Pearl Jam to stop playing Bu$hleaguer live.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
once again i repeat what i said earlier... I feel sorry for anyone who would just not be a fan of something, not attend a concert, event, etc. just because they didn't believe in the same politics as the person performing.

And at the same time you bash the people chanting USA for being close-minded...
 
BonoVoxSupastar,

If you read my posts, you''ll see I was responding to SHARKY's comments about the recent war in Iraq and Bin Ladin in this thread. I think you''ll agree that US soldiers have everything to do with those two things.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
once again i repeat what i said earlier... I feel sorry for anyone who would just not be a fan of something, not attend a concert, event, etc. just because they didn't believe in the same politics as the person performing.

And at the same time you bash the people chanting USA for being close-minded...

I'm not following you here....

The art reflects the artist, as you can read in my post about Steel Pulse. Why would I listen to lyrics that offend me? I don't listen to white power hate bands for the same reason. You can feel sorry for me if that's what makes you feel better about the choices you make, but I don't like to give my monetary support to bands and artists that I find offensive.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


Just out of curiosity, would you only stop listening to Pearl Jam if they actually expressed pro-life views in their music, or just if one of their members were to state that they were pro-life in an interview? Not that I can ever imagine that happening, of course.

To be completely honest here, I don't listen to that much Pearl Jam anyway. I never got into them in their heyday, and now it may be too late for me. But to answer your question, I think it those views would have to start to be reflected in the art. If it wasn't in the lyrics, I don't think it would bother me as much.

I don't listen to Ted Nugent because he's such a dick. (And because his music sucks out loud, so it's not that much of a sacrifice. ;) )
 
I wasn't saying you shouldn't be a fan, but you should at least be aware of what you are going to get at a Pearl Jam show. If you disagree with Eddie's politics, that's fine. But you have to at least expect that you may be in the minority. It reminds me of the Elevation shows when people cheered the Charles Heston video. Are they saying they disagree with U2's position? That's fine, but they had to be aware that U2 would take a position like that based on their past non-violent stance.

As for cheering at baseball games, Sting, I would have no problem cheering any soldier that walked in to that stadium. But people weren't cheering a soldier. They were cheering the president's particular stance in Iraq -- despite the fact that there are still soldiers in my subway stops and on my streets. The city has been at Level Orange since the color coding system started. How is stirring up anti-American feelings in the Middle East and not catching a terrorist supposed to make me feel safe? Why did we use those bombs on Iraq instead of bin Laden?

Sting, you may be right. I may be too obsessed with bin Laden, but I can also still taste the Trade Center in my mouth as I outran the collapse of the south tower. My city was destroyed, my life was turned upside down -- all because of bin Laden. I think its understandable if I'm obsessed with catching the guy.
 
sharky said:

As for cheering at baseball games, Sting, I would have no problem cheering any soldier that walked in to that stadium. But people weren't cheering a soldier. They were cheering the president's particular stance in Iraq -- despite the fact that there are still soldiers in my subway stops and on my streets. The city has been at Level Orange since the color coding system started. How is stirring up anti-American feelings in the Middle East and not catching a terrorist supposed to make me feel safe? Why did we use those bombs on Iraq instead of bin Laden?

Sting, you may be right. I may be too obsessed with bin Laden, but I can also still taste the Trade Center in my mouth as I outran the collapse of the south tower. My city was destroyed, my life was turned upside down -- all because of bin Laden. I think its understandable if I'm obsessed with catching the guy.

I'm going to take issue with a few of your statements here. I like the fact that when I walk up the stairs at Penn the first thing I see is an armed National Guardsman. I feel safe when I take the Throgs Neck and see police and National Guardsmen doing random searches of vans and trucks. All these things give me reason to cheer the President, because at least I finally see something going on, some sort of extra security to protect me. Is it 100% fool proof? Of course not. But it's a start in the right direction. Even if Bin Laden was caught. Even if he was dead... which he may be already, that does not mean that the threat is over. America got a big punch in the mouth, and instead of sitting back and taking it, we're taking it to the people who delivered it, their friends, their allies, and those who sympathize and support them. Was Saddam directly involved in 9/11? Most likely no. Does he sympatize with the terrorists, provide support to various terror groups, and would he, given the chance, have given more than just money to these groups? You're damn right he would have. So rather than sit around and wait for the next attack to happen, we have a President who's proactively going after the people who may attack us before they get that chance. That is reason for a stadium full of New Yorkers to cheer the President at Yankee Stadium. That is reason for a room full of New Yorkers to booo Eddie Vedder at the Nassau Coliseum.
We're still not out of the woods. The next terror attack could come today, tommorow, next year, or never. But I feel a lot better knowing that we have someone going after these people, Al Qaeda and others, before they get a chance to hit us again, then I would if we had someone who was going to wait for an attack and then lob a couple of cruise missiles at a pharmacutical plant, that's for damn sure.
And one more thing... all of us in New York had our lifes turned upside down by what happened. That is without doubt. But while a few buildings may have been destroyed, and thousands of innocent lives lost for no reason, New York City is most deffinetly still alive and well. We may not agree on politics, but I think we can all agree on that.
 
Last edited:
A quick two cents: I doubt there would have been much flak over Bu$hleaguer if the performances did not include Eddie's theatrics with the Bush mask. I think that is what has caused most of the negative reaction. Most PJ fans know Ed's stance on Dubya, and if the song were included in the setlist without the mask, I doubt there would be a large outcry.
 
New York indeed rocks! Still wouldn't live anywhere else right now. I guess where you see safety I get unnerved. Why should I have to still walk around my city with guys with big guns? If we got bin Laden, I don't think we would still need to be on this heightened state. If we got bin Laden, I would be cheering at Yankee Stadium too. But it still doesn't change this issue: where is bin Laden and what proof do we have that Saddam supported bin Laden?

As for Eddie, maybe he is going over the line but I think there is a difference between someone who understands it and someone who doesn't. Remember all the deer caught in headlight looks when Charlton Heston and bono's rant during BTBS came up? Let's cheer Moses! same thing. people didn't understand the meaning behind it.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:


I like the fact that when I walk up the stairs at Penn the first thing I see is an armed National Guardsman. I feel safe when I take the Throgs Neck and see police and National Guardsmen doing random searches of vans and trucks.

Not me. I hate having to live like the Peruvians I saw when I was there in 1986. Soldiers with flak jackets on, packing two or three guns, curfews from dawn to dusk, shoot and ask in that order. I hate having to live like the Londoners I saw in 1977. Scared shitless of every unattended package being an IRA bomb.

I don't cheer the president for fostering such fear. It makes people accept the policies that lead to unconstitutional searches and spying. We're creating more pissed off people with damn near every move we make overseas, guaranteeing that people who like to be randomly searched will get their wishes from now on.

Nope, I like a fear-free life, one led by fairness in other countries and a respect here at home for my rights as American.
 
i don't live in fear. i'm aware that at any time, someone could try to attack the city again, but that does not stop me from taking the bridge and tunnels, going to landmarks, mass gatherings, sporting events, mass transit, etc. etc. right after 9/11, everyone was yelling about what an intelligence failure it was, on how the government should have had an idea, and at the very least warned us at what might happen. so now we have a color system, based on intelligence information, that does give us a general idea of what might be going on. so now what? now everyone is complaining that the government is making us live in fear. what do you want? is waiting an extra 5 minutes at the midtown tunnel as the nypd inspects a truck in front of me really such a big deal? is showing up an hour earlier for a flight really such a hard thing to ask? is getting "wanded" as i walk in to a sporting venue for a game or a concert really an invasion of my privacy? the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. so what's wrong? what do you want? this is not peru in 1986. there are no curfews installed on us. there are just some minor inconveniences that in the grand scheme of things really do not effect our day-to-day lives at all. all they do is provide a little extra safety. now how is that a bad thing?
 
its a bad thing because we wouldn't have to be living with all this if they found bin Laden and took care of this crap. No need for soldiers with guns at MSG, no need to worry about invasion of privacy. no need to worry about the subway and bridges. Its been 18 months and while we've found a guy here and a guy there, we haven't found bin Laden. Also be aware that security had to increase significantly after we started a war because we were afraid of retaliation against us.

Ask Bush what happens when you keep poking a Texas rattlesnake. Its been mentioned several times by several people -- this war is going to breed another bin Laden, and we haven't even caught the first one.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
this is not peru in 1986. there are no curfews installed on us.

Not yet. There will be when you think that getting wanded everywhere is just a "minor inconvience." Then the curfew will be "worth it," and then the wiretaps on everyone's phone will be a "security measure," and then the total suspension of the Constitution will be "temporary." Sure, I'm going overboard here, but small steps lead to bigger ones.


And the CIA/FBI did have information about the attacks. It was ignored. So now we have a cute little color coded system that changes color based on captured people jerking our chains to watch us dance.
 
please people... come on. that is exactly the point. the cia and fbi had general information, nothing specific. they've had similar information thousands of times before, and nothing happened. so now the attacks happen, they look stupid for sitting on information, so now they have the color code system which they raise or lower based on this information... true information or false information.
connecting being wanded while going into an area with a large crowd to wire taps and curfews is just insane. they've got metal detectors at airports... you want to get rid of them because they're an invasion of privacy?

and as for bin laden... once he's gone, someone will take his place. he's the one who hit us, but he's not the only one who hates us. he's in charge of al qaeda, and he has knowledge of the attacks, and ultimately approved the attacks... but he didn't plan the attacks. before him there was sheik omar abdel-rahman was the mastermind behind the plots to blow up all the tunnels and bridges in the city... thankfully that plot was discovered weeks before it was to be carried out. and abdel-rahman wasn't in a cave in afgahnistan... he was in new jersey.
 
oh blarney.

time for this thing over Bushleaguer to end. :wave:
In all sincerity, shelve it.
PJ decided to shelve it...and perhaps that's best right now.
It's not a case of why or what or who's to blame or who's "selling out", etc. etc. The artists have control of their art, and this case epitomizes what is their rights.
Let it be, as McCartney said.
And in my opinion. Mr. Edward Vedder did not "impale" Bush's mask...pick it apart, strip it down as you please but it wasn't impaling.
Broaden your mind.
Think Bono a la Zoo TV. Think Bono a la bugging the shit out of the first George with the phone calls, with pizza deliveries and what not.
Eddie tried the theatrics along the same vein....whether you would like to admit to it or not...it's all the same. It's a freakin mask, for fooks sake. It's not actually Dubya's head. Get over it. :rolleyes:
You know that annoying saying? That "Don't get yer panties in a bunch?"
Well...lmao...that applies to the Americans who can't handle Eddie's little theatric accompaniment to Bushleaguer.
Sorry...I'm just telling it like it is.
I don't normally come to this forum...in fact I avoid it like the freakin plague. But for this thread I had to cash in my 2 cents.
Peace y'all. No need to pick apart what already has been ripped a new asshole and then some.
:D
 
Last edited:
And in my opinion. Mr. Edward Vedder did not "impale" Bush's mask...pick it apart, strip it down as you please but it wasn't impaling.
Broaden your mind.
Think Bono a la Zoo TV. Think Bono a la bugging the shit out of the first George with the phone calls, with pizza deliveries and what not.
Eddie tried the theatrics along the same vein....whether you would like to admit to it or not...it's all the same. It's a freakin mask, for fooks sake. It's not actually Dubya's head. Get over it.
so by this theory, if i were to burn an effigy in a public place of, say, hillary clinton, because i don't agree her being the senator of new york when she isn't a new yorker, it would be just fine and dandy because hey, i'm not actually burning hillary clinton, it's just an effigy.

and as for bono on zoo tv... he really didn't actually bug the crap out of george h.w. bush... he bugged the crap out of the white house switchboard operators. and on top of that, bono's acts durring zoo tv were done in good fun. if eddie had just come out, danced around in the "mirrorball man" jacket, with the bush mask on, performed bu$hleaguer, and then went on to the next song, this debate would not even be going on. the only people who would have a problem with that would be the far right, and baisicly who the hell gives a crap about the far anything... left or right.

all this being said, i still applaud eddie for speeking his mind even when it's the minority opinion. that's a big part of the reason why i love the band. but eddie still has to realize a) freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, and b) there's a line out there that when you cross it you're going to risk alienating your own fans... especially in a traditional republican strong hold like nassau county on long island.
 
Last edited:
acty, I believe burning an effegy of Hillary Clinton to protest the fact that she is a non-New Yorker senator would be protected under the First Amendment. Same with burning a flag.
 
well, it depends on your definition of "right." I don't think I would burn a flag but if someone else wants to do it, they can. And the KKK has a right to hold rallies -- and I have a right to show up and tell them to burn in hell.

Whether its right or wrong, the US protects it.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
but does that make it right? meetings of the kkk are protected under the first amendment, but does that make it right?

There is a difference between the KKK holding a meeting demanding that all Black people living in the United States leave the country/be killed/live seperately from white people, and a person burning a US flag, or a rock star attacking an effigy of the President.

Personally I dislike flag burning as a form of protest, simply because I don't believe it means anything at all. I much prefer forms of protest which demonstrate clearly what the protestor is opposing and give other people the opportunity to engage in discussion about the subject. Flag burning, to me, is pointless as it can too easily be mistaken for disagreeing with everything about the United States, rather than just what the individual wants to protest about.

That said, flag burning doesn't hurt anyone. It may offend people and it may annoy people, but it doesn't actually cause harm to them. In strong contrast to that, the actions of the KKK can cause real harm to people: they lead to a rise in racism which puts black people in danger of racist attacks and violence.
 
Fizzie -- there are limits to what the KKK can do. But the fact that it can create racism is not one of them. A recent supreme court ruling ruled against cross burning -- even on your own property -- because it creates a level of intimidation [not racism], which is not protected under the First Amendment. The KKK can protest but not in certain areas. The Court also struck down a case in which the KKK asked to have a march through a Jewish neighborhood. Again, it was the intimidation factor, not the bigotry issue.

Sorry to be all legal anal on you all.

[and good point about flag burning Fizzie]
 
sharky said:
Fizzie -- there are limits to what the KKK can do. But the fact that it can create racism is not one of them. A recent supreme court ruling ruled against cross burning -- even on your own property -- because it creates a level of intimidation [not racism], which is not protected under the First Amendment. The KKK can protest but not in certain areas. The Court also struck down a case in which the KKK asked to have a march through a Jewish neighborhood. Again, it was the intimidation factor, not the bigotry issue.

Ah, I didn't know anything about legislation controlling where the KKK can hold rallies etc.

In the UK racist organisations (like the BNP) definitely do cause an increase in racism. For instance, in a town where they hold council seats there has been a 70% rise in racist attacks in the year since they were elected, and when the spoke at a college campus in this country there was a huge increase in the intimidation suffered by black and Asian students there. I know it's impossible to ban racist organisations, but I do think those facts illustrate why those organisations are so much more dangerous than something like flag burning or burning an effigy of a public figure.
 
Back
Top Bottom