PJ meets with Hillary

lukin2006 · October 2016

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.

Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...

Go Beavers · October 2016

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...

It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.

Free · October 2016

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.

Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.

Go Beavers · October 2016

Free said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.

Obviously. And depending on your state, a vote for the 3rd or the 4th is a vote for Trump or Hillary.

lukin2006 · October 2016

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.

It was never going to change, the dems and republicans are war mongers ... so unless a third party emerges at some point I fully expect the US bully meddling war mongering ways to continue...

lukin2006 · October 2016

Free said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.

That's correct, except the sheeple will do as they always do trudge off vote for the same bullshiters, and wonder in awww when nothing really changes...

PJfanwillneverleave1 · October 2016

lukin2006 said:

Free said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.
That's correct, except the sheeple will do as they always do trudge off vote for the same bullshiters, and wonder in awww when nothing really changes...

Are you calling Hillary supporters sheeple?

lukin2006 · October 2016

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

lukin2006 said:

Free said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.
That's correct, except the sheeple will do as they always do trudge off vote for the same bullshiters, and wonder in awww when nothing really changes...
Are you calling Hillary supporters sheeple?

All voters of the main parties are sheeple...nothing changes, lots of of bullshit and empty promises.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

Well it's going to take a lot more that an election for the stuff you're talking about to change. Doesn't matter who the elected POTUS is in that context. A new POTUS isn't going to cause the kind of change you're talking about. The only thing that will cause the changes you (and most people, I think) want will be something more along the lines of a revolution or rewriting law and maybe the constitution itself. Stuff like that. I personally think that the kind of change you're talking about can't happen as long as the USA is ruled under a so-called democratic republic system. That is not something even the best POTUS is going to achieve without most likely starting a civil war. So given that, this election, the best thing to do is minimize damages. And that means not allowing Trump to win. He could do a LOT of damage if he won. Hillary is indeed the status quo, and yeah, I know, we all hate that. But for now, the status quo is the only short term (i.e. 4 - 8 year) option unless you want someone who won't only maintain all the things about the status quo that you hate, but also cause new irreparable harm. So the only logical path is to make sure Clinton wins in order to minimize long lasting harm, and then let it seep through your skull that you need a different idea about how to make these righteous changes people are always talking about here. It will take decades if not centuries. The entire US system of government has to change.... not to mention society, the position of the wealthy, the concept of power, human nature.... yeah, it's not so simple and Clinton not winning an election, lol. That wouldn't even be a good start. It would be nothing except bad because Trump.

..... not that Trump has a chance in hell of winning at this point. Before the video came out I was still worried, but not anymore. He reached full-scale meltdown. Unless Clinton actually is arrested, I don't think there is any possibility of a Trump win now.... I guess anything is possible though, lol. Maybe that idiot Assange (sad, I used to like him, but not anymore because he seems to have gone crazy) really does have a smoking gun. Maybe he hates Americans so much that he'll save it until election day. Or the day after.

mcgruff10 · October 2016

Why do people care about which candidate a rock band supports? I could care less. I love pj s music but they would never influence me to vote for either candidate.

lukin2006 · October 2016

mcgruff10 said:
Why do people care about which candidate a rock band supports? I could care less. I love pj s music but they would never influence me to vote for either candidate.

Agreed, unless your name is John Lennon I don't care what their political views are...

lukin2006 · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
Well it's going to take a lot more that an election for the stuff you're talking about to change. Doesn't matter who the elected POTUS is in that context. A new POTUS isn't going to cause the kind of change you're talking about. The only thing that will cause the changes you (and most people, I think) want will be something more along the lines of a revolution or rewriting law and maybe the constitution itself. Stuff like that. I personally think that the kind of change you're talking about can't happen as long as the USA is ruled under a so-called democratic republic system. That is not something even the best POTUS is going to achieve without most likely starting a civil war. So given that, this election, the best thing to do is minimize damages. And that means not allowing Trump to win. He could do a LOT of damage if he won. Hillary is indeed the status quo, and yeah, I know, we all hate that. But for now, the status quo is the only short term (i.e. 4 - 8 year) option unless you want someone who won't only maintain all the things about the status quo that you hate, but also cause new irreparable harm. So the only logical path is to make sure Clinton wins in order to minimize long lasting harm, and then let it seep through your skull that you need a different idea about how to make these righteous changes people are always talking about here. It will take decades if not centuries. The entire US system of government has to change.... not to mention society, the position of the wealthy, the concept of power, human nature.... yeah, it's not so simple and Clinton not winning an election, lol. That wouldn't even be a good start. It would be nothing except bad because Trump.

..... not that Trump has a chance in hell of winning at this point. Before the video came out I was still worried, but not anymore. He reached full-scale meltdown. Unless Clinton actually is arrested, I don't think there is any possibility of a Trump win now.... I guess anything is possible though, lol. Maybe that idiot Assange (sad, I used to like him, but not anymore because he seems to have gone crazy) really does have a smoking gun. Maybe he hates Americans so much that he'll save it until election day. Or the day after.

Of course it's not going to change, as Gerorge Carlin said "the system is rigged and you can not win". And sanders wasn't going to change a thing either, nor did he ever have a shot at the nomination. It also would not surprise me that the RNC changes so that an outsider can never win the nomination again. This is where Trump went right, he proved an outsider can gain the nomination of one of the 2 major parties, to bad it was someone so bat shit crazy, could have been real interesting if a true outsider that wasn't a crazy egomaniac just trying to disrupt things...

brianlux · October 2016

Ummmmmmmmmm...

Oh, hi ya'll!

seanwon · October 2016

unsung said:

Cliffy6745 said:

unsung said:
Hillary Clinton is NOTHING like Ralph Nader.

Oh well.
It is especially true since you used capital letters
Thanks for the feedback, glad to know how right I am since you didn't dispute my claim.

I've challenged you numerous times and you declined to engage me. Good to see you aren't a hypocrite, *wink wink*

brianlux · October 2016

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.

Go Beavers · October 2016

lukin2006 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

lukin2006 said:

Free said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.
That's correct, except the sheeple will do as they always do trudge off vote for the same bullshiters, and wonder in awww when nothing really changes...
Are you calling Hillary supporters sheeple?
All voters of the main parties are sheeple...nothing changes, lots of of bullshit and empty promises.

It's impossible for nothing to change. Change always happens.

BS44325 · October 2016

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.

Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

BS44325 said:

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.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.

they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.

they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.

lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.

BS44325 · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

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.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.

they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.

lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.

I'm not slagging them for it but there is no two-ways about it if they are endorsing Hillary then they are endorsing Clinton corruption and the continuation of the status quo. That's not who they once were and that's fine. It is their free choice to be for a third party or to be for more of the same.

Smellyman · October 2016

PJ meets with Hillary

Comments

Categories