When did Dave..

[Dancing Ants]

...become a robot for the Democratic party?

I used to not care what he said, because even though on some things i strongly disagreed with him, at least he was giving some *slightly* rational viewpoints. Now he's spewing party rhetoric. Gosh...what a tool. I've lost so much respect for this guy.

On a side note, whatever you're going to say about "don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions", great, but I don't care.

[timmyt23]

On a side note, whatever you're going to say about "don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions", great, but I don't care.
Then what's the point?

[Strugz10]

Just so you know threads like this have been closed since it has been beaten to death already, so don't be offended when yours is.

[siouxsiesue]

become a robot???

i want to build a robot like dave

:lol

[greppson]

why ask or state your opinion if we aren't allowed to state ours or answer your question?

[walrusstapler]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office. It happens to be an election year so thats why it started now. People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.

[Strugz10]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office. It happens to be an election year so thats why it started now. People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.
Oh no...and now this is definitely locked.

[KJ.]

don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions

[Dancing Ants]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office. It happens to be an election year so thats why it started now. People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.

but people who support Kerry (rather blindly there dave) aren't ignorant?

DM quotes from kerry benefit:

"With Kerry, I see a bright future"...isn't that on an election poster?

"He's got a twinkle in his eye...and it's bright" obviously paraphrased, but still. such a rhetoric spewer.

[KJ.]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office.
Maybe Dave will be like Reggie Jackson in the Naked Gun movie. Instead of trying to kill the Queen he will be trying to kill the President.

[Dancing Ants]

why ask or state your opinion if we aren't allowed to state ours or answer your question?

state it. i'd just like a reasonable answer.

[timmyt23]

You may not care about this, but he does have his own opinion. You can lose respect for someone for whatever you want, but losing respect for someone who disagrees with your own personal views is sort of a weak argument. He does have his own opinion, and he's supporting it. Maybe he's "spewing rhetoric" because he's supporting what he believes in. I hope that this came across as rational. I disagree that he is a democratic robot, but that's my opinion. If you lose respect for me because of that, well, you are more than entitled to that, but I would hate that a loss of respect is based on a difference in opinions. I hope that sounded reasonable.

[AggieDMBFan06]

Why are we ignorant? Just wondering

I honestly dont care why W went into Iraq. Unfinished business whatever, it was for a greater good. Yeah we didnt find a plethera of WMDs but we got rid of a tyrant that has commited genicide and is evil.

Kerry is a flip flopper and a flammer.

Remember this there are more conservatives out there than liberals. Sad to see that hollywood is trying to influence the independent. They are probably liberal so they will get paid and get ratings

[OCMarsh]

People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.
Well, if that's how you're going to be, people who support Kerry are ignorant and bad!! ;) You all just don't understand that he looks French.

[DMBMan202]

Why are we ignorant? Just wondering

I honestly dont care why W went into Iraq. Unfinished business whatever, it was for a greater good. Yeah we didnt find a plethera of WMDs but we got rid of a tyrant that has commited genicide and is evil.

Kerry is a flip flopper and a flammer.

Remember this there are more conservatives out there than liberals. Sad to see that hollywood is trying to influence the independent. They are probably liberal so they will get paid and get ratings


I agree. It seems like anyone who is anyone in Hollywood is supporting Kerry. (Whoopi Goldberg, Chris Martin, and a plethora of others, including Dave) I try to not let political views get in the way of music thouhg.

[Martial14]

why ask or state your opinion if we aren't allowed to state ours or answer your question?

:thumbsup

[grcl]

...become a robot for the Democratic party?

I used to not care what he said, because even though on some things i strongly disagreed with him, at least he was giving some *slightly* rational viewpoints. Now he's spewing party rhetoric. Gosh...what a tool. I've lost so much respect for this guy.

On a side note, whatever you're going to say about "don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions", great, but I don't care.


Shut up. He is supporting what he believes in, just like you should do for what you believe in. Dont talk bad about someone who does that because 99% of people dont have the balls to say what they believe

[JonTheRvelator]

he's been a robot since the whole "wanna save the planet and eat some ice cream?" thing.

[drfindley]

but it doesn't sound like he is supporting what he believes in, just that he is being duped to believe in the lies the press is spreading, and just being a copy-cat. I'd love to hear him stand up for whatever he believes in, instead of actually trying to see what is going on.

[timmyt23]

he's been a robot since the whole "wanna save the planet and eat some ice cream?" thing.
:lol :lol :thumbsup

He's been a robot for heaven ever since he started telling people that a dollar in the Greenpeace bucket ensures entry.

[HudmeisterDMB]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office. It happens to be an election year so thats why it started now. People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.

bold statement buddy, but what you need to do is shut the hell up

[timmyt23]

I'd love to hear him stand up for whatever he believes in, instead of actually trying to see what is going on.
:ugh:

[drfindley]

ok what I said was mixed up, let me try again with the riight word:
I'd love to hear him stand up for whatever he believes in, BECAUSE he actually tryed to see what is going on.

[bstorey]

bold statement buddy, but what you need to do is shut the hell up

James Bond would vote for Kerry.

[walrusstapler]

I apologize for insulting any Bush supporters out there. However, Bush is a lot worse than Kerry. Personally I like Dean, but unfortunately Dean was out of contention before the NY primary. All I was originally trying to say is that Dave does not like Bush and therefore is supporting Kerry to oust Bush. I am sorry for bringing personal political views into a thread that asked the simple question of why Dave is a "robot."

[mantra4]

jesus fucking christ people... dave is not a fucking robot! tim is the robot. dave is more of a 'cyborg' kind of a half man half machine... capable of learning how to feel yet never loosing sight of what his primary objective is. damn haven't any of you seen terminator 2???

[dmblynny]

I don't believe Dave Matthews is a ROBOT...no one is forcing him to talk and speak out for what he believes in. He has his own values and is using his fame to let others know how he feels... right? wrong? weak? strong? Who knows... but he can do whatever he wants and I respect him for standing up for what he believes in. I personally believe that he's so against this "war" in Iraq that he believes that John Kerry will end it all because Bush is the one who started it. (does that make sense?)
This country allows each and every one of us to have an opinion and to make a difference, which is what he's trying to do. Bush fucked up majorly by sending our men to Iraq, or should I say KEEPING THEM THERE AS WE SPEAK. :devil
When you think about it, after Sadam was captured (IMO) we should've pulled out. But no, Bush is a moron who thinks sabotagging the Iraqi "govt" to believe what we believe in will work, which it will not, and Dave just believes Kerry will do the right thing and stay the fuck out of the Middle East. or atleast fix what we've torn apart... the sad part about it is violence in that part of the world will never end, and no matter who's President, our country is still at risk... *I COULD GO ON...

either way I could never lose respect for him b/c he's not afraid to tell the world nor his fans how he feels... my dad says "shut up and sing" but why should he just sing?
he's an American like the majority of us on this forum and he can do more than just sing, he can put his opinions out there and not give a fuck what any one thinks because it's his opinion... and he's entitled to it... we may all have different views but we can all love DMB and the love & hope that they spread through out the country and world.

[walrusstapler]

With that said Kerry is not a flip flopper, and certainly not a "flammer" and if by that you meant flamer so what? Does that mean he's a bed leader? Kerry is able to take a stance and also evaluate it and reconsider. Bush however will stick with one thing and not admit he is wrong, creating more problems.

Just look at the whole war against terror. How can you have a war against and idealogy? By jailing "suspected" terrorists and invading a country and killing innocent civilians and forcing them to remain homeless and without power? Certainly the capture of Saddam was a good thing... even the Democrats agreed on that. The thing is the Patriot Act sucks. We can jail "material witnesses" for life without charging them or letting them see a lawyer. If you kill terrorists, it enrages even more people who fill the void. Terror attacks are worsening in Iraq killing civilians and soldiers who are being ambused without any chance to defend themselves. The war's over, yet we're still there.

In my earlier post when I said ignorant I was stating that many conservatives here are very young, and may not have much experience in the world of politics, I was not implying anyone was stupid.

Dick Cheney is a bad bad man... That needed it's own line.

Liberals dislike Bush for many reasons and that was true before 9/11 and the war in Iraq. His tax cuts benefit the rich hurt the poor, he created jobs, yeah but they're in India, healthcare yadda yadda yadda... anyway my point is its not like Kerry is a horrible man attacking an innocent man (Bush) and Dave is suppprting Kerry for no reason. Dave is an educated adult who can read the newspaper and form his own opinions. About 1/2 the country votes democrat (In the 2000 election Gore had more votes than Bush, Bush just won more states, yet Florida remains a mystery as blacks were turned away at voting locations and many votes were thrown away... Oh and it is Jeb's state...) so people Dave isnt some radical who is one of the few in the country to support Kerry.

[jdub104]

http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20040718.html

I loved this when i first saw it

[drfindley]

... But no, Bush is a moron who thinks sabotagging the Iraqi "govt" to believe what we believe in will work, which it will not, ...


ok no matter whether or not iraq will love our democracy, capatilism, and freedom is something we'll just have to wait and see on. But last time I checked, Iraq has been incabable of setting up a goverment for years, so somebody had to introduce something. If we just pulled out after capturing sadam, things would only be worse. Some new dictator would rise and we'd be back to the same mess. that line doesn't quite make sense

[dmblynny]

http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20040718.html

I loved this when i first saw it
sad, but true.

[rebubula07]

Why are we ignorant? Just wondering


Kerry is a flip flopper and a flammer.



whats a flammer?

[dmblynny]

ok no matter whether or not iraq will love our democracy, capatilism, and freedom is something we'll just have to wait and see on. But last time I checked, Iraq has been incabable of setting up a goverment for years, so somebody had to introduce something. If we just pulled out after capturing sadam, things would only be worse. Some new dictator would rise and we'd be back to the same mess. that line doesn't quite make sense

You're right, we will have to wait and see what happens...I'm an impatient chic...
honestly I hope the people of that country realize that a democracy IS better than a dictatorship, and we do have some pretty descent ideas on how to run a country (hoping in 20 years a book doesn't come out exposing our real motives behind this war) but I believe Iraq has been incapable of setting up their own gov't for the past how many years b/c countries like ourselves and UK/France have not given them the chance to. (this dates back to WWI) I do not know the history of Iraq 150% so maybe that statement was a bit out of line... maybe it's the history major coming out in me... but I don't believe keeping hundreds of thousands of men over there is going to do the trick. What's done is done and no matter what we do, things are only going to get worse... ahhhhhh this subject is so damn complicated

[drfindley]

I think the biggest issue with iraq is we really don't know what is going on. I also think blaming bush, or even saying the whole war was a waste is awful, because even if it was a mistake, I believe bush did the best thing according to his knowledge. I have a friend who is in the Navy, and what we are donig over there means a lot to him.

Now you being the histroy major, you'd probably know better, but wasn't saddam in power for 25 years, (And wasn't that our idea?) I truly hope that Iraq can run them selves and have peace. And if they started having peace in there country, one can only hope that it would set a precedent in the middle eastern nations, even if that meant having a upside-down (according to us) form of democracy

[phunky420]

I like robots!! I like doing the robot!!

So dave is alright by me.

[Eric(h)]

I think people are just pissed because they cant project their views to as many people as Dave can.

whats a flammer?

A type of Dominican pancake. Its very typical to hear "Una orden de churrisos y una flammer, por favor" in Dominican eateries.

[dougseh142]

With that said Kerry is not a flip flopper, and certainly not a "flammer" and if by that you meant flamer so what? Does that mean he's a bed leader? Kerry is able to take a stance and also evaluate it and reconsider. Bush however will stick with one thing and not admit he is wrong, creating more problems.

Just look at the whole war against terror. How can you have a war against and idealogy? By jailing "suspected" terrorists and invading a country and killing innocent civilians and forcing them to remain homeless and without power? Certainly the capture of Saddam was a good thing... even the Democrats agreed on that. The thing is the Patriot Act sucks. We can jail "material witnesses" for life without charging them or letting them see a lawyer. If you kill terrorists, it enrages even more people who fill the void. Terror attacks are worsening in Iraq killing civilians and soldiers who are being ambused without any chance to defend themselves. The war's over, yet we're still there.

In my earlier post when I said ignorant I was stating that many conservatives here are very young, and may not have much experience in the world of politics, I was not implying anyone was stupid.

Dick Cheney is a bad bad man... That needed it's own line.

Liberals dislike Bush for many reasons and that was true before 9/11 and the war in Iraq. His tax cuts benefit the rich hurt the poor, he created jobs, yeah but they're in India, healthcare yadda yadda yadda... anyway my point is its not like Kerry is a horrible man attacking an innocent man (Bush) and Dave is suppprting Kerry for no reason. Dave is an educated adult who can read the newspaper and form his own opinions. About 1/2 the country votes democrat (In the 2000 election Gore had more votes than Bush, Bush just won more states, yet Florida remains a mystery as blacks were turned away at voting locations and many votes were thrown away... Oh and it is Jeb's state...) so people Dave isnt some radical who is one of the few in the country to support Kerry.




:ugh: You are entitled to your own opinion, as is everyone else in this country, but what you said here is absolutely comical. Too many politcal threads already to get back into this, but if you believe that "many conservatives are very young with no experience in the world with politics" and that "blacks were turned away in Florida in 2000 and votes were thrown away" then obviously you are too ignorant to be persuaded otherwise. Absolutely ludicris statements. And also.... please don't try to act intelligent when you say things like "the patriot act 'sucks' and Dick Cheney is a bad bad man." :BANG

Back to the orignal topic of this thread, Dave is entitled to his own opinion, but I wish he, as well as all other entertainers, would keep their opinions to themselves.... simple as that.

[Dancing Ants]

You may not care about this, but he does have his own opinion. You can lose respect for someone for whatever you want, but losing respect for someone who disagrees with your own personal views is sort of a weak argument. He does have his own opinion, and he's supporting it. Maybe he's "spewing rhetoric" because he's supporting what he believes in. I hope that this came across as rational. I disagree that he is a democratic robot, but that's my opinion. If you lose respect for me because of that, well, you are more than entitled to that, but I would hate that a loss of respect is based on a difference in opinions. I hope that sounded reasonable.


it's not the opinions (like I said), it's that whenever they asked him why he liked Kerry, he couldn't give anything except "the future looks bright with Kerry", and the other comment too.

[Haiku Jimi]

Shut up. He is supporting what he believes in, just like you should do for what you believe in. Dont talk bad about someone who does that because 99% of people dont have the balls to say what they believe

Some people that enjoy him for his music may get annoyed with this though.

Of course he has the right to say what he wants...but personally, I like the band for their music, and even moreso because Dave was never TOO open with his political views....or would at least keep his views separated from the band aspect of his life. Now it seems hes using his popularity just to voice his opinion...which again, is good for him, but its not something I want to hear from him. Its not just him, I dont like artists who feel the need to throw their opinion out to the world because they're at a mic more often than you or I. I'd rather have him stop pretending like he's campaigning and start writing better songs than half-effort Rapunzel rip-offs like Joy Ride.

I know this wouldn't happen, but you liek O.A.R. right? Imagine they started handing out Sean Hannity books at their shows and playing concerts in support of Bush? Of course you wouldn't stop listening to them, but it would bother you a little bit that they're bringing this stuff into their music aspect...

[dmblynny]

I think the biggest issue with iraq is we really don't know what is going on. I also think blaming bush, or even saying the whole war was a waste is awful, because even if it was a mistake, I believe bush did the best thing according to his knowledge. I have a friend who is in the Navy, and what we are donig over there means a lot to him.

Now you being the histroy major, you'd probably know better, but wasn't saddam in power for 25 years, (And wasn't that our idea?) I truly hope that Iraq can run them selves and have peace. And if they started having peace in there country, one can only hope that it would set a precedent in the middle eastern nations, even if that meant having a upside-down (according to us) form of democracy

^^^not sure that it was our idea (Saddam in power) but we had to have accepted it(but in many ways what gives us the right to tell countries who to have in power???--- that's what frustrates me)... Lord knows why we suddenly decided to take him down... 9/11 had a major role(UNDERSTANDABLE), but being that there must be so many other dictators who murder innocent people day to day and could very well be a threat to this country, I don't get why we have to lose more soldiers lives day in and day out to these militants who have been fighting for freedom longer than our men have been alive!!!
I too have a friend who served in Iraq as a Marine... and who believes in what we are doing.. so in many ways I don't have a right to criticize... but at the same time I do cause I believe that in the long run this fight is not going to get us anywhere.
Regardless, I hope the same thing you do... but I'm pessemistic in this area so maybe I should just quit while I'm ahead

[dmblynny]

off politics and back to Dave Matthews -- no matter what his opinion I could never lose respect for him just because his music is that damn amazing and he brings so much light to the world rather than darkness... i just love the whole band and hate to see him looked down upon for the way he chooses to use his fame... especially when all he(they)seem to want to do is make the world a better place.. and damn skippy, that's what they do!!!!!

[drfindley]

well dmblynny, perhaps you are closer to the history books than I am, but look that up.. I think we put sadaam in power over some other dude, because we thought we'd work well together, but that is some vague memory from my high school days.

Once again if memory serves me, the real reason why we invaded iraq versus any other dictatorship or genocidical goverment (granted there must be others), is because Sadam directly ignored a request from the UN, and the US. So in order to maintain our integerity, and because we were directly and openly opposed by Iraq, we went to war against them..

I have to agree, it doesn't look hopeful in Iraq, but if only they would stop the extremists from destroying their own police and government, I think we could pull out of there, and with confidence ina new government.

I think this fight did get us somewhere, even if at the very least it means we will not back down, and that we will do what we say we will, then at least we've done that.

[slimbo]

Why support a man who support abuse of small children and lies about WMDs?? His stab actually gave premission for torture... Way to go!

[slimbo]

off politics and back to Dave Matthews -- no matter what his opinion I could never lose respect for him just because his music is that damn amazing and he brings so much light to the world rather than darkness... i just love the whole band and hate to see him looked down upon for the way he chooses to use his fame... especially when all he(they)seem to want to do is make the world a better place.. and damn skippy, that's what they do!!!!!


word up!

http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/images/pearls2004071149418.jpg <-- thats a damn good comic :lol

[phunky420]

Give me a freaken break. Doesn't anyone remember their history? This is no different than the 60's bands using their music to get a message across.
Anyone remember Lennon and Oko?

Bands have been doing this for years. DMB is just huge enough to really make an impact, in our day and age.

[laron384]

why ask or state your opinion if we aren't allowed to state ours or answer your question?
:thumbsup Excellent point.

[DreemingTree41]

Kerry is such a freakin flip flopper.... the man takes a stance on one things than votes against a bill for it... he lies about just about everything.. and his VP is a plaintiff lawyer with no political experience whatsoever... suing doctors, and other people who help people around the nation... I dont think I'd want a liar and a crook running my country.... i was hoping when i was in the backcountry of Colorado... Kerry would have withdrawn or been assassinated

[PerfectStorm]

With that said Kerry is not a flip flopper, and certainly not a "flammer" and if by that you meant flamer so what? Does that mean he's a bed leader? Kerry is able to take a stance and also evaluate it and reconsider.
And then re-evaluate and reconsider...and reconsider....and reconsider....never really making a decision...

[teamhands]

...become a robot for the Democratic party?

I used to not care what he said, because even though on some things i strongly disagreed with him, at least he was giving some *slightly* rational viewpoints. Now he's spewing party rhetoric. Gosh...what a tool. I've lost so much respect for this guy.

On a side note, whatever you're going to say about "don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions", great, but I don't care.


you'd be surprised by the political opinions of most of your favorite musicians. some of them may hold views that are different than yours. :eek:
what i like about dave is that, with the rare exception, he does NOT express his views during a show, which is all about the music.
get over yourself. you're a tool if you think that those who hold opposing views are somehow lesser than you.

oh & btw, please sell your tickets if you've lost sooooo much respect for him

[System]

I think Dave "became a robot" when he realized that Bush is a horrible president and needs to be taken out of office. It happens to be an election year so thats why it started now. People who support Bush are ignorant, not bad, just they don't understand why he's bad.

Don't call me ignorant. I have multiple degrees in engineering, I work for a highly respected engineering firm.

I am also a fan of dave, just because i don't agree with his views I am not going to stop listening to him.

Ignorant people are the ones that are closed minded, follow the crowd, and vote for a candidate because their favorite celebrity told them to. Make up your own mind, read the papers, make your own decision.

Ignorant people, are the ones that jump on anti-bush wagon cause they think he is bad, He isn't the greatest president in history. But right now he is the candidate we need right now, the world is a dangerous place and i need a guy in office that makes up his mind and sticks with it.

[jerenello]

*tongue noises*

[kford]

I think the biggest issue with iraq is we really don't know what is going on. I also think blaming bush, or even saying the whole war was a waste is awful, because even if it was a mistake, I believe bush did the best thing according to his knowledge. I have a friend who is in the Navy, and what we are donig over there means a lot to him.

I agree with you on this point. We don't see what the president sees on his desk everyday. We probably don't want to. About the war in Iraq, who's to say that any of us here would not have made the same decision Bush did about going to war. If people who are supposedly experts in their field tell you thats a picture of a Scud missile with a chemical warhead, what are you going to think and do? Personally I think its great that we can discuss issues like this on a message board. If we were in other countries we would be jailed or shot for talking like this.

But back to the Dave being a robot or not. I think he is entitled to his opinions. I just don't like it when a bunch of celebs back someone which influences the fans to vote. The vote should be about the issues and both sides of every agruement, not oh oh I am going to vote for Kerry because DMB backs him.

[maks155]

daves lyrics have always had a liberal spin, and always will- before, during and after bush.

[pswan]

Sure, Dave is entitled to his own opinion, as is everyone--Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. However, I lose respect when entertainers use their positions as entertainers to endorse political candidates. I think it's fine if DMB songs support certain ideological viewpoints, but I draw the line at overt candidate-endorsing. Honestly, I'd rather not be told by Whoopi Goldberg or Chevy Chase or Dave who to vote for because I have a hard time believing they are the most politically-informed people around. This becomes a real problem because very uninformed people actually believe entertainers when it comes to politics (look at Arnold in Califronia)

Admittedly, they're entitled to use their "clout" to endorse candidates, but I find it a classless move. Let the politicians do their job; let the news media do their job; and entertainers, please do your job and your job only.

[dmblynny]

I agree with you on this point. We don't see what the president sees on his desk everyday. We probably don't want to. About the war in Iraq, who's to say that any of us here would not have made the same decision Bush did about going to war. If people who are supposedly experts in their field tell you thats a picture of a Scud missile with a chemical warhead, what are you going to think and do? Personally I think its great that we can discuss issues like this on a message board. If we were in other countries we would be jailed or shot for talking like this.

But back to the Dave being a robot or not. I think he is entitled to his opinions. I just don't like it when a bunch of celebs back someone which influences the fans to vote. The vote should be about the issues and both sides of every agruement, not oh oh I am going to vote for Kerry because DMB backs him.

I agree so much with all of what you said, right on!... but I also have to say that I believe Bushy took us over there for more than the whole "WOMD issue" and National Security... there are money issues involved that won't come out until after the fact...mainly that I believe involve money which really pisses me off about this conflict. And honestly, I right now have no f'n idea who I'm going to vote for in November.

[dtddmbfan]

1. I think Dave can say what he wants... his views and what he says will not change the way i vote.

2. If you think that you can watch CNN and read the newspaper and watch a movie and magically know the whole story, your wrong. There is alot that goes on that we will never know. I belive we elect officials to take the information they get and make the best decision they can with that information. Alot of people are like parents with kids in sports. They yell and yell and yell even though they have no clue what the whole story is.

[bstorey]

I've always wondered how conservatives balance being fans of DMB's music with opposing their message. Seems to me you'd have to ignore the lyrics and/or not think too deeply about the meaning of some of the songs. When a song like What You Are comes on or something like the Last Stop, what do you do? Do you focus on the music and ignore the criticism in the lyrics? I can't see myself jumping up and down or bopping my head or cheering for someone who advocated things I disagreed with vehemently.

I know that I may like an artist at first, but if their politics/religion clash with my views I dampen my support for them. This is one of the reasons I like DMB so much. Their music is great of course, but their message is even better.

[Dancin 8 GIRL]

...become a robot for the Democratic party?

I used to not care what he said, because even though on some things i strongly disagreed with him, at least he was giving some *slightly* rational viewpoints. Now he's spewing party rhetoric. Gosh...what a tool. I've lost so much respect for this guy.

On a side note, whatever you're going to say about "don't bring the negativity/shut up he can do what he wants/everyone has their opinions", great, but I don't care. If you don't care then why the hell are
you winning about dave helping the democrats take back the country from
satan himself . Do you want to live in poverty where the only kind
of money you will make is minimum wage for the rest of your life.are you
one of those bush fags.because you cant be a true dmb fan, spoutin out
the side of your neck about some bullshit . get your facts straight and stop
caling yourself a dmb fan. dumb ass!!!!

[DMDream]

If you don't care then why the hell are
you winning about dave helping the democrats take back the country from
satan himself . Do you want to live in poverty where the only kind
of money you will make is minimum wage for the rest of your life.are you
one of those bush fags.because you cant be a true dmb fan, spoutin out
the side of your neck about some bullshit . get your facts straight and stop
caling yourself a dmb fan. dumb ass!!!!
:ugh: whoa...

[utdmbfan]

why ask or state your opinion if we aren't allowed to state ours or answer your question?
:thumbsup :thumbsup

[RaynorC]

If you don't care then why the hell are
you winning about dave helping the democrats take back the country from
satan himself . Do you want to live in poverty where the only kind
of money you will make is minimum wage for the rest of your life.are you
one of those bush fags.because you cant be a true dmb fan, spoutin out
the side of your neck about some bullshit . get your facts straight and stop
caling yourself a dmb fan. dumb ass!!!!
Jeez...you're a fuckin' idiot.

[drfindley]

1. I think Dave can say what he wants... his views and what he says will not change the way i vote.

2. If you think that you can watch CNN and read the newspaper and watch a movie and magically know the whole story, your wrong. There is alot that goes on that we will never know. I belive we elect officials to take the information they get and make the best decision they can with that information. Alot of people are like parents with kids in sports. They yell and yell and yell even though they have no clue what the whole story is.

:thumbsup :thumbsup
lol I love this analogy. I think it's right on. I also second that dave definitley has the right to voice his opinion, hopefully not at concerts, because we go for the musc and not the politics. I just don't want to give money to a person I don't endorse. But let's face it, dave's liberal and a democrat, and although I don't agree with him on all counts, I think it's important to be true to yourself. My only problem (if I've mentioned others, forget them) is that they have chosen to endorse a political canadite through their concerts.

[WJM-WJM]

If you don't care then why the hell are
you winning about dave helping the democrats take back the country from
satan himself . Do you want to live in poverty where the only kind
of money you will make is minimum wage for the rest of your life.are you
one of those bush fags.because you cant be a true dmb fan, spoutin out
the side of your neck about some bullshit . get your facts straight and stop
caling yourself a dmb fan. dumb ass!!!!

Everyone: No matter what your party affiliation is or who you're voting for or what you think of Dave's politics, you must agree with me that this is one of the worst posts ever.

[drfindley]

Everyone: No matter what your party affiliation is or who you're voting for or what you think of Dave's politics, you must agree with me that this is one of the worst posts ever.
:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup
This post deserves the goat :goat political persuasion doth not a DMB fan unmake!

[2StepintoCrash]

Wow, I can't believe this thread hasn't been closed. Also, who cares that Dave Matthews supports John Kerry. I agree with him big time, but it's his opinion...he's entitled to choose whomever he feels fit to run our country. That's the beauty of our country....we can say and choose as we please. I give Dave a lot of respect for being so vocal about his support for John Kerry.

[2SteppingInVA]

I guess everyone has their own opinion, just all of those liberal fuck's is wrong. If Dave wants to support that fucking piece of shit flip-flopper, he can do what he wants. I just hate that it he uses his stage to voice that. I hate all the Vote for Change and all that shit. Keep your fucked up candidate to yourself. Don't make all the fans listen to that shit.

[TMoore4075]

I only read a few responses but I am just gonna say one thing. If I go out on the street and start saying stuff pro John Kerry and anti Bush and say I want to raise money and all the money I raise is going to the democratic party because I want to do that because I believe in that and want different leadership does that make me a robot? It would just be me standing up for what I believe in. Dave believes in this and good for him for standing up for what he believes in. He has the power to raise a lot more money then I could for a cause I believe in. Just because hes a celebrity he shouldnt go out and raise money for something he believes in? Freedom of speech is for everyone. there is no clause in it that says if you are a celebrity you cant do this. k I'm done.

[Route_2]

Kerry is such a freakin flip flopper.... the man takes a stance on one things than votes against a bill for it... he lies about just about everything.. and his VP is a plaintiff lawyer with no political experience whatsoever... suing doctors, and other people who help people around the nation... I dont think I'd want a liar and a crook running my country.... i was hoping when i was in the backcountry of Colorado... Kerry would have withdrawn or been assassinatedWake up. Where have you been the last four years?

[watchtwrwildcat]

In my earlier post when I said ignorant I was stating that many conservatives here are very young, and may not have much experience in the world of politics
Am I the only person that finds this rather amusing, considering this kid is like, 16?

[bluegirl617]

I guess everyone has their own opinion, just all of those liberal fuck's is wrong. If Dave wants to support that fucking piece of shit flip-flopper, he can do what he wants. I just hate that it he uses his stage to voice that. I hate all the Vote for Change and all that shit. Keep your fucked up candidate to yourself. Don't make all the fans listen to that shit.

You Don't Have To Go. No one is making you do anything.
If you want Dave to keep his opinion to himself then you are a hipocrite for expressing yours.

There may have been very good reasons for going to war as many people said. We might not have access to all the information. Which shows that many people are supporting it on FAITH. This war could also be a desire for money and power. (Our country does have a history of this). We can only make judgements based on the information we have. And It is our right and duty to make a judgement. If the government can not provide us with answers, to our satisfaction (because it is OUR country and we deserve to be satisfied with the answer), then they should not expect our support.
I am not suprised Dave does not support the war. I am not suprised Dave is for Kerry. I am not suprised he is expressing his views.
I am suprised so many people are suprised. I am suprised people have never respected lennon or dylan or any of the musicans now considered ledgends. Did you wish they had just shut up? NO, you probably never corralated the two. You probably belive that things are diffrent now. There not. They are the same. We can not strip him of his voice or we would have to take his guitar away to.
Dave Matthews has given up nothing of his rights in this country or on this planet. We pay him, he gives us product. If we give him more then that, it is not his problem. He was against apartide in South Africa. Should he have just shut up? Why should he shut up now? Because you are listening? Because others listen? Because you love the band? Because you say so? That is not good enought to close some one mouth.
He has been relatively quiet about it. He has been respectful. And he is not forcing us. People know that. They are not stupid. Everyone just tells them they are.

bluegirl617

[watchtwrwildcat]

I've always wondered how conservatives balance being fans of DMB's music with opposing their message. Seems to me you'd have to ignore the lyrics and/or not think too deeply about the meaning of some of the songs. When a song like What You Are comes on or something like the Last Stop, what do you do? Do you focus on the music and ignore the criticism in the lyrics? I can't see myself jumping up and down or bopping my head or cheering for someone who advocated things I disagreed with vehemently.

I know that I may like an artist at first, but if their politics/religion clash with my views I dampen my support for them. This is one of the reasons I like DMB so much. Their music is great of course, but their message is even better.
So should DMB's anti-drug fanbase (and we know there are a few) sit out during Trippin' Billies and Jimi Thing?

There really isn't a DMB song that I have had trouble reconciling with my own personal politics. The writing is so open to interpretation... Regarding What You Are, I've always interpreted it to be about Dave's personal struggle with fame and I have always associated The Last Stop with the Holocaust--neither of which conflict with my belief system. And to be honest, if they did, I would still appreciate the songs just as much as I do now.

In addition, I tend to dislike violence towards women, but I love Eminem's music.:rolleyes:

[m1k3-]

I guess everyone has their own opinion, just all of those liberal fuck's is wrong. If Dave wants to support that fucking piece of shit flip-flopper, he can do what he wants. I just hate that it he uses his stage to voice that. I hate all the Vote for Change and all that shit. Keep your fucked up candidate to yourself. Don't make all the fans listen to that shit.

I tend to agree with most of the stuff above, but I would use different language to express it. The 'iron fist' type attitude that most Republicans have (I am a registered Republican) is what turns a lot of moderates off about the party, IMO.

The problem I have with DMB and all of these other celebs supporting Kerry is that there's no arguing that Kerry's flip flop. The main cause for getting Bush out of office for these liberal celebs is 'the war'. Kerry was for it, then he was was against it, then he was for it, now he's for it still, but he's just against 'the way it's being managed'.

Anyone who can't tell that's some political rhetoric is just plain blind.

Furthermore, the 'this war is about oil' and 'we had no reason for it' stuff is just plain wrong. It seems to me that most of the liberals that are against 'the war' are just against WAR period - consciencious (sp) objectors. There's nothing wrong with that. But I'd say that the following reasons could justify what's been done to most:

We had SOME intelligence (which we now believe was bunk) suggesting Iraq possessed WMD's.

Russia gave us intelligence suggesting that Iraq was conspiring with an outside entity to attack US interests.

Saddam was a ruthless, murderous dictator. Does anyone in their right mind believe that there ever would have been a regime change in that country without bloodshed?

Saddam openly supported terrorists/terrorist acts. He rewarded families of those who suicide bombed Israelis. News broke last week that Saddam was funneling UN Oil for Food money through a company known for laundering money for organizations such as Al Qaeda.

We KNOW Iraq possessed certain chemical agents that could only be used for producing WMD's. There was a story about this last week too. The top weapons inspectors who found this stuff were confident that these chemicals were there solely for producing WMD at a later time.

And should we discuss the fact that Saddam signed a treaty that stated he'd allow weapons inspectors in? How many times did he break that treaty? Someone finally got sick of it and did something about it.

The bottom line is that this world is a much safer place now that Saddam has been removed from power. Can anyone really argue that? Just ask the Kuwaiti's or the Kurds, or any of the other people that Saddam brutalized.

I'm not saying that W is the greatest President ever, in fact, I think he makes our country look downright silly with some of the stuff he says. But having said all of that, I think that his team brings more to the table than Kerry's.

We do not live in the same world that we did on 09/10/2001. There was much second guessing after the attacks of 9/11. Why did this happen? How could this have happened? What could we have done to prevent it? Now they're doing something proactive about terrorism and people have a problem with it. I guess you just can't please all of the people all of the time.

So you think you can't trust W? What makes you think you can trust 'I didn't throw my medals' Kerry? Next thing you know, he'll be arguing the definition of the word 'is' like Clinton. They're all career politicians.

What's Kerry's plan for managing the Iraq situation better? Getting help from other countries? There's no guarantee that would even happen and it certainly doesn't sound like he has a solid plan.

Whatever happened to '9/11.... We will never forget.' ?

I guess people forgot.
-Mike

[Baker1185]

One thing everyone must remember is how liberal the media is, that fact cannot be disputed. What you see and hear is often very biased information, but lots of people don't realize this. I live in Lubbock, Tx, and if you have a Kerry sticker on your car around here people will rip it off within the hour. I dunno, I think a lot of people are going about this all the wrong way. We got people tell other people to "keep their fucked up candidate to themself." I guess this bothers me because you're offended by someone solely because they hold a different stance than you. This country wouldn't be what it was if we didn't have such a diverse population. To say things like this is ingorant to say the least. My girlfriend is a Lutheran, and I'm a baptist, and I have visited her church, and didn't agree with everything her pastor said, so I made a choice. Instead of standing up during the service and calling him out, I simply decided not to go again with her. If some of you feel so strongly about Dave voicing his opinion, then take some action. My entire family is from Texas and are southern baptists, so I need not say who they are voting for. The fact that I'm voting for Kerry though doesn't piss anyone off and certainly doesn't bring about responses like the one I quoted above. The most common response from my dad is, tell me why. We'll debate a little, and then just accept the fact that we have different views. So much hostility that isn't necessary seems to be on these boards. If you have a different opinion, great, more power to ya. I just hope you have researched and can back up your statements. Either way you vote, I just wish more people who have some respect for those who see things differently. Afterall, thats why America has two different major political parties instead of one. Just my thoughts on the matter.....
Peace (whatever that is to you) - Baker

[WJM-WJM]

Am I the only person that finds this rather amusing, considering this kid is like, 16?

He's going to be sixteen and a half really soon though.

[bluegirl617]

I tend to agree with most of the stuff above, but I would use different language to express it. The 'iron fist' type attitude that most Republicans have (I am a registered Republican) is what turns a lot of moderates off about the party, IMO.

The problem I have with DMB and all of these other celebs supporting Kerry is that there's no arguing that Kerry's flip flop. The main cause for getting Bush out of office for these liberal celebs is 'the war'. Kerry was for it, then he was was against it, then he was for it, now he's for it still, but he's just against 'the way it's being managed'.

Anyone who can't tell that's some political rhetoric is just plain blind.

Furthermore, the 'this war is about oil' and 'we had no reason for it' stuff is just plain wrong. It seems to me that most of the liberals that are against 'the war' are just against WAR period - consciencious (sp) objectors. There's nothing wrong with that. But I'd say that the following reasons could justify what's been done to most:

We had SOME intelligence (which we now believe was bunk) suggesting Iraq possessed WMD's.

Russia gave us intelligence suggesting that Iraq was conspiring with an outside entity to attack US interests.

Saddam was a ruthless, murderous dictator. Does anyone in their right mind believe that there ever would have been a regime change in that country without bloodshed?

Saddam openly supported terrorists/terrorist acts. He rewarded families of those who suicide bombed Israelis. News broke last week that Saddam was funneling UN Oil for Food money through a company known for laundering money for organizations such as Al Qaeda.

We KNOW Iraq possessed certain chemical agents that could only be used for producing WMD's. There was a story about this last week too. The top weapons inspectors who found this stuff were confident that these chemicals were there solely for producing WMD at a later time.

And should we discuss the fact that Saddam signed a treaty that stated he'd allow weapons inspectors in? How many times did he break that treaty? Someone finally got sick of it and did something about it.

The bottom line is that this world is a much safer place now that Saddam has been removed from power. Can anyone really argue that? Just ask the Kuwaiti's or the Kurds, or any of the other people that Saddam brutalized.

I'm not saying that W is the greatest President ever, in fact, I think he makes our country look downright silly with some of the stuff he says. But having said all of that, I think that his team brings more to the table than Kerry's.

We do not live in the same world that we did on 09/10/2001. There was much second guessing after the attacks of 9/11. Why did this happen? How could this have happened? What could we have done to prevent it? Now they're doing something proactive about terrorism and people have a problem with it. I guess you just can't please all of the people all of the time.

So you think you can't trust W? What makes you think you can trust 'I didn't throw my medals' Kerry? Next thing you know, he'll be arguing the definition of the word 'is' like Clinton. They're all career politicians.

What's Kerry's plan for managing the Iraq situation better? Getting help from other countries? There's no guarantee that would even happen and it certainly doesn't sound like he has a solid plan.

Whatever happened to '9/11.... We will never forget.' ?

I guess people forgot.
-Mike

Is the world a safer place? Some people can argue that it is not. Some can argue that we have added fuel to the fire.
Some can also argue that there was no reason for this war NOW. That not leting the weapons inspectors in was not ENOUGH justification for a war. For invasion of a country.
Some can argue that this war was not for terrorism.
Some have and most are not celebrities.
Speaking of political rhetoric.

Whatever happened to '9/11.... We will never forget.' ?

I guess people forgot.

Excuse does not equal justification.

bluegirl617

[bullox005]

i respect people with passionate feelings about the upcomming election. it is honorable that dave speaks out. i personally think that kerry has shown too many signs of indescsiveness to be an effective leader, but dave can think what he wants and share those beliefs. nobody, either on the right or the left should bash eachother for differing opinions. neither candidate is particularly appealing as it is. we need to love one another...that is what dave would promote above all else, not bitter arguments and distasteful dislikes. he is not a preacher...he is an outspoken man who has passionate feelings about government, which is a sign of intelligence.

dave quote "i don't wanna hit people over the head with ideas. i write songs a lot to sort of get my head away from all the crap in politics and the ingnorance that prevades it, but i hope i can get more confident so i can be a little more eloquent about that stuff. id like to be able to include my concerns about politics or social concerns in my music, but i never wanna be preachy. i never wanna be like, "look at the bad people, look at them being bad."

he is a respectful man of all opinions...he just voices his

[m1k3-]

Is the world a safer place? Some people can argue that it is not. Some can argue that we have added fuel to the fire.
Some can also argue that there was no reason for this war NOW. That not leting the weapons inspectors in was not ENOUGH justification for a war. For invasion of a country.
Some can argue that this war was not for terrorism.
Some have and most are not celebrities.
Speaking of political rhetoric.

Whatever happened to '9/11.... We will never forget.' ?

I guess people forgot.

Excuse does not equal justification.

bluegirl617


I don't know you, but you seem at least partially educated on this whole subject, so I do respect your opinion.

However, like every other die-hard liberal I've ever rattled my 'list' off to, you chose to counter certain points and completely disregard the others. My only guess is that it's because you simply can't counter some of the hard facts in the list.

Last I checked, 9/11 was the last time any major attack happened on our soil. I feel safer. Several countries are no longer safe havens for terrorists; or at least are less safe for terrorists now... Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.... So I really don't see how you can argue that the world's not at least somewhat better off.

We may not have had the justification NOW? This is a joke right? Should we have waited until Saddam killed more innocent people? How many more people needed to die, what catastrophic, 9/11 calibre event needed to take place in order for this to be ok with you? What was this magical, mythological event that everyone was waiting for?

How is not forgetting the events of 9/11 akin to political rhetoric? The phrase actually means something to some people in this country. Maybe you never saw the pictures of people jumping from more than 90 stories up, just so they wouldn't burn to death. Or maybe you never heard the phone messages some of the people in the towers left for their loved ones minutes before they died. I'm sure the survivors who tell stories of being trapped in the tower full of thick black smoke and the smell of jet fuel think it's rhetoric. Tell the children whose parents died in those buildings and on those planes that 'Never forget' is rhetoric.

When the time came for our country's leaders to vote on going to war, most of the Dems voted 'yes' too. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but was John Kerry not one of them? And this is the answer to Bush? Sorry, but I have to laugh.

Just like the Patriot Act. I hate the Patriot Act. I think it's a joke and an excuse for some to grab more power. Now all of the liberals are speaking out against it. But what happened when it came time to put it to a vote? It passed easily. Even Democrats gave it their nod of approval. Now they're going to bash it left and right and have the audacity to admit that they wouldn't have voted for it had they known about the scope of its contents? You've got to be kidding me. You're going to tell me that you actually voted in favor of something you didn't read?! If that's the case, you should not be holding office, because you can plainly not be trusted with the power you have.

Don't get me wrong. This country definitely could use a change. But it's also definitely not John Kerry. My sincerest hope is that Bush wins the election. I hope for that, because I think it will pave the way for McCain, who is much more moderate and common sense-thinking IMO.
-Mike

[tarheel997]

With that said Kerry is not a flip flopper.

www.kerryoniraq.com (http://www.kerryoniraq.com)

and to liven things up a bit..

http://www.blackfive.net/main/images/bush_20041.jpg

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2631088

[bluegirl617]

I don't know you, but you seem at least partially educated on this whole subject, so I do respect your opinion.

However, like every other die-hard liberal I've ever rattled my 'list' off to, you chose to counter certain points and completely disregard the others. My only guess is that it's because you simply can't counter some of the hard facts in the list.

Last I checked, 9/11 was the last time any major attack happened on our soil. I feel safer. Several countries are no longer safe havens for terrorists; or at least are less safe for terrorists now... Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.... So I really don't see how you can argue that the world's not at least somewhat better off.
We as a country have not had a lot of terrorist attacks even before 9/11. We in the united states will always be safer relative to the rest of the world. You can argue that the world is not better off because of the people who feel justified in hateing us and creating terror.

We may not have had the justification NOW? This is a joke right? Should we have waited until Saddam killed more innocent people? How many more people needed to die, what catastrophic, 9/11 calibre event needed to take place in order for this to be ok with you? What was this magical, mythological event that everyone was waiting for?
The evidence the government produce obvously did not move the UN did it. It was a potental to be a treat. That is what the president said. A treat is the potential to do harm, so Iraq had the potential to potentially do harm. So we invaded them. Is that justified? That was there reasoning, but was it just? Was it right? Even if it was to our benifit does that make any thing we do right?
On top of that if there was something wrong with the UN why are we continuing to enforce the rules? The rules we agreed to before the war.
I can see that fear of even the smallest posiblity of a catastrophic event would make people want to do anything to get Saddam out of power. But that is a fear that others face in there countries daily and we would never allow them to invade there enemies and over take there government.


How is not forgetting the events of 9/11 akin to political rhetoric? The phrase actually means something to some people in this country. Maybe you never saw the pictures of people jumping from more than 90 stories up, just so they wouldn't burn to death. Or maybe you never heard the phone messages some of the people in the towers left for their loved ones minutes before they died. I'm sure the survivors who tell stories of being trapped in the tower full of thick black smoke and the smell of jet fuel think it's rhetoric. Tell the children whose parents died in those buildings and on those planes that 'Never forget' is rhetoric.
How many times have Repubicans mentioned 9/11 when trying to gain support? The Republican National Convention is and example. In the context of this war it has been used to pull heart strings. To get people to think with thier emotions instead of their heads. How much conection is there really between 9/11 and Iraq? The conection has been getting shakier and shakier. As a New Yorker it pisses me off how it is being exploted in ever political discussion as if the very mention of it some how rationalizes everything. And the subtle implication that being for Kerry or even Bush would be welcoming another attack.


When the time came for our country's leaders to vote on going to war, most of the Dems voted 'yes' too. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but was John Kerry not one of them? And this is the answer to Bush? Sorry, but I have to laugh.

Just like the Patriot Act. I hate the Patriot Act. I think it's a joke and an excuse for some to grab more power. Now all of the liberals are speaking out against it. But what happened when it came time to put it to a vote? It passed easily. Even Democrats gave it their nod of approval. Now they're going to bash it left and right and have the audacity to admit that they wouldn't have voted for it had they known about the scope of its contents? You've got to be kidding me. You're going to tell me that you actually voted in favor of something you didn't read?! If that's the case, you should not be holding office, because you can plainly not be trusted with the power you have.

Don't get me wrong. This country definitely could use a change. But it's also definitely not John Kerry. My sincerest hope is that Bush wins the election. I hope for that, because I think it will pave the way for McCain, who is much more moderate and common sense-thinking IMO.
-Mike
The political system in this country is horrible. Our polititions don't read many of the bills that go through. Many of them did vote for a war I did not agree with. But I have a choice: vote the person who lead all of this or some one who at least is looking to make some changes and generally espouses many of the belifes that I care about.
Kerry is not going to be great. I think that we will need to have one more election before we get some one worthy of the presidencey.
But all the complants about Kerry not having specific plans and being wishy-washy, that is what all politicians do during elections. He could handle himself alot better especial going against an incombent war president but his offenses are not unusual.
I believe Kerry is a step up. In more ways then the war. Environment, not baning gay marriage, abortion, support of real science, taxes, ect...

bluegirl617

[dmbfan524]

he is not backing democrats...he is backing change...which this country badly needs and wont get with the moron in office now

[m1k3-]

We as a country have not had a lot of terrorist attacks even before 9/11. We in the united states will always be safer relative to the rest of the world. You can argue that the world is not better off because of the people who feel justified in hateing us and creating terror.


That may be true, but Al Qaeda and others have threatened more attacks on our soil since 9/11. That hasn't happened. I'm sure it will eventually happen, but I'm inclined to believe that the terrorists that have been killed or arrested have at least something to do with this fact.


The evidence the government produce obvously did not move the UN did it. It was a potental to be a treat. That is what the president said. A treat is the potential to do harm, so Iraq had the potential to potentially do harm. So we invaded them. Is that justified? That was there reasoning, but was it just? Was it right? Even if it was to our benifit does that make any thing we do right?
On top of that if there was something wrong with the UN why are we continuing to enforce the rules? The rules we agreed to before the war.
I can see that fear of even the smallest posiblity of a catastrophic event would make people want to do anything to get Saddam out of power. But that is a fear that others face in there countries daily and we would never allow them to invade there enemies and over take there government.


We did not go this alone. We had help from like 40 other countries. Also, your argument is that if everything's broken, why try to fix any of it? No, you have to start somewhere. We started with Afghanistan and Iraq. There are some others I'd personally like to see on the list next, but who knows what'll happen next. Does the fact that many of the Iraqi's have thanked our country and our soldiers for freeing them from tyranny not sway you at all? Was it justified? I guess only God can answer that.


How many times have Repubicans mentioned 9/11 when trying to gain support? The Republican National Convention is and example. In the context of this war it has been used to pull heart strings. To get people to think with thier emotions instead of their heads. How much conection is there really between 9/11 and Iraq? The conection has been getting shakier and shakier. As a New Yorker it pisses me off how it is being exploted in ever political discussion as if the very mention of it some how rationalizes everything. And the subtle implication that being for Kerry or even Bush would be welcoming another attack.


You might be right on the above, but one fact remains.... Republicans were in power at the time of the events and they led/are leading us through it. I don't think they're exploiting it. They're merely using it as an example to show the world that they have the ability to lead. Something John Kerry cannot prove. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq? There isn't one directly as far as I know and I don't think that the President has ever stated there was one. But Iraq did have undeniable ties to several terrorist related entities. This has been reported in almost every media outlet from "Left" to "Right". From Saddam's goons meeting with Al Qaeda figures in Germany BEFORE 9/11 to the Iraq Oil for Food scandal to the Intelligence the Russians provided to us BEFORE the war, to Saddam rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers' families (encouraging more to suicide bomb). The list goes on and on, and to deny such things only means you refuse to accept facts.

The political system in this country is horrible. Our polititions don't read many of the bills that go through. Many of them did vote for a war I did not agree with. But I have a choice: vote the person who lead all of this or some one who at least is looking to make some changes and generally espouses many of the belifes that I care about.
Kerry is not going to be great. I think that we will need to have one more election before we get some one worthy of the presidencey.
But all the complants about Kerry not having specific plans and being wishy-washy, that is what all politicians do during elections. He could handle himself alot better especial going against an incombent war president but his offenses are not unusual.
I believe Kerry is a step up. In more ways then the war. Environment, not baning gay marriage, abortion, support of real science, taxes, ect...

bluegirl617

He may be a step up or not. That's certainly debatable. But you obviously didn't check the "Kerry on Iraq" site posted above. Sure, I know it's paid for by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but they sure as hell didn't put any of those words in Kerry's mouth. Futhermore, I don't see how any of the stuff could have been taken out of context either. They clearly display Kerry's flip flopping on the Iraq issue.

So you say now that you stand with Kerry on these other issues. But what will you do when he flip flops on those issues too? Top that off with the fact that he doesn't even show up to Senate floor votes, and I'll stick with the guy we got.
-Mike

[m1k3-]

he is not backing democrats...he is backing change...which this country badly needs and wont get with the moron in office now

I can certainly respect that. But the grass is not always greener....
-Mike

[marco j]

Why are we ignorant? Just wondering

I honestly dont care why W went into Iraq. Unfinished business whatever, it was for a greater good. Yeah we didnt find a plethera of WMDs but we got rid of a tyrant that has commited genicide and is evil.

Kerry is a flip flopper and a flammer.

Remember this there are more conservatives out there than liberals. Sad to see that hollywood is trying to influence the independent. They are probably liberal so they will get paid and get ratings


i can't believe you said this....I honestly dont care why W went into Iraq!!!

WOW talk about dumb statements.

now the country is headed straight for civil war unless we level a few towns :rolleyes:

this is exactly why people are afraid of people who think the way you do.
you talk about a greater good but don't think about the consequences of your actions or even try to PLAN YOUR ROAD MAP FORSUPPOSED GREATER GOOD. just fucking pathetic.

[OCMarsh]

DIE THREAD DIE
me>>:twak <<thread

DIE THREAD DIE

me>>:twak <<thread

DIE THREAD DIE

me>>:twak <<thread

DIE THREAD DIE

[jdub104]

simply put, our country is in serious trouble, and will be in deeper trouble with four more years of that idiot. Here is how fucked the u.s. is: http://www.bushandcheneysuck.com/George-W.-Bush-Resume.htm

[bullox005]

do you people not get it. you all look like fools arguing about candidates. the fact of the matter is, both candadates suck...hard. the liberal media skews facts and flat out lies about what bush has done. the conservatives have been sketchy and inconsistant of foreign policy. kerry doesn't have a stance on anything. bush is too stubborn to change when he has made a mistake.

don't you people understand? this is going nowhere. nobody is right. there are no absoulute truths about either candidate. liberals are not crazy, and conservatives are not hardheaded idiots. we are all members of a community and we should respect and not try to demoralize eachother because of that. the purpose of this website is not to throw out your bullshit (however passionate) opinions on politics. we are here to share our love and admiration for one of the greatest bands of our time and to discuss them. dave can think what he wants, but that isn't going to change the fact that he is THE SHIIIIT.

Love eachother...hate and anger leads to nothing

[OCMarsh]

do you people not get it. you all look like fools arguing about candidates. the fact of the matter is, both candadates suck...hard.:thumbsup Exactly. We get to choose between dumb and dumber. And I'm not sure who is dumber.

[bluegirl617]

We did not go this alone. We had help from like 40 other countries. Also, your argument is that if everything's broken, why try to fix any of it? No, you have to start somewhere. We started with Afghanistan and Iraq. There are some others I'd personally like to see on the list next, but who knows what'll happen next. Does the fact that many of the Iraqi's have thanked our country and our soldiers for freeing them from tyranny not sway you at all? Was it justified? I guess only God can answer that.

That's not what I ment. What I ment was we were not just because we were bias. We broke the rules we set up for what was deemed to be our benifit. Other countries would not have been alowed to do what we did. Which goes against the princibles of justice.
You could argue that the war was punishment for Saddams past acts. But we have to determine what is in our power and what is our right to invade an autonomos nation to bring him to justice for those actions. Do we have that right? Where would that right come from? I find I hard to argue that we do because he was evil.

You might be right on the above, but one fact remains.... Republicans were in power at the time of the events and they led/are leading us through it. I don't think they're exploiting it. They're merely using it as an example to show the world that they have the ability to lead. Something John Kerry cannot prove. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq? There isn't one directly as far as I know and I don't think that the President has ever stated there was one. But Iraq did have undeniable ties to several terrorist related entities. This has been reported in almost every media outlet from "Left" to "Right". From Saddam's goons meeting with Al Qaeda figures in Germany BEFORE 9/11 to the Iraq Oil for Food scandal to the Intelligence the Russians provided to us BEFORE the war, to Saddam rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers' families (encouraging more to suicide bomb). The list goes on and on, and to deny such things only means you refuse to accept facts.

They don't need that as an example to show the world they can lead. They lead the world regardless. Prior to 9/11 Bush had very little in his favor. Subtract 9/11 and this war and what is he as president. Not much.
9/11 is an emotional issue and they use it. The president did not state a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But why are they always connected in debate? Why did you connect them? It is always used for the support of this war. Don't tell me you statment in you first post was not ment to make others feel guilty. To make others think "this war can prevent another 9/11... lets never forget." Slick of you. ;) Very few people would risk being insensitive and argueing.


He may be a step up or not. That's certainly debatable. But you obviously didn't check the "Kerry on Iraq" site posted above. Sure, I know it's paid for by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but they sure as hell didn't put any of those words in Kerry's mouth. Futhermore, I don't see how any of the stuff could have been taken out of context either. They clearly display Kerry's flip flopping on the Iraq issue.
I have no dout that Kerry supported the war. I never said I supported him untill my last post and that is for non-war reasons.

So you say now that you stand with Kerry on these other issues. But what will you do when he flip flops on those issues too? Top that off with the fact that he doesn't even show up to Senate floor votes, and I'll stick with the guy we got.
-Mike
The truth is I tend to be fairly libral and Bush believes almost the exact opposite of everything I believe (not everything, some things I agree with, but they are things that most people would). Unless Kerry does a 180 on every issue then he is better for me. I know where Bush stands and that is not were I am. Kerry is most likely not standing with Bush on some major issues. I have to go with that possiblity.
Or vote Nader. HaHa.
bluegirl617

[bullox005]

:thumbsup thank u OC. in reading this pointless thread u seem to be one of the few consitstant realists posting comments. im glad that at least somebody understands what im saying.

Mccain would be the best choice for president, but we can't have him, so untill we can arguing about two HIIIIGHLY unimpressive candadates does no good. Insulting supporters of either side of the issue definatly does no good, and goes against what dave matthews (without whom this website wouldn't exist) would do. if you are going to claim to be a dave fan, be a fan for the amazing talent that he is. act in the spirit of the band which is love.

[pedrosanchez]

I would vote for McCain

[noleafclver00]

maybe dave ACTUALLY is a robot, and thats why he's so damn good :D

[StirStick]

I've always wondered how conservatives balance being fans of DMB's music with opposing their message. Seems to me you'd have to ignore the lyrics and/or not think too deeply about the meaning of some of the songs. When a song like What You Are comes on or something like the Last Stop, what do you do? Do you focus on the music and ignore the criticism in the lyrics? I can't see myself jumping up and down or bopping my head or cheering for someone who advocated things I disagreed with vehemently.

I know that I may like an artist at first, but if their politics/religion clash with my views I dampen my support for them. This is one of the reasons I like DMB so much. Their music is great of course, but their message is even better.I agree...It's not like *SURPRISE*, Dave Matthews is a liberal guy. I mean, c'mon, the man drives an old Subaru (Subarus is the new Volvo), extols the virtues of smoking pot, and writes songs like DDTW or Seek Up (a liberal manifesto if there ever was one). You were expecting him to vote Republican (quietly, so you don't have to lose respect for him because of his politics)?

Of course, many conservatives have obviously overlooked alot of stuff about Bush...like the fact that 15 years ago he was a coke-snorting party boy.

[StirStick]

I guess everyone has their own opinion, just all of those liberal fuck's is wrong. If Dave wants to support that fucking piece of shit flip-flopper, he can do what he wants. I just hate that it he uses his stage to voice that. I hate all the Vote for Change and all that shit. Keep your fucked up candidate to yourself. Don't make all the fans listen to that shit.
Ok, speaking of ROBOTS, where did this FLIP-FLOPPER label come from?

Did you guys think that one up on your own?

[dmbdmbdmbdmb]

The Political Science forum still exists right?

[StirStick]

I hate political discussions, because I always get sucked in...but here goes...


Saddam was a ruthless, murderous dictator. Does anyone in their right mind believe that there ever would have been a regime change in that country without bloodshed?
I don't know that it's not possible. Remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR? The end of the largest systematic oppression of people by multiple dictators history has ever known...all without bloodshed. In any case, why was regime change in Iraq our responsibility? Bush, in the 2000 debates, came out clearly against "nation-building". I consider the war and subsequent actions in Iraq to be a broken campaign promise, if nothing else.

The bottom line is that this world is a much safer place now that Saddam has been removed from power. Can anyone really argue that? Just ask the Kuwaiti's or the Kurds, or any of the other people that Saddam brutalized.
Saddam posed little threat to Kuwaitis or Kurds in 2003. And, YES, it can be argues that the world is less safe because of the war in Iraq. Iraq is in chaos, and has attracted many Islamists from all over the Middle East and Asia. And the Muslim world hates the U.S. even more because of this war. Meanwhile, our military has been distracted from the hunt for Al Qaeda and bin Ladin. That doesn't really make me feel any safer.

We do not live in the same world that we did on 09/10/2001. There was much second guessing after the attacks of 9/11. Why did this happen? How could this have happened? What could we have done to prevent it? Now they're doing something proactive about terrorism and people have a problem with it. I guess you just can't please all of the people all of the time.
9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but let's face it, 3,000 people died that day. Perhaps more significantly, our economy was severely damaged. But how many people die in the U.S. each year from poverty or AIDS? Why hasn't Bush done more to combat these terrible epidemics?

[StirStick]

One thing everyone must remember is how liberal the media is, that fact cannot be disputed.
There have actually been several objective studies of "liberal bias in the media" and it's simply not true.

[StirStick]

We did not go this alone. We had help from like 40 other countries.

Ok, you have to admit this is ridiculous. Have you seen the list of countries? Palau? Where the fuck is Palau? Afghanistan? Please, they're a US puppet. Poland? I don't see any Polish people dying in Iraq. Our primary partners in this war were the UK and Australia.

You might be right on the above, but one fact remains.... Republicans were in power at the time of the events and they led/are leading us through it. I don't think they're exploiting it. They're merely using it as an example to show the world that they have the ability to lead. Something John Kerry cannot prove. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq? There isn't one directly as far as I know and I don't think that the President has ever stated there was one.
You're right. He only INFERRED it. It was Dick Cheney who came out and said it.

He may be a step up or not. That's certainly debatable. But you obviously didn't check the "Kerry on Iraq" site posted above. Sure, I know it's paid for by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, but they sure as hell didn't put any of those words in Kerry's mouth. Futhermore, I don't see how any of the stuff could have been taken out of context either. They clearly display Kerry's flip flopping on the Iraq issue.
I respect Kerry's "flip-flop" on the Iraq issue. I flip-flopped myself. In March of 2003, I honestly struggled with my pacifist roots and the impending war, and decided, based on what our government was telling us, that Saddam was a threat to our safety. Knowing what I know now, I don't think the war was such a hot idea.

Kerry is a man who can change his mind, and admit he was wrong. Bush has not shown the capacity to do that.

[cparez83]

I have alot of respect for Dave for coming out and supporting his opinion. He must have known that some of his fans were spoiled yuppies...I mean Republicans. :monkey

[m1k3-]

That's not what I ment. What I ment was we were not just because we were bias. We broke the rules we set up for what was deemed to be our benifit. Other countries would not have been alowed to do what we did. Which goes against the princibles of justice.
You could argue that the war was punishment for Saddams past acts. But we have to determine what is in our power and what is our right to invade an autonomos nation to bring him to justice for those actions. Do we have that right? Where would that right come from? I find I hard to argue that we do because he was evil.


I guess we undermined the U.N. Big deal. The U.N. has proven to be mostly useless anyway. That organization proved time and time again to be Saddam's plaything. Again, why don't you just admit that you're a concsiencious objector? It seems obvious to me that you are. I listed reason after reason after reason for invading Iraq. Sure, any one of those reasons alone may not be enough to justify a hostile invasion, but add it all up and that's why OVER 50% - a majority of Americans believe we did the right thing. If killing innocent people for absolutely no reason (for almost 3 entire decades) isn't enough justification for you to remove someone from power, then what is?


They don't need that as an example to show the world they can lead. They lead the world regardless. Prior to 9/11 Bush had very little in his favor. Subtract 9/11 and this war and what is he as president. Not much.
9/11 is an emotional issue and they use it. The president did not state a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But why are they always connected in debate? Why did you connect them? It is always used for the support of this war. Don't tell me you statment in you first post was not ment to make others feel guilty. To make others think "this war can prevent another 9/11... lets never forget." Slick of you. ;) Very few people would risk being insensitive and argueing.


Fine.... I'll concede the fact that I used images and memories from 9/11 only to further my own political agenda. However, if I concede this fact, you must do the same with John Kerry. That's right.... Look up the 'Jersey Girls'. :) It wouldn't really be fair to judge Kerry on a different scale than Bush would it? How is anything that the Republicans have done regarding 9/11 and their campaign any different than Kerry parading these women around? Sorry, but this one's a wash at best. At least Bush can add the fact that he led the country through this thing on his resume; something that anyone would be proud to take credit for.


I have no dout that Kerry supported the war. I never said I supported him untill my last post and that is for non-war reasons.

The truth is I tend to be fairly libral and Bush believes almost the exact opposite of everything I believe (not everything, some things I agree with, but they are things that most people would). Unless Kerry does a 180 on every issue then he is better for me. I know where Bush stands and that is not were I am. Kerry is most likely not standing with Bush on some major issues. I have to go with that possiblity.
Or vote Nader. HaHa.
bluegirl617

Speaking of Nader, why are Kerry's cronies using Gestapo-like tactics in so many states to keep him off the ballot? What are they afraid of? :)

I'm sorry, but as dumb as the current President makes us look sometimes, I think he can be trusted a lot more than Kerry. Does his flip flopping on Iraq not concern you whatsoever? Don't you think that if he's capable of doing this on the CENTERPIECE issue of the election, he can do it on other issues as well? It speaks directly of his character.
-Mike

[StirStick]

I guess we undermined the U.N. Big deal. The U.N. has proven to be mostly useless anyway.
So we undermined the U.N. to enforce a U.N. resolution? That makes no sense. Here's the problem with ignoring the U.N.: it gives every other nation in the world a really good excuse to ignore it as well. Why should Kim Jung Il play by U.N. rules? We sure don't.

Speaking of Nader, why are Kerry's cronies using Gestapo-like tactics in so many states to keep him off the ballot? What are they afraid of? :)
Probably because they know he'll syphon off votes from Kerry, not Bush. That's politics, buddy, and someone who's registered with the party of Richard Nixon and Karl Rove should be careful before they go tossing around the phrase "Gestapo-like tactics".

I'm sorry, but as dumb as the current President makes us look sometimes, I think he can be trusted a lot more than Kerry. Does his flip flopping on Iraq not concern you whatsoever? Don't you think that if he's capable of doing this on the CENTERPIECE issue of the election, he can do it on other issues as well? It speaks directly of his character.
-Mike
Again, I'd rather have a president who is strong enough in character to re-examine issues over and over, admit mistakes, and work to correct them, than a president who adamantly refuses to express any regret or admit any mistakes.

[mihighdavehead]

Again, I'd rather have a president who is strong enough in character to re-examine issues over and over, admit mistakes, and work to correct them, than a president who adamantly refuses to express any regret or admit any mistakes.
:thumbsup

:monkey

[m1k3-]

So now you get to decide which countries are 'important' and which aren't too? But that's cool because the countries that are most against us in this thing like Germany, France, and Russia have proven over history that they can do no wrong and are always looking out for others' best interests right?

You're right. He only INFERRED it. It was Dick Cheney who came out and said it.


Saddam's Iraq has been connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in so many ways it's ridiculous. We may not have caught them while their hand was in the cookie jar, but they've got crumbs all over their hands and their mouth is full. Didn't a few of the 9/11 pilots attend terrorist training camps in Iraq?


I respect Kerry's "flip-flop" on the Iraq issue. I flip-flopped myself. In March of 2003, I honestly struggled with my pacifist roots and the impending war, and decided, based on what our government was telling us, that Saddam was a threat to our safety. Knowing what I know now, I don't think the war was such a hot idea.

Kerry is a man who can change his mind, and admit he was wrong. Bush has not shown the capacity to do that.

Yes, it's definitely good that he can admit when he wrong.... But when did he? Seriously dude, it's a joke. Weapons inspectors have found materials over there that they believe were there solely for the purpose of pursuing a weapons program. There was the one bomb that blew up that had Ricin in it (but hey, I'm sure it was the ONLY one right?). We know they have shipped weapons to countries like Syria in the past. Are you honestly going to tell me this doesn't bother you or shouldn't play a role in this whole thing?

Look man, I'm generally a pacifist too. But the bottom line is that a lot of people died on 9/11. That could've been anyone in this country on that day. On that day, the terrorists and their allies changed the rules... they dropped their gloves and now we're dealing with it accordingly.

After 9/11 the President said that not only were we going to go after the terrorists, but the countries that support them as well. I think most would agree that Iraq would qualify as one of these countries. Read my previous posts.... We have much evidence that Iraq is involved in terrorist acts.
-Mike

p.s. To anyone who thinks I'm completely right-wing, I'm really not. I'm a 'legalize it' person, so that should hint to you that I'm quite liberal on a lot of other issues. However, I do believe that our President's first priority should be to protect us, and I believe that's what is being done.

[brydro]

You people take things way to seriously...enough with the political threads already...He's doing the shows..he supports Kerry...so what...its his decision, just as its ur decision to not back Kerry, or to disagree...

[StirStick]

So now you get to decide which countries are 'important' and which aren't too? But that's cool because the countries that are most against us in this thing like Germany, France, and Russia have proven over history that they can do no wrong and are always looking out for others' best interests right?
When it comes to a war, the only countries that matter are the ones with militaries. Palau is hardly a military superpower. Nor are they a rich country.

Saddam's Iraq has been connected to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in so many ways it's ridiculous. We may not have caught them while their hand was in the cookie jar, but they've got crumbs all over their hands and their mouth is full.
There is no evidence of this. There is evidence that Saddam reached out to Osama a couple times, but Osama couldn't stomach Saddam. Osama actually HATED Saddam, because of his secularity.

Didn't a few of the 9/11 pilots attend terrorist training camps in Iraq?
No.

Yes, it's definitely good that he can admit when he wrong.... But when did he? Seriously dude, it's a joke. Weapons inspectors have found materials over there that they believe were there solely for the purpose of pursuing a weapons program.
Yes, true. However, the inspectors believed that a policy of containment was working, and didn't support the invasion.

Look, I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a bad dictator, I'm not saying that he didn't have any WMD (but then again, so do we), and I'm not saying that he didn't at least TRY to team up with Al Qaeda to fight the U.S. All those things seem to be true, based on the evidence I've seen.

We have to ask ourselves though:

DID THIS WAR MAKE US SAFER OR LESS SAFE?

Upon examining the situation in Iraq today, I think that this war has made us less safe. We've pissed off the Muslim world, Iraq is a free-for-all for Islamist terrorists, and Iraq's alleged WMDs may well have ended up in Syria and/or Iran. Not to mention, there are many in the military and in our government, in both parties, who believe that Iraq is/was a major distraction from our fight against Al Qaeda.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe that this war should not have been fought...I honestly still struggle with that one. But it seems obvious that this war, and the post-war planning was bungled.

[m1k3-]

When it comes to a war, the only countries that matter are the ones with militaries. Palau is hardly a military superpower. Nor are they a rich country.


So obviously they're insignificant?


There is no evidence of this. There is evidence that Saddam reached out to Osama a couple times, but Osama couldn't stomach Saddam. Osama actually HATED Saddam, because of his secularity.


You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97063%2C00.html
http://www.geocities.com/saddam_al_qaeda_connection/index.html
^ plenty of links in the above to keep you busy for a while if you care to read.
The site may or may not be reputable, but what cannot be refuted are the links to various stories by virtually every news source on the 'net from CNN to Foxnews.


Yes, true. However, the inspectors believed that a policy of containment was working, and didn't support the invasion.

Look, I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a bad dictator, I'm not saying that he didn't have any WMD (but then again, so do we), and I'm not saying that he didn't at least TRY to team up with Al Qaeda to fight the U.S. All those things seem to be true, based on the evidence I've seen.


First, part of your statement here appears to be in direct conflict with what you said above regarding the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Secondly, we do have WMD's, this is true. And I think we've done a pretty good job proving that we can be trusted with them. We've never tried to occupy Canada or Mexico like Iraq did Kuwait.


We have to ask ourselves though:

DID THIS WAR MAKE US SAFER OR LESS SAFE?

Upon examining the situation in Iraq today, I think that this war has made us less safe. We've pissed off the Muslim world, Iraq is a free-for-all for Islamist terrorists, and Iraq's alleged WMDs may well have ended up in Syria and/or Iran. Not to mention, there are many in the military and in our government, in both parties, who believe that Iraq is/was a major distraction from our fight against Al Qaeda.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe that this war should not have been fought...I honestly still struggle with that one. But it seems obvious that this war, and the post-war planning was bungled.


A free-for-all for Islamic terrorists? Do you realize how ill-informed that statement is? There are like 15 provinces in Iraq. About 3 of them have problem areas. That's like saying "California is a free-for-all for gang violence" because of what happens in East Los Angeles. Seriously.... there are probably a few thousand insurgents in Iraq. Dude, the country has a population of like 25 million. A few thousand is a very small percentage of that number. On top of that, most of the bad guys aren't even Iraqi's - they're from other countries.

So if asked if the postwar planning could've been better, I would say 'absolutely'. But at the same time, who could've predicted (before the war) that these animals would sneak into the country to stump the progress of their Arab brothers and sisters at such a critical time? It's not like there's a reference manual for these sorts of things. You just have to play it by ear. I mean holy f*****g s**t.... they're trying to rebuild a country. It's barely been a damn year and people are disappointed that it's not over yet? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Saddam's been ousted, the country is under the control of their own new government and they're about to have their own elections.... Does no one see this as at least small progress?
-Mike

[bluegirl617]

I guess we undermined the U.N. Big deal. The U.N. has proven to be mostly useless anyway. That organization proved time and time again to be Saddam's plaything. Again, why don't you just admit that you're a concsiencious objector? It seems obvious to me that you are. I listed reason after reason after reason for invading Iraq. Sure, any one of those reasons alone may not be enough to justify a hostile invasion, but add it all up and that's why OVER 50% - a majority of Americans believe we did the right thing. If killing innocent people for absolutely no reason (for almost 3 entire decades) isn't enough justification for you to remove someone from power, then what is?
It is a big deal because we expect everyone to follow the UN when we do not. It is hypocritical. We broke the rules not because they were faulty (or we would not enforce them for other counties) but because it was convenint and we could get away with it. Is that right?



Fine.... I'll concede the fact that I used images and memories from 9/11 only to further my own political agenda. However, if I concede this fact, you must do the same with John Kerry. That's right.... Look up the 'Jersey Girls'. :) It wouldn't really be fair to judge Kerry on a different scale than Bush would it? How is anything that the Republicans have done regarding 9/11 and their campaign any different than Kerry parading these women around? Sorry, but this one's a wash at best. At least Bush can add the fact that he led the country through this thing on his resume; something that anyone would be proud to take credit for.
Mayor Giuliani even said that leading after the 9/11 attacks was the eazyest time he had as mayor. There are very few things you screw up. You have to be confident and comforting.
With regard to Kerry of course he explotes what he can and of course it is wrong. My argument was that the republicans have turned 9/11 in to political rhetoric.That is all.



Speaking of Nader, why are Kerry's cronies using Gestapo-like tactics in so many states to keep him off the ballot? What are they afraid of? :)
Because Kerry is being a dick and wants to win the election. :D The same reason Bush opposed a recount.

I'm sorry, but as dumb as the current President makes us look sometimes, I think he can be trusted a lot more than Kerry. Does his flip flopping on Iraq not concern you whatsoever? Don't you think that if he's capable of doing this on the CENTERPIECE issue of the election, he can do it on other issues as well? It speaks directly of his character.
-Mike
This is an argument that cannot be fought because it is about what issues you think are important and whether they are important enough to take a chance with someone else. I think they are. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for some one who I KNOW will go against what I believe. I am willing to take a chance with Kerry. And if he screws up then I reserve my right to bitch. My voting for him will not save him from my condemnation.
bluegirl617

[m1k3-]

You people take things way to seriously...enough with the political threads already...He's doing the shows..he supports Kerry...so what...its his decision, just as its ur decision to not back Kerry, or to disagree...

I honestly don't think any less of Dave for his views. Considering the backlash that other celebrities have experienced as a result of voicing their opinions, I'd have to say that you have to respect the fact that he's got balls.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

And I have to admit.... Considering how controversial (to say the least) this topic is, no one seems to be getting too hot or bent out of shape. No one's been called an idiot or a poopiehead yet. It's just a healthy debate/discussion. I have no hard feelings and would be glad to burn one or drink a beer at a show with anyone involved in this thread, regardless of what side you fall on with this issue. :)
-Mike

[bluegirl617]

You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97063%2C00.html
http://www.geocities.com/saddam_al_...tion/index.html
^ plenty of links in the above to keep you busy for a while if you care to read.
The site may or may not be reputable, but what cannot be refuted are the links to various stories by virtually every news source on the 'net from CNN to Foxnews.


1) Some of the sources are not very solid.
2) Some are information found after the war. You justify something BEFORE you do it not after.
As I said in the first post I made it is the governments job to justify the war to our satisfaction. If they can not they can not expect our support. It is not my job to justify not taking their word for it.

bluegirl617

[m1k3-]

It is a big deal because we expect everyone to follow the UN when we do not. It is hypocritical. We broke the rules not because they were faulty (or we would not enforce them for other counties) but because it was convenint and we could get away with it. Is that right?


We had a difference of opinion with the UN on this matter and we did something about it. If they're so upset about it, they can kick us out. Why haven't they? My guess is because they know we did an ugly job that no one wanted to do, but needed to be done.


Mayor Giuliani even said that leading after the 9/11 attacks was the eazyest time he had as mayor. There are very few things you screw up. You have to be confident and comforting.
With regard to Kerry of course he explotes what he can and of course it is wrong. My argument was that the republicans have turned 9/11 in to political rhetoric.That is all.


Mayor Giuliani was just being modest. He did a lot more than be confident and comforting.... Like when he told the Saudis to take their $10M check and shove it up their asses after what they said about 9/11. That guy probably got about 2 hours of sleep in the months following 9/11, because he was so damn busy.

And my argument was only that if the Republicans are turning 9/11 into political rhetoric, then so are the Dems, so the issue is really a wash. That is all.


Because Kerry is being a dick and wants to win the election. :D The same reason Bush opposed a recount.


LOL. Yes, you're right. But for the record.... Several independent firms performed mock recounts. They used several methods of recounting the votes. Bush won in every recount where a legal method of recounting the votes was used. So really Bush was just trying to save us all time and money by not wanting the recount. :D


This is an argument that cannot be fought because it is about what issues you think are important and whether they are important enough to take a chance with someone else. I think they are. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for some one who I KNOW will go against what I believe. I am willing to take a chance with Kerry. And if he screws up then I reserve my right to bitch. My voting for him will not save him from my condemnation.
bluegirl617

Then I guess I'll just wait until he 180's on an issue that is actually important to you. :) Given his historical pattern of behavior, it would only be a matter of time.
-Mike

[m1k3-]

1) Some of the sources are not very solid.


Which? AP, CNN, or Foxnews, or was it others that weren't solid? There's so many sources there I can't remember them all. Geez.... You act like I pasted a story by Dan Rather or something. :) I think you're reaching on this one.


2) Some are information found after the war. You justify something BEFORE you do it not after.


B.S. Most of this stuff was a matter of public record before the war, because it all happened before the war and even before 9/11, and most of it wasn't secret information. Maybe some of it wasn't in the public eye, but I bet our intelligence community knew about most of it. We knew about Mohammed Atta meeting with Saddam's goons just after 9/11. The issue is that none of us paid attention to this stuff until it was too late.


As I said in the first post I made it is the governments job to justify the war to our satisfaction. If they can not they can not expect our support. It is not my job to justify not taking their word for it.
bluegirl617

Again, most polls show that over 50% approve of what's been done; hence why Bush is leading in pretty much every pre-election poll. So while I do respect your opinion and your point of view, you need to realize that it's a minority opinion.

There is much evidence out there that can justify what's been done. You're just choosing not to hear it. Case and point, you discredited my news sources in the links I pasted previously (considering how fast you replied I'm guessing you didn't even bother to read any of the stories). Yet this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/inv.atta.meetings/

proves false your statement about not having info before the invasion (the date on the story is fricking ONE MONTH EXACTLY after 9/11). It also comes from CNN. As a self described liberal, if you can't trust CNN, who can you trust? I'll bet the shirt on my back it sure as hell ain't Foxnews. :)
-Mike

[StirStick]

So obviously they're insignificant?
When it comes to war, they are insignificant. They haven't committed troops or money. Actually, 34 countries have committed troops. Kazakhstan even sent 25 of their finest.

You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe the facts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97063%2C00.html
http://www.geocities.com/saddam_al_qaeda_connection/index.html
^ plenty of links in the above to keep you busy for a while if you care to read.
The site may or may not be reputable, but what cannot be refuted are the links to various stories by virtually every news source on the 'net from CNN to Foxnews.
From the 9/11 Commission's final report:

"There is evidence from around this time [Spring 1997] that Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the iniative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin...Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of reported strains with the Taliban....But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

The 9/11 Commission was the largest bipartisan examination made of 9/11 and of a possible relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, and they questioned dozens of witnesses at the very highest levels of our governments, and found nothing.

Seriously.... there are probably a few thousand insurgents in Iraq. Dude, the country has a population of like 25 million. A few thousand is a very small percentage of that