featuresfans.com
message board| wiki| fmb archive| album art| blog
the features message board
main | posts | members | statistics | search
TOPIC: Tell Us the Truth
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 11:05 AM
Post 1 of 17
Anyone read about this yet? Apparently N'ville's lineup will include Billy Bragg, The Nightwatchmen (Tom Morello's band), and... MIKE MILLS! Read about it here:

Tell us the truth

(Edited by iwantelvis at 2:41 pm on Nov. 4, 2003)
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 11:51 AM
Post 2 of 17
Sounds like a bunch of pinko hippie bullshit to me...and I'll actually be in town, so I might have to make my way over there.
Two sips from the cup of human kindness and I'm shitfaced
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 12:31 PM
Post 3 of 17
I'm always down for sticking it to the man...
you're everybody's second home
always trying to get me alone
an easy way to lose it all
always there when all else fails
over by the west side rails
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 1:53 PM
Post 4 of 17
sounds like a very interesting movement, and the site is to the point without being preachy. finally they're getting smart about how to get results that will be successful, instead of being loudmouthed emotional movie stars about this stuff. GO GREEN PARTY. tim robbins is a traitor.
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 2:00 PM
Post 5 of 17
as a disclaimer for the tim robbins comment - it really goes out to all the people who were passionate about green, and supporting a third party, who now have forsaken them just to try to get bush out of office. 4 years ago they were saying that the democratic party was just as bad as the republican, and equally run by their lobbiests and coperate doners, and now they swing right back into the 2 party system. doing the lesser of 2 evils thing i guess. i say wishy washy. or just flakes. whatever, maybe i'll start a thread in "politics" sometime soon.
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 2:25 PM
Post 6 of 17
"Quote from uglyapeman on Nov. 4, 2003 at 3:00 PM"
as a disclaimer for the tim robbins comment - it really goes out to all the people who were passionate about green, and supporting a third party, who now have forsaken them just to try to get bush out of office.  4 years ago they were saying that the democratic party was just as bad as the republican, and equally run by their lobbiests and coperate doners, and now they swing right back into the 2 party system. doing the lesser of 2 evils thing i guess.  i say wishy washy. or just flakes.
I agree with you. It kind of just seems like those people are putting a band-aid on a bullet wound, doesn't it?

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 3:33 pm on Nov. 4, 2003)
Relevant: Prince, PT Anderson, Punk, Post-Punk, Purple, Party of Five, Peter Swanson, Peter Gabriel-led Genesis, "Peter Panic", Paul's Boutique, Potential Energy, Every Features MB member but me.
Posted  Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 2:29 PM
Post 7 of 17
If Mike will play a piano version of "Rockville," I'll vote for anybody he wants.
grass stains, airplanes, anything and everything
Posted  Wednesday, November 5, 2003 at 2:39 PM
Post 8 of 17
"Quote from uglyapeman on Nov. 4, 2003 at 3:00 PM"
as a disclaimer for the tim robbins comment - it really goes out to all the people who were passionate about green, and supporting a third party, who now have forsaken them just to try to get bush out of office. 4 years ago they were saying that the democratic party was just as bad as the republican, and equally run by their lobbiests and coperate doners, and now they swing right back into the 2 party system. doing the lesser of 2 evils thing i guess. i say wishy washy. or just flakes. whatever, maybe i'll start a thread in "politics" sometime soon.
Hmmm... I'm kind of one of those people. But, to me, the selection of Democratic candidates this time around is significantly better than in 2000. Back then, there was no Democrat I could support, and there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the rhetoric coming from both sides. Note that Bush did not campaign on his plans to decimate world diplomacy and usher in a new era of preemptive aggression- during the campaign he sounded a lot like his competitors. And also, in 2000 we had (in my view) the ultimate alternative candidate in Nader- smart, caring, dedicated, able to do the job. As far as I know, there is no Green presidential candidate yet. So for the time being, I'll keep finding out about the few Democratic candidates it wouldn't sicken me to vote for. Do I hate the two party system? Absolutely. Will that stop me from voting for a candidate I can support who happens to be a Democrat? Absolutely not.
Two sips from the cup of human kindness and I'm shitfaced
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 1:07 AM
Post 9 of 17
"Quote from Lauren on Nov. 5, 2003 at 2:39 PM"
Note that Bush did not campaign on his plans to decimate world diplomacy and usher in a new era of preemptive aggression.
And let me tell you, NOTHING changed between the time he was in office until now. Nothing like a huge terrorist attack. But we all know he was behind that small insignifcant detail, anyway.
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 1:27 AM
Post 10 of 17
I would assume Lauren is talking about the preemptive strike against Iraq and not the war against Afghanistan and Bin Laden who was given protection there, but she can answer that for herself.

Let's not confuse 9/11 with Saddam and Iraq. This country was easily fooled into believing he was responsible for the attack and it's been proven countless times that he was not. You know, this is the sort of "urban myth" that's right up there with "can deploy weapons of mass destruction in 20 minutes" and all that jazz.
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 3:39 AM
Post 11 of 17
"Quote from BrianW on Nov. 6, 2003 at 1:27 AM"
I would assume Lauren is talking about the preemptive strike against Iraq and not the war against Afghanistan and Bin Laden who was given protection there, but she can answer that for herself.

Let's not confuse 9/11 with Saddam and Iraq.  This country was easily fooled into believing he was responsible for the attack and it's been proven countless times that he was not.  You know, this is the sort of "urban myth" that's right up there with "can deploy weapons of mass destruction in 20 minutes" and all that jazz.
Yeah, I see. I wasn't thinking about Saddam. True, he wasn't directly responsible (but who really knows who all was behind that?) and he shouldn't be blamed. Also, Bush even said he was going in to Iraq because of the violation of the terms of the cease-fire and noncompliance and all that. but, I think 9-11 still made a difference, I'm almost sure of it, in our involvement in Iraq. It made the Saddam's violations that were somewhat small before more pressing and seemed like we needed to act swiftly. That's what I was talking about.

I get frustrated, too. Some guy on the real world had just watched Bush's speech and said something to the effect of 'we need to go get Saddam for what he did on Sept. 11th' and 'I agree with whatever Bush wants to do'. I'm not sure where some of those people got it, but Bush never said it.

have to get back to work.

(Edited by foldsfan at 4:06 am on Nov. 6, 2003)
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 9:10 AM
Post 12 of 17
"Quote from foldsfan on Nov. 6, 2003 at 3:39 AM"
"Quote from BrianW on Nov. 6, 2003 at 1:27 AM"
I would assume Lauren is talking about the preemptive strike against Iraq and not the war against Afghanistan and Bin Laden who was given protection there, but she can answer that for herself.

Let's not confuse 9/11 with Saddam and Iraq.  This country was easily fooled into believing he was responsible for the attack and it's been proven countless times that he was not.  You know, this is the sort of "urban myth" that's right up there with "can deploy weapons of mass destruction in 20 minutes" and all that jazz.
Yeah, I see. I wasn't thinking about Saddam. True, he wasn't directly responsible (but who really knows who all was behind that?) and he shouldn't be blamed. Also, Bush even said he was going in to Iraq because of the violation of the terms of the cease-fire and noncompliance and all that. but, I think 9-11 still made a difference, I'm almost sure of it, in our involvement in Iraq. It made the Saddam's violations that were somewhat small before more pressing and seemed like we needed to act swiftly. That's what I was talking about.

I get frustrated, too. Some guy on the real world had just watched Bush's speech and said something to the effect of 'we need to go get Saddam for what he did on Sept. 11th' and 'I agree with whatever Bush wants to do'. I'm not sure where some of those people got it, but Bush never said it.

have to get back to work.
The funny thing is, (welll scary actually) I just read an article about how Tariq Aziz (Saddam's foreign minister) has said during interrogation that as far as he knew, Iraq had been compliant with all of the sanctions except the restriction on the 150km missile range.

Aziz said that he had advised Saddam to not deploy those weapons. Saddam had disagreed with him on what the terms were. Hussein saw that ban as a direct violation of Iraq's sovereign right to defend itself. His missiles had conventional warheads on them, and no WMD. His argument was that any of his neighbors could strike Baghdad with a missile strike and Iraq couldn't retaliate.

As for not owning up to the WMD part, Aziz said that Saddam was terrified that if his hostile neighbors knew he didn't have WMD he'd be overrun, because they knew his army was decimated by Gulf I. They were trying to work behind the scenes to do anything they could to let the US know they had shut down the WMD program as early as 98. The Bush admin would hear nothing of it. We had closed all diplomatic channels directly with Iraq as early as December of 2002.

Don't get me wrong, Hussein is a bad man, but we have US soldiers dying in a war that is the global equivalent to the 12 year old bully knocking down the 5 year olds "fort" made of sticks. All becuase W has a burr in his ass because Saddam tried to kill daddy, WHEN WE WERE AT WAR WITH THEM THE FIRST TIME!!!! Weren't we trying to kill him?'

We need to get Bush out of office this next time around, or our standing as the rational and just nation of the world will go right down the tubes. There is damag done, but we can repair it.
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 9:42 AM
Post 13 of 17
I'm curious why Saddam might have been still, in your eyes Foldsfan, invovled with 9/11? Is it because he was Muslim just like Bin Laden? Was it their mutual hatred of the United States? You are aware that Bin Laden has on many occasions sworn death upon Saddam, right? Saddam was a non-secular totalitarian leader who wanted an equally non-secular rule over all of the Middle East. This stood directly in opposition to Bin Laden and his wishes for a Islamic, fundamentalist kingdom occupying the same ground. The two hated each other about as much as two people could hate each other. The Bush Administration tried and tried to find a connection between the two but nothing could ever stick. Even they know before the war with Iraq that if the two ever came within a few feet of each other bullets would fly faster than rival East Coast-West Coast rappers.

It's only now, after we've knocked off the Iraqi government freeing the borders for foreign invaders, terrorists, etc., to enter and move around this country now do we find Al Quedi operating freely within Iraq's borders. I think that might be the sadest irony of this whole thing - we've simply moved these people (whom I want dead as much as you) from one country to another.
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 1:46 PM
Post 14 of 17
"Quote from foldsfan on Nov. 6, 2003 at 4:39 AM"
I think 9-11 still made a difference, I'm almost sure of it, in our involvement in Iraq.
Yep, I think it was a convenient excuse for Bush to proceed with his agenda of ousting Sadaam & generally bullying the world. I think we as a nation were used by Bush for his own gains- hurting & shocked by 9/11, too many of us did not speak up against the Iraq War & Bush's lies before it started. Because it seemed unpatriotic, because we had to do SOMETHING, dammit, because we were afraid that we would be suspected of supporting terrorism ourselves, whatever the reason. And, yes, I think BrianW is right- I think we gave Osama one of the greatest gifts of his life when we created chaos and hostility in Iraq. It's now a central meeting place for anti-American assholes & thugs from all over the world. And my friends are over there risking their lives for this??
Two sips from the cup of human kindness and I'm shitfaced
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 2:29 PM
Post 15 of 17
"Quote"
anti-American assholes & thugs from all over the world.


Now did you have to start that whole thing again? They are not "thugs" the are "indigenous persons of differing socio-political philosophies"

blink.gif
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 3:29 PM
Post 16 of 17
"Quote from Peace Frog on Nov. 6, 2003 at 3:29 PM"
"Quote"
anti-American assholes & thugs from all over the world.

Now did you have to start that whole thing again? They are not "thugs" the are "indigenous persons of differing socio-political philosophies"

blink.gif
Haaha--the funnier part is that I don't shy away from the label "Anti-American" for myself. But, much as I respect opposing viewpoints and sympathize with (some) anti-American sentiment, people who blow other people up are assholes & thugs, regardless of their ideology (and yep, I think my friends serving over there are likely behaving like thugs, too. See- I'm an equal opportunity labeler!) People who steal money jars...the jury is still out.
Two sips from the cup of human kindness and I'm shitfaced
Posted  Thursday, November 6, 2003 at 8:02 PM
Post 17 of 17
"Quote from Peace Frog on Nov. 6, 2003 at 2:29 PM"
"Quote"
anti-American assholes & thugs from all over the world.

Now did you have to start that whole thing again? They are not "thugs" the are "indigenous persons of differing socio-political philosophies"

blink.gif
Thank you so much, that's incredibly funny.