Justin Sane op-ed piece picked up across the US

Contributed by Toby_at_Fat. Posted by adam on Thursday, February 17, 2005 at 11:54 AM (EST)

PunkVoter is reporting that an op-ed piece written by Anti-Flag frontman Justin Sane has been picked up by newspapers across the US. You can read his article, titled "Bush ups the ante for putting troops at risk" online at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There's no word yet on how widely distributed the article is, but a quick web search shows it in the online version of the Las Vegas Mercury and IE News among other publications.

In late December PunkVoter, a political action group representing a number of punk bands and labels, restated it's goals and focus following the 2004 US election. More info can be found on their site.

Punk Voter (260 comments)

Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?

Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.

Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not respon sible for them in any way. Seriously.

untilisayso (February 17, 2005)

That would really be a bummer if the article was signed "Justin Sane".

SteveJonesTheRealBones (February 17, 2005)

it is. haha - jones the bones - stevejones8770@yahoo.com

punkindrublic696 (February 17, 2005)

what is his real name?

untilisayso (February 17, 2005)

Good question.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Timberlake. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Dick Gaye. -Chinatown

swingline (February 17, 2005)

jello biafra

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Justin is his real first name, but I'm gonna let you guess the rest. - Kirby

LiberationFreak (February 17, 2005)

its Justin Geaver.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Way to just throw it out there!

Someone (February 18, 2005)

Psuedo musician

Someone (February 17, 2005)

"without the proper gear" haha. just cant take this guy seriously before, and i especially dont want to read the rest after that. bush didnt do that. congress did. democrats did

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Loooooooossssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr!!!!

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Why dont you go join up then dude, go fight and prove him wrong! If he is such a loser go join up!!!It'll be a good experience...DEATH!!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

If it wasn't under Bush's control, how come the supplies suddenly improved when the administration got criticized for not providing adequate supplies? More importantly, if the fault is traceable to Congress, how is it that it wasn't Congressional action but rather executive action that resolved the situation?

Kenjamin (February 17, 2005)

the both houses are controlled by Republicans. What does "democrats did" mean?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

It means that he's a complete moron who will bash democrats when given the chance

thirtyseconds (February 17, 2005)

Has anyone read "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man"? I've barely ever seen a bigger typeface.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

My step dad got it for me for Christmas. It's utter shite. I suppose if you never heard any of the negative things about Moore it may come as a total shocker. But since I try to read the good and the bad (especially since I’ve done papers on Moore as an auteur) none of it is new. It’s all just conservatives padding their own beliefs that Moore is wrong and their right. Let me sum up the book for you: Moore is fat. Moore's movies aren’t always chronologically straight. Moore wasn’t born in Flint. Moore….is still fat. Save yourself the time and buy the O’Riely Factor for Kids. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Save yourself the time and buy the O’Riely Factor for Kids. Learn to spell, fucker

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Bwhaha...Oh lord...Hold on…I'm trying to keep from dying of laughter here. You read that whole thing and the item you decide criticize is that I misspelled “O’Reilly”? Wow, that just shows your clear inability to form a coherent thought or argument. You might as well just tattoo “Retards for Christ” on your forehead now, because at least then people won’t be surprised when you drool on yourself anytime you hear a dissenting opinion. -Dante

Not-To-Regret (February 17, 2005)

Haha, Dante you called him right on that one. You made a great point about the ridiculous anti-michael moore claims of the right wing and all he could do to refute your statement was to pick out a spelling mistake (of a quasi-celebrity's name for that matter!)

Someone (February 17, 2005)

It's they're right, not their, JERK!

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

??? Clarify.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

And Celsius 41 11. Both were total garbage filled with massive distortions and sometime straight lies. There were more than a few time when they would make a claim that Moore said this or that and when you listen to what he actually said it was either missing something or totally out of context. Not to mention one of the 2 (can't recall which one)had mostly do to with John Kerry and not Michael Moore. I was hoping to get something out of these two films but came away with the same feeling I did when I read the "facts" and "truth" about Moore's movies online: a further realization that 90%+ of the right are clueless liars.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Whoops. It's actually Fahrenhype 911, my bad!

Someone (February 19, 2005)

None of his movies had anything to do with Kerry, dumbass, when Moore made 9/11 he was still backing Wesley Clark. Watch them before you comment next time.

untilisayso (February 17, 2005)

Well written and great points, but that name just sticks out too much. By: Nocred Ability

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Clever girl.

Kenjamin (February 17, 2005)

hold on to your butts.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Umm, actually it's pretty poorly written

MarkieStabone (February 17, 2005)

say what you will about anti-flag (i've never been much of a fan) but at least this guy is trying to educate people about what's going on. what the fuck have you done?

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I've just made a sandwich with TWO different types of mayonase. Eat it Anti Flag.

ElVaquero (February 17, 2005)

Damn. I gotta try that.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Are you trying to tell anti-flag to eat your sandwich?

swingline (February 17, 2005)

god i wish i was anti-flag right now

thirtyseconds (February 17, 2005)

The question you really have to ask is "What the fuck have we NOT done?"

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

So.....When should i send you Ted Leo. Wino.

thirtyseconds (February 17, 2005)

Ha ha.... yeah sorry. I wasn't actually saying you should send me it, I was just thanking you. I really don't wanna put you out...

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Ah, its no trouble.

thirtyseconds (February 17, 2005)

Sexy... ta. Ok seeing as I have never ever got a copied CD before, let it be known I will buy it as soon as I have listened to it so much it sticks in my head. Happy now fucker? I'll send you my address. Can you include some naked photos?

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I may include some, i may not. You'll take what you are given.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Your mom.

swingline (February 17, 2005)

Ohhhhhh ssssssnap son!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I haven't made a minor threat reference.

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Hell Yes!!!

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

This is one of those things that will constantly be denied by the right wing, like the draft or the privatization of social security, till they can’t deny it anymore and then it will unveiled as their big plan. Don’t get me wrong I totally believe that troops families should get some benefits if their son/husband/wife/mother/father/brother/sister/daughter dies, but I don’t think it should only be applicable in this “liberation movement”. And what about the people who are already dead (over 1,100 at last count)? Do they get any reward? I’m as critical of Justin Sane as almost anyone I know (I mean the guy is called Justin Sane), but he does raise a good point. However, his lack of technical jargon and no alternate plan seem to leave this article open ended and a target for ridicule. Still, worth the 5 minutes or so to read. -Dante

andrew13 (February 17, 2005)

1462 as of last night moore's site has a counter on it...

Someone (February 17, 2005)

those people already do get money for ones lost in war, bush is mainly suggesting a raise in that money.

dazed (February 17, 2005)

I believe his point is whether or not it would be retroactively given to those already dead. Which seems like the right thing to do and is what probably will be done since any one of those families could go to the media and make the whole thing into bad P.R. for Bush when P.R. is the only reason he's suddenly changed his mind about troop benefits.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Bush said a long time ago that any changes in the benefits would be retroactive.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

1. If the "right" is so desperate to reimpliment the draft why are Democrats the only one who have proposed the draft or voted for it? 2. What the fuck's wrong with privatizing social security? You trust the government with your money?

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

The "Right" supports the draft, it was originally proposed as a statement by democrats because only poor people were enlisting and pushing for the draft was a way to try and get rich kids in the army too. Now that we are running out of reserves the republicans see it as a good way to keep the army stocked with people. And why even have social security if it's privatized? And on top of that the new plan cuts benefits drastically and uses illogical math and scare tactics to make it seem like in 3 years the whole system will collapse if we don’t privatize it. In addition, the Bush administration repeatedly said they weren't going to privatize it and right after the election what do they propose? It's a matter of talking out of both sides of your head. I have a 401 K I may not need Social Security, but someone else is, and instead of using our trillion dollar

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Why have social security privatized, is like asking why you should be allowed to have your whole check.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Statements like that are why Canada has better health care and less violent crime than the US. Congratulations you are the lowest common denominator. -Dante P.S. We'll see how well your whole check comes in when you're in line for welfare or unemployment.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

No, sorry the anology doesn't seem to fit. Please explain? Second, there is no privitization. It's still a government program, run by the Soc Sec Admin. The only difference is that your money goes into an account with YOUR NAME ON IT, rather than a giant "trust fund" that the government can freely borrow from. The only downside is paying for all the liabilities that we have aquired since the 1930's. But why continue getting deeper into a mistake because we fear its too expensive to fix it? If you understand the plan at all, I don't see how you can oppose what he's trying to do atleast on a basic conceptual level.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

The thing is that with the new “individual accounts” what you make determines most of your benefits. Now while benefits will be basically cut across the board, those who make less will have less put into their account and have less come retirement time. Now, social security was never meant as a 401K I understand but it was meant to help people be able to afford a better lifestyle and what not. With the new plan those who don’t make as much wont have as much afterwards. Basically there is no easy answer to the social security issue, but this is certainly not it. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I agree that those making more will be putting more away (and hence more benefit). But, you are making the wrong comparison. The comparison you SHOULD be making is this: How much better off will a minimum wage worker be after 40 years with private accounts? The answer is significantly better off. The math is undesputable, 2-4% of a low wage earners income invested over the course of 40 years is worth WAY more than any money than they would be getting from regular social security. EVEN if we assume a low risk investment profile (avg annual return 5-7%) The math is irrefutable. How could you be opposed to a system that leaves even the poorest better off than they would be under the current system just because people making up to $90,000 a year (the tax cap) benefit more? Let alone the fact that we would finally have a system that allows the lower class to FINAL

show rest of comment

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

I don't know what low risk investment you've been a part of. I understand where you're going, but you're also talking to a guy with almost 100K in the bank and a 5-7% return would be pretty sweet, in recent years I've been lucky if I pull down 3% because the economy is in the shitter (and that's after diversifying into a world market). Anyhow, I just don’t know if you’re math makes sense. I’m pretty sure I gather what you’re saying, but under current situations it takes the average American less than 10 years to take out all that they have put into social security over their life. Now I don’t quite follow how with individual accounts how it’s supposed to work better? And if it does why are they even keeping it at all and not just allowing people to put this money in a 401K (which is mathematically always a great investment)? Now, I’m not a financial wizard so

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Ever heard of the PNAC? Read how they are pleading for a 'draft' without using the word 'draft'. http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.ht m

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Yes, they do. Bush said weeks ago when he first proposed the increase that all of the benefit increases would be retroactive.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Thanks, I was interested in that. Well hey, that's some actual good this president might do. Be better if we didn't need people to die, but at least it's a full plan. Still, not sure how I feel about the whole thing though. -Dante

Someone (February 18, 2005)

It's what the families of the deceased have been asking for. Bush is simply responding to their request and being a responsive leader like he should be. I just don't see how anyone can poke holes in this. It's a perfectly honest gesture to people who have given up so much already.

bogey4 (February 17, 2005)

Maybe this is obvious, but what exactly is "an op-ed piece"?

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Not sure but I think it means “opinion editorial” could be wrong…But it would be the first time…To the banana mobile. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

it's an abbreviation for an "opinion" or "editorial" piece, and it can be either. news = "bush elected" op-ed = "bush's reasoning skills suck hairy man-pole"

Archangel (February 17, 2005)

Heh.

Cos (February 17, 2005)

Yes, it means "opinion/editorial". Unlike what cable TV news might have you think, news reporters are not supposed to have an opinion on issues they report. Those opions are confined to the editorial section --Cos

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Actually, the term "op-ed" deos not stand for opinion editorial contrary to popular belief, but rather opposite editorial because the articles appear on the opposite page to the editorial section. Finally, my university education has paid off!!! Courtney

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Curse you and your fancy "book learning"...Well at least I said I "could be" wrong. So Congrats...what exactly do you study that taught you this little bit of otherwise useless info? -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

"Book learning" is pretty overrated if all I can use it for is correcting punknews readers! I learned that scintillating tidbit in a public relations class. I'm a Communication and Geography double major, which are two of the most useless subjects anyone could take....so obviously I signed up. Thankfully I'm almost done though. Courtney

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Got you beat. Radio, Television Film and theater Major with a minor in humanities. We can start a useless company together. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Excellent! Except my leftist university has sapped all the entreprenuerial spirit out of me. At least radio and tv are actual fields you could go into. The minor in humanities is fantastically useless though. Could be worse, we could be philosophy majors. Courtney

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Not to back talk, but I've been on a job search for two weeks now sending out three resumes a day and I haven't even gotten a reply, believe me RTFV is totally useless. And for all the time I've spend pondering useless crap I might as well be a philosopy major. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Okay, you win the "most useless major" contest, because I've got a job interview tomorrow (though it's for a co-op job). But amen to the pondering useless crap comment. So true.... Courtney

Dante3000 (rich) (February 18, 2005)

Perhaps one day we can unite and creat a colony of useless people...Or simply be useless...Blah...Time for ice cream. -Dante

Someone (February 18, 2005)

You know what major I am? Video Game Design. Yes that really is something you can major in and yes im giving myself 50,000+ debt for absolutely nothing. *sigh* But i chose the course and I will stick with it. I always was a dreamer... -!Greenvandal!

Dante3000 (rich) (February 18, 2005)

That's a great major, hit me up we can design the worlds greatest video game. Not sure what it'd be about, mostly all you need is robots, lazers, guys who move in very quick choppy movements, some sort of card based fighting game and anime. Shit that'd game would sell like crack rock to kids. Do it! -Dante

Cos (February 17, 2005)

Nicely done. Next time though, don't start two paragraphs with "Its no secret that..." It sounds condescending and trite. --Cos (Eneffect)

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Actually that really stands out. Poor writing skills=Your death.

maverick (scott) (February 17, 2005)

I thought your silence=your death. -Scott

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Wrong band Scott. Wrong band.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Dude, it's called parallel structure, and it's used to create rhythm for the reader. And if you're going to slag the writing, maybe you should at least quote correctly: "It's no secret that...". Apostrophes are our friends! Courtney

Someone (February 18, 2005)

There's a difference between parallel structure and repetition. Parallel structure doesn't necessarily mean repeating the exact same line again. It’s "structure" and has more to do with the way the paragraph was put together more so than the actual wording.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

I'm going to put this here since a lot of people will be on here to bash Anti-flag and Punk voter. I just found out Josh Freese (the Vandals and A Perfect Circle) is playing drums for Stings new tour...How strange. -Dante

CorpseOfMyMotivation (February 17, 2005)

Josh Freese is one of the most sought-after studio drummers on this planet, so this doesn't surprise me one bit. He's amazing.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Didn't he drum for Michael Jackson?

CorpseOfMyMotivation (February 17, 2005)

There's a site somewhere with everyone he's ever drummed for in the studio. There are hundreds of singers and bands.

thirtyseconds (February 17, 2005)

Yeah, but his solo stuff is still hilariously bad.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

And yet the Vandals are not. -Chinatown

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Oh I agree he's great, but I never quite pictured Sting for some reason. Maybe it's just that I think Sting is too old and Adult Contemporary, but hell what ever pays the bills. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

performed with: The Vandals Dweezil Zappa Abandonded Pools Viva Death Strip Search Tracy Bonham Puddle Of Mudd Suicidal Tendencies Guns N' Roses Paul Westerberg A Perfect Circle Devo Perry Farell Julian Hatfield Angelica Jamie Blake Warren Fitzgerald Bic Runga Mary Lou Lord David Schiffman Chris Cornell Jason Freese Brooks Wackerman Robert Trujillo Lyle Workman Tom Weir Matt Wallace Sean Slade Paul Q. Kolderie Rusty Anderson Blues Saraceno Boxing Gandhis Meredith Brooks Crumb The John Doe Thing F.Y.P. Juliana Hatfield Hayden Hoku Indigo Girls Infectious Grooves Wayne Kramer Lazlo Bane Dana Legg Stage Band Mary Lou Lord Magnapop Maypole Shawn Mullins Leona Naess Mike Ness New Radicals Palo Alto Poe Possum Dixon Princess Bic Runga Blues Saraceno Slider South Park Stacey Q Thermadore The Wailing Souls The Wilsons Xtra Large Rob Zombie .....and many more

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Fuck, hes still shitty though

Someone (February 17, 2005)

old news

Hubitcherkokov (February 17, 2005)

He played drums on one of the new Motley Crue songs, too.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I like facts better http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fah renheit-911.htm

andrew13 (February 17, 2005)

how about this since i just woke up, i'm hung over, and i don't feel like thinking of something witty... fuck you

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Can't handle that Michael Moore is a bigger fucking liar than the President? Didn't think so.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Oh Micheal Moore is definitely a "bigger" liar than Bush, but Bush lies more often. http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

dazed (February 17, 2005)

And regardless of who lies more (or listens only to sources they think will corroborate their argument more) I think it's safe to say that Bush's decisions and words have far more power than those of a much-detracted filmmaker like Michael Moore. I honestly don't see what the point of parading his mistakes around as some massive example could be besides an obvious strawman analogy to the American left.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Hahhahahahahah! Thanks for the good laugh

_Sexy_Pants_ (February 17, 2005)

why does everybody keep mentioning Micheal Moore? When did he become the official democrat mascot? I think he's an ass

Someone (February 17, 2005)

"Facts" are only worth something when they originate with a legitimate source, and when they're not presented in a biased fashion. The same level of scrutiny that has been applied to Michael Moore's work needs to be applied to those who criticize it.

dazed (February 17, 2005)

Exactly. In addition because Moore is an obviously highly biased and polarizing figure a lot of this stuff was created to discredit Kerry via Moore's strawman and is just more of that useless election propaganda garbage everyone had enough of 3 and a half months ago. The more people listen to this kind of crap the higher the level of government corruption will be since the money for election materials (even those made through front organizations or nonaffiliated groups obviously currying favor) has to come from somewhere...

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I love liberals. What a world you must live in.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

The importance of checking one's facts has nothing to do with party affiliation. Of course, based on the knee-jerk nature of your post, I'm guessing "the thinking" isn't something you do too often. People like you give a bad name to conservatives.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Out of curiosity, have you checked out http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php ?id=16 I don't really watch much of his stuff so I don't know the arguments, but uh...There's a lot in there, check it out. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

anti-flag sucks

Someone (February 17, 2005)

so true

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Or do they? Think about it my children

Someone (February 18, 2005)

I've thought about it and yes, they suck.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

didnt come through on a bunch of points, started off solid, but fell apart and could have been sewn together better at the end c-

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way, but that is a really poor argument. Hussein paid people to be suicide bombers...thats actually different than deciding the cost of a lost family member's life should be higher. Bush is not paying these people to perform suicide tasks. He says that people wont risk their lives for having college paid for, but will run in packs to die so that their family will be taken care of? That doesnt make sense, If I don't want to risk dying... I'm not going to let myself be killed just because you added a zero. I also don't like the way he uses the term martyr, I know it can be meant for any belief, but it is usually a religious term. Not only does that make it seem like he's trying to bill it as a new crusade, but if a person is dying so their family will receive money, they aren't a martyr.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Beleive me it makes a lot of sense. I know people who have signed up for the Army in hopes that it will provide better for their family, even it it means they risk death. I know that some of these people would consider dying if it meant their kid didn't have to grow up dirt poor. You may not consider doing it but other people would. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Dante, you don't know ONE person who signed up for the Army in hopes they'd get killed and their family would get paid. Anyone that signs up for the military to better their life and families, does it with the mindset that they will complete their service with more marketable skills and a better financial position than when they started. They do it for the same reason people go to college, to make a better life. Not to get shot and get a payoff for their family. That assertion is rediculous. This whole connection is a tremendous stretch and it just makes Justin Sane and Punkvoter look even more stupid and underinformed than ever. You can make alot of good assertions about alot bad things that shouldn't be happening right now, but this is completely rediculous.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

First off, thanks for telling me who I know. It’s good you know more about me than I do. Second, I never said I knew someone who was hoping to get killed, I said I knew people who were willing to risk getting killed. I also said I knew people who would be more willing if it meant their kid didn’t have to grow up dirt poor. Perhaps you’re so well off that the concept of poverty is an abstract theory to you, but the fear of being evicted or not being able to feed yourself or, god forbid, your children is a very real and very frightening thing. Why take such a dangerous, and life threatening, job? Everyone who enters Iraq has to face the chance they can get killed, and while some may enter the armed forces with your delusion of becoming more marketable after you leave, most realize that it’s a calculated risk with hopes of a better future. And if you think

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

That's funny because I swear you were trying to compare the increase in the US death benefit with Saddam paying suicide bombers to go kill themselves. Maybe I'm crazy, but I swear you tried to defend that comparison against the original posters rebuttal. And apparently I do know more about you than you do. Because nobody in THIS country joins the Army thinking that its a life or death decision for their family. Because if you were that concerned with death, you'd direct yourself towards the thousands and thousands of non-combat jobs the military has to offer. Active combat troops are a small percentage of the overall force. It takes several men behind the scenes to support each soldier on the line. Just like it takes a whole flight crew to get one fighter jet airborne. You don't have to die in the Army so your kid doesn't grow up poor, you don't even have to RISK

show rest of commentThat's funny because I swear you were trying to compare the increase in the US death benefit with Saddam paying suicide bombers to go kill themselves. Maybe I'm crazy, but I swear you tried to defend that comparison against the original posters rebuttal. And apparently I do know more about you than you do. Because nobody in THIS country joins the Army thinking that its a life or death decision for their family. Because if you were that concerned with death, you'd direct yourself towards the thousands and thousands of non-combat jobs the military has to offer. Active combat troops are a small percentage of the overall force. It takes several men behind the scenes to support each soldier on the line. Just like it takes a whole flight crew to get one fighter jet airborne. You don't have to die in the Army so your kid doesn't grow up poor, you don't even have to RISK death in the Army so your kid doesn't grow up poor. I'm not horribly unloved, I just know more than you do and realize that what you see on TV on CNN isn't the only function a person can have in the military. And don't even bring up that "oh maybe you are just rich and blah blah blah crap". That's a bullshit way to argue your case, it doesn't matter if I have $10 or $10 million, that doesn't invalidate me as a person or my opinions in general. Besides, if I was rich, I'd have alot better things to do than be on this message board. Onto your third paragraph. Your use of hyperbole doesn't make your argument sound any smarter. Who needs to be a CEO after military service for it to be a success? Many military men go onto succesful careers as pilots, police officers, technicians, mechanics, ect. For people who come from nothing, that's a damn good place to end up. Fuck, that'd be a good place for anyone to end up. Last line, I've CONTINUED to make no logical arguments? My last post was my FIRST post dumbass. Not only have you not made any logical arguments yourself, but you the only thing you have to back anything you have said are gross exaggerations of reality. Talk about the pot and the kettle. Good job, here's your donut back. I'm so rich I can afford my own donuts, bling bling!

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

I'm not going to continue this debate (actually it's not even that because people listen in a debate). I see I've wasted my time trying to explain to you the actual plight of people in the military. Apparently in your world it's just one big happy love army where no one serves and no actually dies (despite the fact that there are roughly over 150,000 in Iraq and nearly one percent of that have died). Apparently you must assume that poor unskilled people become commanders and not usually sent into the infantry. You're world is cool, but it's not reality. FOR THE LAST TIME: No one I know entered the army planning to die, but they knew it was a risk. Unless you live in some ideal world (which apparently you do) where only infantry die in war you'd know lots of non-combat units die. But whatever, you're right, I'm wrong. -Dante P.S. Oh lord it's a beautiful day,

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Haha, it goes both ways partner. You haven't listened to a thing I've said. Either that or YOU assume that all low end jobs in the military involve hostile contact. You are claiming that poor people need to be commanders to avoid all risk and that if you don't get a job as a CEO upon discharge your time was not well spent and yet you are claiming that my world is not reality? Come on! FOR THE LAST TIME: There are plenty of units that do not and will not ever see active combat and the outnumber the types of units that will. Do supply clerks at Ft. Bragg ever see enemy fire? No. Do flight crews on aircraft carriers ever see combat? Not in this day and age my friend. If you join the military, there are PLENTY of non-combat, non-hostile, non-risky jobs you can take to avoid any risk of death. That plight of the poor in the military is just not a part

show rest of comment

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Oh I forgot: "My last post was my FIRST post dumbass." How am I supposed to know that? You're all just SOMEONE to me. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

You my friend are ignorant.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

That's nice, please explain

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Whether or not you accept Justin's criticism of Bush policies leading to the war, it's impossible to deny the parallel between the death benefit and the martyr payout. OC

Someone (February 17, 2005)

except the fact that one is paid to die, one is insured if they die.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

True, but what Justin was arguing is that creating a hefty death benefit for predominately underprivileged American soldiers creates a situation where dying loses some of its deterent value - the same effect a martyr benefit has. Though it's hard to imagine American troops putting themselves in martyr-like situations (e.g. bombing a bus full of civilians or intentionally jumping on landmines), the death benefit creates the same effect as a martyr payment in that it encourages people who wouldn't ordinarily endure the threat of death (associated with being either a soldier or a terrorist) to put themselves in a situation where death is a significantly more likely outcome. OC

Someone (February 17, 2005)

It's still a silly comparison though. Being paid to accept a risk is alot different than being paid to go kill yourself. Of course you have to pay people to accept risk! That's why people in all kinds of dangerous and undesireable jobs get paid a premium. You gotta pay people what the job is worth, or no one will show up to do the job. But even then, I don't think this death benefit really has anything to do with recruitment. I really doubt any potential recruit is going to say "Hey! They raised the death benefit, maybe I should take a second look at joining up and shipping out!". Of course not. Bush is doing the right thing by making sure that families that are disrupted by the tragic loss aren't further buried by financial burden caused by the loss of a provider. It's the very least we can do as a country for those who sacrifice so much. Justin San

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

If the death benefit was for all US troops, your suggestion that "Bush is doing the right thing" would make more sense. Also, while I don't have the statistics to determine whether this will have an impact on recruitment, I do know this: $500,000 is one hell of a lot of money. I find it hard to believe that an amount like that wouldn't catch the attention of the economically/educationally disadvantaged. It'd take around 6 years to make that much (after taxes) working on a minum wage salary! With a few exceptions, most of the so-called martyrs have been from the bottom rungs of society as well and there's evidence that some have done it for the money. It's the notion that we're doing a similar thing to Saddam (payout based on only one cause, to the economically disadvantaged) that makes it an apt parallel, and (I think) a troubling political issue.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

agreed

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Maybe he should have picked up an AP stylebook. For all you "I'm too punk for school kids," it's a book put out yearly about the proper way to write articles featured in a newspaper. I know this is an op-ed piece, but he should still write correctly. It gives people one less thing to knock the article for.

ThreeChordsAndTheTruth (February 17, 2005)

So far you're the only one to knock his writing style. He's a punk rocker, nobody expects him to come off like a true journalist. As long as he doesn't spell obvious things wrong, it's okay in my book.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Guest columnists are not journalists--and like all editorial sections, many contributers are not journalists, and rarely write in AP style. So for you "too school for common sense kids," don't try to sound like such condescending assholes. -duped

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Did anyone else think "Alternative Press" when they saw AP? I gotta stop checking this site so much and get a life.

Smashed_Into_Pieces (February 17, 2005)

Hey, Toby_at_Fat any word on the fucking D4 CD?

Toby_at_Fat (February 17, 2005)

Hmmm, well...I bet it's gonna be good? I guess they started practicing again and they tell us they're gonna record in the near future. I would guess early summer? Maybe a record out by September?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

What about Avail? And the Mad Caddies? -Chinatown

CorpseOfMyMotivation (February 17, 2005)

I just saw Avail and they said they were in the studio for a few weeks before they came. They flew out here just to play in Arizona. As for the Mad Caddies, they better make a good album, because Just One More was pretty awful.

Toby_at_Fat (February 17, 2005)

Not sure what's going on with Avail, they've had a bunch of ideas about doing some stuff, but haven't really followed up on it. As for the Caddies, I thought "Just One More" was great. The guys are taking their time with songwriting and I honestly do expect their best record to be their next one. I personally like their reggae stuff the best, and that's why I dig "Just One More" so much...

CorpseOfMyMotivation (February 17, 2005)

Yeah, I can respect that. I'm just not too much into the reggae stuff. I was a huge fan of Rock the Plank. I have two questions myself though. 1. What's up with Propagandhi? 2. Is None More Black still on Fat?

Toby_at_Fat (February 17, 2005)

Geeez man...questions! See, we never want to make promises cuz then everybody gets riled up when shit gets pushed back. At this time Prop isn't done with their record, so we can't set a release date, but if you forced me at gunpoint to predict when it's gonna come out, I would say August or September. But there is a major caveat: the record just isn't done, and until it is you shouldn't expect it. NMB is still on Fat, they're playing a few shows too I believe. Not sure what their recording plans are...boy, I'm good at being vague.

CorpseOfMyMotivation (February 17, 2005)

Hahaha, sorry about all the questions, but I'm a curious guy. Thanks for answering. Take it easy.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

What about the Asskicking Stage? Propagandhi and None More Black make up 40% of it.

sickboi (chris) (February 17, 2005)

Avail should be out this summer.

Medley (February 17, 2005)

D4 better have their record out this summer! By all means, I thought they'd be recording it when they recorded the track for Rock Against Bush and that the album would already be out by now. I can wait, but it better be better than Situationist Comedy. Versus God and Midwestern Songs were both much better albums.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

"Anti-Flag? OMG THIS MAN HATES AMERICA!!" HONEY, GIT ME MA BIBLE!!! -Chinatown

Someone (February 17, 2005)

.......

Someone (February 17, 2005)

gay. as usual.

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Good one. Prick.

swingline (February 17, 2005)

you got served.

Archangel (February 17, 2005)

Remember when Chinatown was funny? ... yeah. Neither do I.

Not-To-Regret (February 17, 2005)

I highly agreed with this statement: "...inner-city kids are struggling and need "better options than gangs or jail." Unfortunately, I do not think the better options Bush has in mind include easy access to higher education or decent-paying jobs. His better options include using these kids as cannon fodder for the neo-con Project for a New American Century." I find it painful to realize that Americans are willing to die so their family can have money. I wouldn't know how the poor feel until I was in their shoes, which I probably never will be... but imagine being so poor that you actually were willing to die or join the army (basically the same thing) for the benefit of your family. These are extreme measures that Justin is talking about... measures which I doubt even the poorest and most ailing americans will take...

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Don't be such a drama queen about it. Nobody joins the military with the mindset that they are going to die. People join the military because its a good opportunity for people with few options. Hell, its a good opportunity for people with lots of options as well. You get a free education, high tech skills, and one hell of a resume item. It's the #1 ticket out of poverty for alot of people, and there is nothing wrong with that. Equating joining the military with a sure death is just as rediculous as Justin's assertion that death benefits are equilivant to suicide bomber payments. In the US military, death and injury are a RISK, just like working on an oil rig, being a lion tamer, or driving on LA highways. With Saddam's bombers, death is a CERTAINTY. There is a massive (but mysteriously not obvious) difference. That and you are overstating the risks associate

show rest of commentDon't be such a drama queen about it. Nobody joins the military with the mindset that they are going to die. People join the military because its a good opportunity for people with few options. Hell, its a good opportunity for people with lots of options as well. You get a free education, high tech skills, and one hell of a resume item. It's the #1 ticket out of poverty for alot of people, and there is nothing wrong with that. Equating joining the military with a sure death is just as rediculous as Justin's assertion that death benefits are equilivant to suicide bomber payments. In the US military, death and injury are a RISK, just like working on an oil rig, being a lion tamer, or driving on LA highways. With Saddam's bombers, death is a CERTAINTY. There is a massive (but mysteriously not obvious) difference. That and you are overstating the risks associated with military service. We've lost roughly 1500 service men and women, and EACH death is tragic with no limition, but that's a very small percentage of the people who are involved in the US Military. I know we have in excess of 200,000 in Iraq right now, not to mention many more hundreds of thousands in Korea, Japan, Germany, and at home. You just can't compare military service with a death sentence. Furthermore, you are feeding a stereotype that just isn't the case anymore. The military isn't just poor people. Not by a longshot. In contrast to Vietnam (where your assertion would be CORRECT), the modern soldier in the US army is educated, motivated, and from all financial and social backgrounds. I have friends in Iraq right now, one of them in particular who is serving with the special forces in high risk combat roles, and he's not poor, nor was this his only option.

sarcasm101 (February 17, 2005)

it can either be the #1 ticket out of poverty or a 1st class ticket to 6 ft under.

Someone (February 19, 2005)

Your retort was very well worded and I respect you for that, but I am a staunch liberal who never thinks war is the answer. Any soldier, by default, is a supporter of the political aspects of it as well, and that is inexcusable. The chance to attain money, fight for "freedom", or to attain education is never a legetimate reason to kill another man, it is primitave and barbaric. A real man solves his disputes without fists. Blood is never the solution, only the stain.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Most of Sane's argument is bullshit and meaningless. He's playing on people's hatred of Hussein to attack Bush. Let's say for the sake of argument he's right - Bush's payout increase is the same as Husseins payments to families of suicide bombers. He still hasn't shown that Bush is wrong for doing this, in fact if Bush didn't raise the payout Sane would be bitching about how Bush doesn't care about the troops. Whether or not Hussein did this is completely irrelevant; its like saying "Saddam was the leader of the country, Bush is the leader of a country, they must be the same." By that sort of logic Justin Sane is the same as Toby Keith because they both make shitty music. P.S. I don't support Bush or the war, but there are better arguments against it than "Hey, they did something similar!"

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Such as?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

How about going to war without a declaration of war from congress? Ok, they don't call it "war" but obviously he has usurped a power originally delegated to congress. How about lowering taxes (which I don't have a problem with) but then increasing (non war-related) spending more than any other president in the last 100 years (and that's adjusting for inflation)? That's just stupid. How about pretending to represent the party of small government and then ramming through the most intrusive piece of legislation in years in the Patriot Act? (I'm assuming by "such as?" you meant other arguments as to why Bush is a shitty president, there's a few and I've got plenty more if you want them)

Someone (February 17, 2005)

The U.S. Congress has only affirmed a declaration of war 5 times in our country's history, so this is nothing new when you think about the dozens of conflicts/"wars" we've had over the years. I agree that it should be a power solely delegated to Congress, but it's been viewed more as a formality than a necessity for years. I still don't agree with Bush/Iraq, but I'm just saying...

sickboi (chris) (February 17, 2005)

Good point.

Toby_at_Fat (February 17, 2005)

"Let's say for the sake of argument he's right - Bush's payout increase is the same as Husseins payments to families of suicide bombers. He still hasn't shown that Bush is wrong for doing this" Your argument is then based upon the premise that Saddam's support of suicide bombers is okay. I think there are some fundamental things we can all agree on to be morally wrong, and it's safe to say that's one of them. Rape, molestation, murder, etc...now don't get me wrong, I'm ALL for a free Palestine, and we don't need to get into this very complex issue, but it's generally agreed upon that suicide bombing is wrong. So if you agree that Bush's reward for dying in combat is similar to Hussein's payouts to "combat martyrs", AND if you agree that encouraging suicide bombers is wrong, then you must concede that what Bush is doing is fucked. Just as fucked as anything that loon H

show rest of comment

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Ok, I see your point. I'm not sure I'd condemn Hussein's support of suicide bombing as harshly as you do, but it obviously isn't right. My point was we should look at what Bush is doing independently of what Hussein did. Anologies do help us do that, so I guess I didn't pick the best example. I think my mistake was in allowing that Sane was right. A suicide bomber is a terrorist because his goal is to incite terror and he attacks civilians. While U.S. soldiers do kill civilians, the government does not (tacitly) condone it. I guess your counter argument would be that there is no legitmate reason for us to be in Iraq in the first place so we are killing (in some sense) innocents. I'm all Ny-Quiled up right now so I'll concede that you won the argument this time (not that I'd necessarily have a comeback in a more sober state either). I guess I'm just tired o

show rest of comment

Toby_at_Fat (February 17, 2005)

Well this is a first, I've actually gotten through to an anonymous poster on punknews. It MUST be the Nyquil. "I'm not sure I'd condemn Hussein's support of suicide bombing as harshly as you do" Do I harshly condemn it? Most people agree that it's morally wrong, but I'm the first to admit that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism; Israel actually got their sovereignty and rid themselves of the Brits through suicide bombing. It's all relative of course, and nations will use anything to justify attacks, but violence begets violence and that's a law of nature. Yes, comparing Bush to Hitler is a bit tired, but Bush also has compared himself to Christ and that is a lot more worrisome.

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Didn't Bush play on peoples hatred of Hussien to invade Iraq? And is now using it to justify the attack after his other arguements fell through? The point he was trying to make was that Bush is wrong for doing this because it is immoral and insane to pay people to die.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Just because Bush did it doesn't make it right. With so many other things to criticize Bush for, why choose this one? Would you like it if Bush said, "Its immoral to pay people to die, so we're not going to give dead soldiers' familes any money"?

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

It's immoral to advertise the army as a suicide pact. "Join the army, die and your family will be looked after" sounds a lot like "Become a suicide bomber, die and your family will be looked after."

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Justin has to make these types of rants. This is what sells his records and his t-shirts in Hot Topic. Nevermind the fact that he gets all his "information" from Michael Moore.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I'm pretty sure Hot Topic jokes are old and they're beyond played out. Dillinger Escape Plan has shirts in Hot Topic, so do the The Clash...get over it. - Kirby

xWileyx (February 17, 2005)

the Clash is dead and while i'm not big on DEP they don't preach non stop

Someone (June 20, 2005)

He has been making his music long before he knew Michael Moore, so i guess this kinda shows ur the kinda person that goes into hot topic and buys the new Terror State and like it.and as soon as ur friend said its stupid u totally ditch it and are totally against it all....Its all just a fad thats been brainwashed into your mind

maverick (scott) (February 17, 2005)

Wait a sec... I thought you gotta die for your government! Now I'm all confused. -Scott

sickboi (chris) (February 17, 2005)

Cotda.

sickboi (chris) (February 17, 2005)

No, No, No, remember.....that's shit!

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I believe the line is: "You gotta die, gotta die, gotta die for your goverment, die for your COUNTRY thats shit." So it's your country thats shit, not dying for it.

sickboi (chris) (February 17, 2005)

Nope, the implication is: "You gotta die, gotta die, gotta die for your goverment, die for your country - thats shit." As in dying for your government AND country is shit.

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I think could be taken either way. And either way it's an awful song.

Benjasaurus (February 17, 2005)

hahahahahahahaha

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Fuck you, you totally destroyed what could've been the funniest conversation on here ever, just imagine 15 posts of people joining in really discussing this song. So fucking funny.

swingline (February 17, 2005)

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I've seen funnier.

Archangel (February 17, 2005)

Link?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Link

xWileyx (February 17, 2005)

I hate you.

Tahoejeff (February 17, 2005)

Here's a classic http://calvin.punknews.org/reviews.php?op=albumreview&id=703

Someone (February 17, 2005)

That's the ONLY song on my iPod. 60gbs of 'Die for your Government.' Yessssss. - Kirby

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Damn. I work for a newspaper, a pretty big one, and I'm amazed that metro papers are running this. It's great, don't get me wrong ... but conservative newspapers like mine (and even the more "liberal" ones) don't stray that far to the left, ever.

Tahoejeff (February 17, 2005)

This is Seattle...

Jon_the_Skafather (February 17, 2005)

"Not long ago, President Bush condemned Saddam Hussein for recruiting Palestinian suicide bombers by offering to pay $25,000 to their families. Now Bush has proposed raising the death benefit for U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq to half a million dollars. When I learned of this proposal, I couldn't help but wonder if such payouts will create American martyrs?" WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT. you sure the seatle post didn't put that up to further discredit leftists as purely moronic conspiracy theorists?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Sounds like a perfectly legitimate comparison to me. Maybe you'd like to explain how the two aren't similar?

Jon_the_Skafather (February 17, 2005)

we aren't raising suicide bombers. we aren't paying people to die, we're paying them to put their lives on the line. there's a big difference between someone being a kamikazi and being a soldier. implying that they're one in the same is just moronic. and what do you suggest? that the families of soldiers just be left with nothing but the flag that was draped on the coffin like it is now? fuck that you heartless, uncaring piece of shit.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Read the article: it says the death benefit ONLY applies to soliders killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We SHOULD provide for the families of soldiers who lose their lives in service but not ONLY those who die in two specific places, or fighting for one particular cause. In that way it's similar to what Saddam did because he didn't offer the same payment to help ALL Arab fighters who died, only those who became so-called martyrs.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

There's some short sighted logic. Bravo son. You've clarified the conditions of reimbursement but never demonstrated the parallellism of suicide bombers and military personnel. Simply because it applies in only this case has nothing to do with whether there's some sort of parallel between the two.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

This comes from another post: "True, but what Justin was arguing is that creating a hefty death benefit for predominately underprivileged American soldiers creates a situation where dying loses some of its deterent value - the same effect a martyr benefit has. Though it's hard to imagine American troops putting themselves in martyr-like situations (e.g. bombing a bus full of civilians or intentionally jumping on landmines), the death benefit creates the same effect as a martyr payment in that it encourages people who wouldn't ordinarily endure the threat of death (associated with being either a soldier or a terrorist) to put themselves in a situation where death is a significantly more likely outcome."

Jon_the_Skafather (February 19, 2005)

that's still fucking stupid because you make a lot more in the army and get a lot more benefits and a more long-term income than if you were to die and just get a quickie lump sum. the reason why it's for afghanistan and iraq is because those are the areas that are currently engaged in heavy battle and have a higher deathrate than say if you're stationed in germany getting payed to keep a city from going bankrupt.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Hello Mrs. Bush

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

Just because Saddam was honest about doesn't mean it's different. Paying people to die is always paying people to die, directly or indirectly.

Jon_the_Skafather (February 17, 2005)

despite what it may seem like, being sent to iraq is not a death sentence and there is a big difference between paying $25,000 for the family provider to blow himself up and setting up some sort of system to help families while they find work for their provider who was killed fighting. there is no honor in the kamikazi.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Seattle PI fucking blows its going out of bussiness probably by the end of this year cus they cant sell any newspapers hahahhahaha

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Just some random thoughts... I think a lot of leftists will be upset if there isn't a draft. Their hatred for Bush has eclipsed their rationality and they wouldn't mind seeing nuclear war as long as their beliefs are justified. No one is "forced" to do anything. If people want to take a calculated risk and join the military, that's their decision. I think there are more people willing to die for "freedom" than so that their family gets some money. People are too fucking polarized over the president. Yeah, he's pretty fucking bad as far as presidents go, but he's closer to Clinton and Carter than Hitler or Stalin. I think its funny to watch you fuckers squirm... do you side with Anti-Flag or Bush? Talk about a rock and a hard place...

CrookedSuperhero (February 17, 2005)

I agree with you about people who compare him to Hitler.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

He’s also closer to Regan and Bush. What’s your point? And yes, no one is forced to join the military, but no one is forced to steal. It’s a reaction to a social situation to which the ramifications are larger than either you or I are able to look at. “Their hatred for Bush has eclipsed their rationality and they wouldn't mind seeing nuclear war as long as their beliefs are justified.” And who exactly wants nuclear war? We certainly haven’t stopped North Korea, and they actually have the fucking things. Please, I think I don’t understand this last statement, clarify. -Dante P.S. Oh, it’s not an Anti-Flag Vs. Bush issue, I’m not big on either one.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

The point is people are overreacting about Bush's idiocy. Some people (not most, some) are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that if he said "I just had an ephiphany - the war in Iraq was a mistake and we should take that money and spend it on universal healthcare" these people would suddenly support the war and be against universal healthcare just so they'd be against Bush.

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

Ah….That’s more of a Democrat thing. Where no matter what the idea they hate it as long as it’s a Republican idea. That fact is usually, and sadly, True. -Dante

IheartAdam (February 17, 2005)

To choose between those two? Well, fuck, Gavin Rossdale has done nothing short of impress more and more with each passing decade. I'm going with Bush. I hope he gives Gwen's toddler cock a tug for me tonight!

Jon_the_Skafather (February 17, 2005)

i totally agree with you. i'm strongly against bush but also strongly against anti-flag's bullshit. i guess that leaves me as a centrist?

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Hey just a side note, we are forced to pay taxes, we are forced to sign the draft contract(unless you have half a million dollars), we are forced to "obey" laws! Just a little somthing to ponder.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I like the music of Anti-Flag but they are in a bigger state of denial than any other political band out there. Don't they know that most of their fanbase is made up of 14-17-year-olds?

Someone (February 17, 2005)

You can say that about any band.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

any band that is popular.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

True

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Guess what u fucker, most of there fans are some of the most devoted fans u will ever see. They arent in it just for the sound of the music like you, they are in it because they can make a difference. It's their passion, its in there soul, its what they love. It give the fans a chance ot speak their minds. So go start ur own little band and have a show, kick out all the kids that are from 14 to seventeen years old and see how many are left.

Benjasaurus (February 17, 2005)

Coming from someone who is about as far left as you can get: Justin Sane and Anti-Flag put out album after album of worthless slogans. They sing about sweatshops and then buy New Balance sneakers. They criticize capitalism and then support it wholeheartedly through support of the Democratic party. Yeah, Bush sucks. Kerry would suck too. The only difference is that you'd be defending Kerry's abuses against humanity simply because he was a Democrat. Bullshit. Fight for something meaningful or don't fight at all.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

No they don't wholehardly support the Democrats....

sarcasm101 (February 17, 2005)

i agree with everything except for "they wholeheartedly support democrats..." that's a bunch of crap!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Well AF Records has all their shirts manufactured by American Apparel so that sweat shots are not making the material. - Kirby

Someone (February 17, 2005)

And the irony of all ironies is that "Sweat shops" are often the best work available in these countries. Everytime triumphantly close down another sweat shop, we also put hundreds of people in those countries out of work. Yeay! What progress for human rights! It's better for them to have no money or food at all then to work in sub-US conditions!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Companies can pay these people better and treat them better though...

Benjasaurus (February 17, 2005)

Agreed. The wages some of these companies pay are truly ridiculous. Complete lack of respect for humanity.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

that is a valid point. but it is much more complicated than that. i reccomend reading The No-Nonsense Guide To Fair Trade by David Ransom (his real last name!) or any of the other economic books in the series. They are great books because they are short, clear, and just like the title says, no nonsense, meaning a real reduction in the amount of rhetoric. www.newint.org

xWileyx (February 17, 2005)

I run in new balances most of the time they should make better trail running shoes and make less shoes in white becasue they get shitty looking fast. Oh i'm sorry were you talking about Politics?

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Hey if you know what kind of sneakers they wear then i guess u must really pay attention to them.........get how ironic it is!!!!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

It's an OK piece, nothing out of the ordinary. NY Times Op-Ed page? Maybe.

sarcasm101 (February 17, 2005)

Justin Sane isnt a fucking idiot, hes a FUCKING GENUIS!!!! finally soembody has the nevre to write something like that and publish it. also, it doesnt matter wether or not Bush or congress did it-the point is that Bush didnt try to stop it and didnt do ne thing about it. that has to be one of the best articles ever published!!!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

You have to be a fucking moron. *buttbadger*

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I was worried untill I realized his user name is "sarcasm101" Whew!

SteveJonesTheRealBones (February 17, 2005)

punks dont write, he probably had someone do it for him. - jones the bones - stevejones8770@yahoo.com

Someone (February 17, 2005)

like a jew

Someone (February 17, 2005)

I agree with Justin Sane on this issue. But I will not blame it on the Republicans alone, they are just the most offesive. Democrats suck just as much. For additional information on this, check up on some of the articles Noam Chomsky has been writting..... i can't remember where I found it though. *buttbadger

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Its really weird to be on this website and see people with an interest in punk rock supporting the Bush administration and repeating what they heard on Fox News. It's like the concept of 'doublethink' illustrated. Tools.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Moron white middle class kids without a clue repeating what their redneck daddy says is "suprising"? I expect it.

Someone (February 17, 2005)

You cant like punk rock and be republican! and if you aint democrat you gots to be a republican! lets put our weight behind democrats who are 90% the same exact thing as republicans! since george bush did one thing wrong he must have evil plans behind everything he does! hillary '08! dont vote for third parties! fuck getting change into our government, we just want our team to win! go team!

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Well looks like you just assumed I was a democrat because I don't like the Bush administration... Way to fuck yourself up the ass, tool.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

Most punkers are Greens you fucking moron. -Chinatown

Someone (February 18, 2005)

ever heard of sarcasm you dumb shit. or ever heard of kids being too young to think for themselves. its good their into punk maybe itll open their minds once they get over their good charlotte orgasms.

Tahoejeff (February 17, 2005)

"The proposed $500,000 death benefit payout is designed only for families of soldiers killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not applicable to anyone else in the military killed in the line of duty." Yes...Because so many of us are dying in the line of duty in other theaters, like the war in Norway..oh wait

Someone (February 17, 2005)

boot camp, plane crashes, helicopter crashes, etc. ? mean anything?

Dante3000 (rich) (February 17, 2005)

All events that have happened in my kitchen? Damn...I always get that one wrong. -Dante

Someone (February 17, 2005)

you should have marked A and B to omit

Someone (February 17, 2005)

They could die from a terrorist attack in places other than Iraq and Afghanistan...

CrookedSuperhero (February 18, 2005)

But the policy only applies to deaths in those two places.

LiberationFreak (February 17, 2005)

"This is the same man who sent U.S. soldiers into combat under false pretenses, without the proper gear and, once they were deployed, cut their benefits." "AND,"..........AND COMMA?! oh god. (i like justin sane and anti-flag.)

Someone (February 17, 2005)

So what dipshit i cut your throat

Someone (February 17, 2005)

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS JUST ORDERED A DRAFT www.msnbc.com/news/2075796.jpg

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Heh.... -Chinatown

XdieXblackX (February 17, 2005)

thiz stuff is soo boring

Someone (February 17, 2005)

http://www.anti-anti-flag.com/index.php

Someone (February 17, 2005)

That's pathetic. -Chinatown

Dante3000 (rich) (February 18, 2005)

HAHA...Lord, we've got nothing better to do than sit around and mock a simple punk band. See conservatives always make a big deal out of liberal figures, there by making them more noticed. See it's like Rush Limbaugh came threw my area on a speaking deal and no one noticed. I thought about staging some lame protest but why bring more attention to someone you hate? I believe bands like Anti-Flag and people like Michael Moore are more well known in conservative circles than liberal ones. -Dante -Check out my site www.anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-flag.org/NakedPhotosO fOprah.php it's the shit

Someone (February 17, 2005)

Who better to discuss foreign policy on a public setting than a man who doesn't shower and plays in a punk rock band from Pittsburgh, PA? Show me!

Someone (February 18, 2005)

fuck anti-flag!! if you love animals so much and think they need rights why dont you get them the vote?? i want a hamburger!!!

Someone (February 18, 2005)

On a lighter note, here's my dick! -Chinatown

Someone (February 18, 2005)

no matter what, Justin still thinks you're an asshole.

Someone (February 19, 2005)

Well I hate hin untalented ass too.

Someone (February 18, 2005)

I think its sick and twisted that Justin could use something like this to push his broader anti-bush agenda. They've really sunk to a new low. I think Justin and PunkVoter have discredited themselves enough, but throwing out this wild stretch of the imagination really puts the nail in their coffin of credibility. Let me see if I understand. Families of the deceased complain because of the financial burden put on them by the loss of their main provider...Bush responds by upping the death benefit retroactively at the request of those families...and Justin Sane says its some conspiracy akin to Saddam paying suicide bombers? That's fucking sick Justin. I didn't know your agenda was so important that you would exploit something like this and turn it into a negative. It's just so blatant that you've run out of new charges to pin on Bush, so now you are looking in new and more

show rest of comment

Someone (February 18, 2005)

He wrote a fucking article. Get over yourself. He's allowed to speak his mind, and it's not like he's making $30,000 for it like the Vandals did playing a couple of shows for the jarheads in Iraq. -Chinatown

Someone (February 18, 2005)

Correction. He wrote a poorly thought out article with little or no evidence to back up his claims.

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Go join up then fucker!!!...oh wait your already a rich mother fucker!!!!

Someone (February 18, 2005)

I think its pathetic that you guys have nothing better to do than sit around and bash Justin Sane on a message board. Who fucking cares? Either you like Anti-Flag or you think they suck. This argument is old news. And regardless of my political ideology, punk rock conservatives are fucking tools.

AlbertFreddyIngram (February 18, 2005)

fucking idiot

Rawls_with_Balls (February 22, 2005)

"Who better to discuss foreign policy on a public setting than a man who doesn't shower and plays in a punk rock band from Pittsburgh, PA? Show me!" Well, then again buddy, who better to FORM public policy than a religious extremist, capital punishing C student who never even had a passport until he was elected to the highest office in the land. This man never set foot on foreign soil and immediately he set out to change the "international order" and we're all supposed to sit idly by and watch as he sends people off to their deaths? I say kudos to Justin Sane and anybody who questions the oh-so-questionable status quo because, afterall, this isn't Toby Keith we're talking about, this PUNK ROCK.

Someone (June 20, 2005)

Dan P.-- RIGHT ON!!!!!

Someone (June 20, 2005)

I really have a lot of respect for Justin and what he has done. Some people will complain and complain but i dont see them making a difference like he did. Look at all of this feed back. You may not like him but somehow youended up reading his fuckin article!!!!ODD!???????????and to all of you i say "good one"!!!