Any U2 fans out there, check out the link, the band was shooting for their new album cover and confirmed the first single will be out in September followed by the album being released in October.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://membros.aveiro-digital.net/u2portugal/u2emportugal/04engu2pt01.htm">http://membros.aveiro-digital.net/u2por ... u2pt01.htm</a><!-- m -->
That is very very cool...thanks for sharing the link :thumb: I hadn't heard that yet...didn't even know they were working on a new album. YAY :jump
I like the old u2 tunes but not a lot of the stuff they've released recently... also Bono annoys the hell out of me..
Kim Wrote:I like the old u2 tunes but not a lot of the stuff they've released recently... also Bono annoys the hell out of me..
You should have seen the speech he gave at the Liberal Party convention here in December. Some great points, but he speaks in short, interupted, hazy, bits of speech. But he did promise to be a pain in our PM's ass, so that was something... Also, he's "a rock star" he reminded us of that six times in his ramblings.
Stephen Dame Wrote:Kim Wrote:I like the old u2 tunes but not a lot of the stuff they've released recently... also Bono annoys the hell out of me..
You should have seen the speech he gave at the Liberal Party convention here in December. Some great points, but he speaks in short, interupted, hazy, bits of speech. But he did promise to be a pain in our PM's ass, so that was something... Also, he's "a rock star" he reminded us of that six times in his ramblings.
Really? God some people are so full of themselves.... :roll:
As for the speech, you think he wrote that himself?
Maybe the reason it was so incoherent was cause he was reading someone else's text...
cratch: Don't mean to be so cynical but can't help it...
I have to agree, to me he's coming across more as I'm a celebrity and a rock star therefore this issue is very important and aren't I a caring person for lending my celebrity to this issue. :roll:
Kim Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:Kim Wrote:I like the old u2 tunes but not a lot of the stuff they've released recently... also Bono annoys the hell out of me..
You should have seen the speech he gave at the Liberal Party convention here in December. Some great points, but he speaks in short, interupted, hazy, bits of speech. But he did promise to be a pain in our PM's ass, so that was something... Also, he's "a rock star" he reminded us of that six times in his ramblings.
Really? God some people are so full of themselves.... :roll:
As for the speech, you think he wrote that himself?
Maybe the reason it was so incoherent was cause he was reading someone else's text... cratch: Don't mean to be so cynical but can't help it...
Nah... I know some of the folks in Martin's youth operation and PMO, and they tend not to use "Fuck'n Brilliant" and "Shit" in the Prime Ministers communiques. (Although he'd be much more fun to cover if they did...)
The speech was too rambling and focused on Bono's personal issues, Africa and Political Ethics, to be written by someone else. Plus it appeared to be hand written on disorganized sheets of paper. (He fumbled through the pages a few times while admitting he'd had a few "cocktails" backstage.)
In his defence though, the "rock star" stuff was usually self depricating, and he was obviously nervous being out of his element. Like I said, he made some good points, but I'd much prefer to see him stick to singing "Streets/No Name" than doing keynote speeches...
Bono does have some good points about his debt reduction issue, but one of the things people tend to forget is these countries asked for and agreed to the loans that are such a burden; sure it would be nice if they could spend more of their GDP on health care and raising the standards of living, but are the 1st world nations going to agree to take over that much debt? I doubt it and its a bad precedent to allow any nation to get out from loans that they or their predecessors agreed to, it would cause alot of instability in the world banking system that we all depend on. And the other thing that bugs me about celebrities and politics is it encourages the worst sort of pandering by politicans looking for cachet. It allows politicians to urge somebody to vote for them simply because their favorite artist supports them without having any real sense of the issues that particular politican supports. Seriously, do you think Bon Jovi fans know exactly what Kerry wants to do if he's elected president or the same with Ted Nugent fans voting for Bush because Nuge supports Bush? Okay i've rambled into the night here :lol:
Idunno. I never really got into U2, but I respect Bono. In all the interviews I've seen with him, he seemed very knowledgeable on the issues he was into.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Bono does have some good points about his debt reduction issue, but one of the things people tend to forget is these countries asked for and agreed to the loans that are such a burden; sure it would be nice if they could spend more of their GDP on health care and raising the standards of living, but are the 1st world nations going to agree to take over that much debt? I doubt it and its a bad precedent to allow any nation to get out from loans that they or their predecessors agreed to, it would cause alot of instability in the world banking system that we all depend on. :
Whoa... I have to disagree with you BIG TIME there.
These developing countries didn't have a choice. It was either open your markets, develop dependant economies, adopt neo-liberal policies or recieve Zero funding from the IMF or World Bank. Developing nations were backed into debt and dependancy by the World Bank, Bretton Woods and the neo-liberal agenda "That we all depend on." It's the reason we're rich and they're not.
"We" strip them of their raw materials, exploit their cheap labour, and send the finished products back to them while funding their governments with loans which they cannot spend on health care or social programs. (The WTO and IMF have STRICT regulations on how the loans must be spent, and guess what: "Economic development" usually means making conditions for Western Companies great at your own expense.) This mercantalism keeps "them" poor and desperate and unable to develop a self sustaining nation as Canada and the United States once did.
And absorbing their debt would be irrelevant to the 10% of the world which controls 90% of the wealth. That money isn't coming now, and it won't ever come under current conditions. Canada and the United States trade hourly, that's every sixty minutes, in dollar figures equal to the annual GNP of dozens of African nations COMBINED. Absorbing their debt, writing it off completely, would be like a two hour border closing for Canada and the U.S., (Shorter than 9/11) not even a blip on the radar in the long run.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Bono does have some good points about his debt reduction issue, but one of the things people tend to forget is these countries asked for and agreed to the loans that are such a burden; sure it would be nice if they could spend more of their GDP on health care and raising the standards of living, but are the 1st world nations going to agree to take over that much debt? I doubt it and its a bad precedent to allow any nation to get out from loans that they or their predecessors agreed to, it would cause alot of instability in the world banking system that we all depend on.
Wow I can't believe you're actually trying to place the blame on the third world countries....
If I were to rob you off your money, then put a gun to your head and forced you to rob someone else... and then later they send YOU to jail for robbing someone...does that sound fair?
Stephen Dame Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:Bono does have some good points about his debt reduction issue, but one of the things people tend to forget is these countries asked for and agreed to the loans that are such a burden; sure it would be nice if they could spend more of their GDP on health care and raising the standards of living, but are the 1st world nations going to agree to take over that much debt? I doubt it and its a bad precedent to allow any nation to get out from loans that they or their predecessors agreed to, it would cause alot of instability in the world banking system that we all depend on. :
Whoa... I have to disagree with you BIG TIME there.
These developing countries didn't have a choice. It was either open your markets, develop dependant economies, adopt neo-liberal policies or recieve Zero funding from the IMF or World Bank. Developing nations were backed into debt and dependancy by the World Bank, Bretton Woods and the neo-liberal agenda "That we all depend on." It's the reason we're rich and they're not.
"We" strip them of their raw materials, exploit their cheap labour, and send the finished products back to them while funding their governments with loans which they cannot spend on health care or social programs. (The WTO and IMF have STRICT regulations on how the loans must be spent, and guess what: "Economic development" usually means making conditions for Western Companies great at your own expense.) This mercantalism keeps "them" poor and desperate and unable to develop a self sustaining nation as Canada and the United States once did.
And absorbing their debt would be irrelevant to the 10% of the world which controls 90% of the wealth. That money isn't coming now, and it won't ever come under current conditions. Canada and the United States trade hourly, that's every sixty minutes, in dollar figures equal to the annual GNP of dozens of African nations COMBINED. Absorbing their debt, writing it off completely, would be like a two hour border closing for Canada and the U.S., (Shorter than 9/11) not even a blip on the radar in the long run.
Well said, couldn't agree more. :thumb:
An example of the exploitation:
Coffee beans are a lot cheaper now than they were before, simply because there is a much larger supply than there used to be, there are many coffee bean farmers. This means that companies such as Starbucks pay a lot less for the beans they need. However you won't see Starbucks dropping their prices to go along with the price drop in coffee beans. Of course not. It just means more profit for them.
Whenever Starbucks sells a cup of coffee, only about $0.03 gets back to the farmer... that's it.. when in fact he's providing the essential ingredient to Starbucks which ensures the company's success.
Kim Wrote:Stephen Dame Wrote:VioletlightHeron Wrote:Bono does have some good points about his debt reduction issue, but one of the things people tend to forget is these countries asked for and agreed to the loans that are such a burden; sure it would be nice if they could spend more of their GDP on health care and raising the standards of living, but are the 1st world nations going to agree to take over that much debt? I doubt it and its a bad precedent to allow any nation to get out from loans that they or their predecessors agreed to, it would cause alot of instability in the world banking system that we all depend on. :
Whoa... I have to disagree with you BIG TIME there.
These developing countries didn't have a choice. It was either open your markets, develop dependant economies, adopt neo-liberal policies or recieve Zero funding from the IMF or World Bank. Developing nations were backed into debt and dependancy by the World Bank, Bretton Woods and the neo-liberal agenda "That we all depend on." It's the reason we're rich and they're not.
"We" strip them of their raw materials, exploit their cheap labour, and send the finished products back to them while funding their governments with loans which they cannot spend on health care or social programs. (The WTO and IMF have STRICT regulations on how the loans must be spent, and guess what: "Economic development" usually means making conditions for Western Companies great at your own expense.) This mercantalism keeps "them" poor and desperate and unable to develop a self sustaining nation as Canada and the United States once did.
And absorbing their debt would be irrelevant to the 10% of the world which controls 90% of the wealth. That money isn't coming now, and it won't ever come under current conditions. Canada and the United States trade hourly, that's every sixty minutes, in dollar figures equal to the annual GNP of dozens of African nations COMBINED. Absorbing their debt, writing it off completely, would be like a two hour border closing for Canada and the U.S., (Shorter than 9/11) not even a blip on the radar in the long run.
Well said, couldn't agree more. :thumb:
An example of the exploitation:
Coffee beans are a lot cheaper now than they were before, simply because there is a much larger supply than there used to be, there are many coffee bean farmers. This means that companies such as Starbucks pay a lot less for the beans they need. However you won't see Starbucks dropping their prices to go along with the price drop in coffee beans. Of course not. It just means more profit for them.
Whenever Starbucks sells a cup of coffee, only about $0.03 gets back to the farmer... that's it.. when in fact he's providing the essential ingredient to Starbucks which ensures the company's success.
That's a great real world example. Sometimes, I'm afraid I'm too much of a policy wonk to effectively make my point, so thanks.
And sadly, the $0.03 US is being generous...
No worries..you made your point, loud and clear
Another statistic which I find so depressing is that around $900 billion a year is thrown into defense spending globally compared to only $60 billion for foreign aid.....(source: World Bank)
Are we ever gonna learn anything? :roll: