Eddie's politics from VH1

eddies politics = big deal :rolleyes: he's just as entitled to his view as I am mine. He's got the format to say things and he does. I disagree with him on a lot of things and I never once during storytellers got offended, even at the fuck 'em comment. I chuckled b/c it was funny and sarcastic. It seemed that he implored to everyone to do their research and make sure the blinders aren't on...that can apply to both sides. If you follow the Bush Admin blindly it's no different than following eddie, michael moore, ann coulter, rush etc.. blindly. Do your research / reasoning for yourself and if you have a different idea that from bush or the same conclusions...at least make them yours. People will always throw out the sheep comments, that usually comes from an arrogance, imo. Some people are sheep, I'm sure...but to call a whole sect of the population sheep for disagreeing with you or agreeing with something you don't is a little nuts, imo. I thought eddie answered the question very well...it at least provides discussion, which is a good thing...hopefully discussion leads to understanding of people's views, which does not have to lead to agreeance or changing ones views.

PonderingMyMaker wrote:

Honestly, most leftists don't realize how silly they sound with this anti-corporation paranoia. Forgive me for thinking that Ed may just be a wee bit out of touch with the "American workers." Does Ed even know that the unemployment rate is 4.6%?

And, come to think of it, why would a humanist like Ed, who doesn't believe in defining people by borders, be upset that a corporation is providing jobs in another country? Don't Indians and Mexicans and Indonesians deserve to make a living too?

The problem with Ed, as I see it, and the problem with many leftists, is that because of their justifiable opposition to the war they feel that everything that is even remotely associated with Bush must be evil. It's not a very logical position, and it leads to some bizarre reasoning, such as the above quoted ramblings of Mr. Vedder.

Ok so the unemployment rate is at 4.6%, but over 67% of all families in the US on welfare have at least one family member working a full-time job, probably without benies, and probably for about $6/hr. Corporations can hide behind a low unemployment rate, but they can't hide behind the hunger and need they enforce. Moreover, people in other countries do not have any semblence (the US doesn't even have it right), human rights to defend themselves and make a comparable wage, work 6-7 days a week, over 10 hrs a day, and corporations are good.

In Mexico NAFTA took away farmers rights to their own tract of land...In China privatization has left those in rural areas in need, while the cities become overstuffed with poor people trying to make a living - many in the sex industry. In the Phillipines the Corporate Golf Course Movement is taking away people's land that they lived and subsisted on for 1000's of years to make golf courses for the rich. In Argentina, the country that sold itself out to neoliberal corporate pressure, the economy collapsed leaving many poor and without work. In the last 15 years in the United States corporate CEO's have seen pay raises of 300 percent, while the minimum wage has remained relatively stagnent.

The move towards privatization around the world has NEVER worked to the benefit of the people, it has always worked to the benefit of the very rich, and yet people still defend it as if it were a good thing. Wonder why? The supposedly 'liberal' media is owned, run by, and works to benefit the very rich. Since they are controlling what we see, hear, and to some extent feel (this is not to say the commoners can't fight back) our 'blinders' kind of are on.

So take your 4.6% unemployment rate and hide behind it because it does nothing to appease the needs of the many. Oh yeah happy 4th of July.

SuzannePjam wrote:

I think it's rather funny that many of you are trashing how Ed speaks and his "limitations" on expressing himself politically when we have one of the most (if not THE most) verbally impaired presidents in the history of the United States.


"I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it's easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?" —George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

I mean, SERIOUSLY, folks. Let George W. speak without being completely prepped and scripted and I would love to hear the things that come out of his mouth.

lol, you're right. I think this means Ed should run for president.

SuzannePjam wrote:

Yeah! If you use Purple Hawks comparison chart, if Ed makes Ben Afflack look like Albert Einstein, then George W. makes Ed look like freakin' god!

sorry, god has no place in a public forum like this.

Actually, I did find Ben Affleck surprisingly articulate the few times that I've seen him discuss politics.

whitepants wrote:

I missed it, and I can't download it. When will it air on VH1 again?

Thx

VHI (Classic) tomorrow at 9 pm.. If you do not have classic I think it re-runs on VHI at 11 Am tom....I think, but I am not sure.