odds on energy policy. There is no dispuiting this. However, Obama voted in favor of the Bush/Cheney energy plan.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/400/
http://www.city-data.com/forum/2008-presidential-election/398602-obama-supported-bush-cheney-energy-plan.html
4. The war in Iraq.
McCain staked his career on saying that the surge was necessary to achieve victory, which Bush Sec. Def. Rumsfled opposed. McCain to this point has been proven right, and Rumsfeld cost himself his job largely due to being wrong on this.
So yeah, birds of a feather....but when you look at many of the issues that have been critical to our people, you can clearly see that McCain is a truly independent thinker.
You see, you SAY that if McCain votes with the President 95% of the time, then he is pretty much George Bush II (or III I guess), but when Joe Lieberman voted 95% of the time with Liberals, your side thought he was a conservative and tried to vote him out as Senator.
Let's look at the backtracking he's done. Immigration policy? He now says that he would vote against his own legislation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvFkICnRoo) that allowed a path to citizenship. This is a far cry from the McCain who worked with Senator Kennedy on said bill. Tax policy? Well, take a look at this socialist; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY. What was McCain's ideology eight years ago is now 'socialism.' The candidate who decried 527s now uses them to do his dirty work. The man who harshly criticized President Bush for his abhorrent robo-calls in the 2000 South Carolina primary now uses robo-calls against his opponent. The man who said in 2000 that he would "not support repeal of Roe v. Wade" in 2008 considers it important that the Supreme Court overturn its' previous ruling. The candidate who called Jerry Falwell and his ilk "agents of intolerance" later praised him and accepted his support. He caved in on opposing Bush's use of torture when he initially opposed the administration.. And the list keeps going on and on. So, please don't try to sell us that McCain is still this "maverick" that he was in 2000. I respect him then and now, but he sold out his ideology to get the nomination. There's the evidence I gave above and far, far, far more.
And in regards to the war in Iraq, he was one of its' most ardent supporters at its' onset, unlike his opponent, if we really want to talk about bucking popular opinion.
But like I said; we weren't talking about Obama's record. We were talking about McCain's record. It's plain and simply not as bipartisan as you have been claiming; it is slightly, but only slightly less partisan than Obama. And the facts show this, so I understand why you wanted to change the argument; I can understand why you keep wanting to bring up Obama, because you have nothing to defend McCain with.
Huh? Who is talking about Lieberman?
By the way, no more 30 sec. mix tapes that cut off half the response. That is just rediculous.
If you knew how to reason, you could see that saying voting with Bush 95% of the time makes McCain the same as Bush, and at the same time your party saying Lieberman voting 95% of the time with the liberals actually makes him a conservative, does not seem to make sense.
Your party crucified Lieberman for voting 95% of the time with the Democrats, because then he wasn't a real Democrat. I guess under your vindictive party's logic, then McCain is not a true Republican.
How do they support McCain being an independent thinker? He's shifted on most of those major issues you spoke about since his first run for President in 2000. Which I find upsetting; I would have voted for him over Gore in 2000. However, he realized he was not going to win and sold out to win the nomination. I know every candidate moves to the respective right or left to win the nomination, and then moves back to the center for the general. But I don't really see how anyone could say that McCain hasn't shifted.
the actual point of the thread is how Dems need poverty to stay in power, while GOP's require riches to stay in power, as the video portion of the original post suggests. Let's stay on-topic, indeed.
Well, "my party" is not my party. I'm voting for Obama; that doesn't make me a Democrat.
I consider 'reason' to stick to the argument at hand, not to try and change the argument when it becomes difficult to my side. I do not consider 'reason' to bring in something completely unrelated to the argument. And if I remember correctly, the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut were unsatisfied with Lieberman's stance on the war and did not want him representing their party in 2006. So they voted for Ned Lamont and Lieberman ended up winning. What does that have to do with McCain? They hated Lieberman's pro-Iraq stance and wanted something else. You know, with this whole voting thing, people are allowed to do that.
And I still don't see what Lieberman's election campaign in 2006 has to do with John McCain's presidential run in 2008. Seems to me that you're grasping at straws and have nothing to add to the debate prytoj and I were having. But maybe that's just my faulty 'reasoning.'
That and...
the tech bubble popping in 2000
the towers fell in 2001, prompting two highly inefficient wars
the housing crisis hit in '08.
These are pretty profound developements, game-changers really, as time has born out. You're saying McCain is pandering, but the evidence ovewhelmingly suggests the opposite.
Your first two examples occurred before McCain even opposed the tax cuts. The first two examples occurred before President Bush even proposed them. They weren't passed until May 2003. And McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts long before the crisis of this year; he's been against them since he started running for President. So there are problems with all of your examples here. There is no evidence that suggests what you state; all the evidence suggests that McCain needed to make nice with the Bush supporters of the Republican Party and sold out, and he underestimated how much damage that would do to his campaign in the general election.
Plus, why would McCain propose tax cuts in regards to two wars? That's the reason you need MORE money.
but the consequences of these took time to bear out. The housing crisis started in the late 80's at least, and some would argue since the inception of mac/mae decades before.
It's a wave, building before it breaks....
you need MORE JOBS and MORE INDUSTRY to have MORE MONEY.
Govenrment is historically underachievers in handling our money. You cannot adequately increase revenue by raising taxes, but you can by raising econimic development. That's just econ 101
You are reaching and dodging again. We are not debating the merit or lack thereof of raising or lowering taxes. We are talking about McCain's 'independent' streak, or lack thereof. And there is no evidence that proves your assertion. No one really knows whether he 'really' believes the tax cuts are a good idea now or if he is blowing smoke up our ass, but considering he has flip-flopped on practically everything else I'm going out on a limb to say it's another example of McCain selling out his principle to appeal to a base he needed to win the Republican nomination. He called these tax cuts "offensive" in 2003. Five years later, he says the exact opposite. He wants to make them permanent. You can try to spin this complicated web of how McCain really has our best interests at heart, but the fact remains that he completely reversed his position in five years' time. What happened between then? He ran for President. Makes you wonder.
Stay on topic, and I'll follow you there as well.
Very true.
Coming from a geologist with experience in the oil industry I can say that Sarah Palin knows fuck all about Energy.
I mean Drill Baby Drill? Cause its just that fucking easy to find oil...:rolleyes: What a dumb bitch.
You're probably right about this. That's why people have to pay particular attention to their sources of information.
But, not having a TV, I have found forums like this helpful in my endeavor to learn the facts. That's not to say that I believe whatever people on here say, but there are so many people (with such varying views) here that many original sources are posted that I might not otherwise have found in the chaos of the internet.
I am so sick of hearing this bullshit.
Do you think that no one here other than you (or those who disagree with Eddie Vedder) can think for themselves? Given that so many millions of non-fans have come to the conclusion that they like Obama with no knowledge of who Eddie Vedder supports, is it really totally implausible for any Pearl Jam fan to come to that same conclusion on their own as well? Do you not think that perhaps some people either a) don't care what Eddie Vedder thinks about politics, or b) like Pearl Jam because PJ agrees with THEIR politics? Hell, maybe Eddie is copying me!
Regardless, I find this comment offensive, unoriginal, and just another tired line frequently used in an attempt to discredit what others believe without actually addressing the issues. Is that kind of thing really necessary?