carpediem

manhn, Expand on this please :huh: I'm interested. :wink3: Kevin

So we agreed :D Thanks for not having "animosity" in your responses. And not labeling me as anti-american. I respect that. I run into way too many people who are probably in total agreement with what your saying here. But they get so hostile in their responses, it makes what their saying seem less worth reading. I often end up not even reading everything they have to say, because their tone discourages me from reading what they have to say. I admit I don't agree with you. But I don't close myself to what your saying, and consider you my enemy. Allot of times conversations end in both parties seeing eachother as an enemy. I think that is another thing I dislike about the Republicans, the war they put out on Liberalism. Creating a devide amongst the American people. It seems your either a Republican or anti-american. Your either with us or against us. There is no middle. Which is strange that a praised democratic system would not have a middle ground. I guess in the end the war on Liberalism was the inevitable. Because Liberalism isn't exactly a threat to America or any paticular Country. Liberalism is a threat to Religious values. Its a threat of giving too much civil liberties to people. Its a threat to Religious influence in policy making. Liberalism have owned the TV spots and Radio spots for a long time, brain washing the masses. And the Republican party is believed to be the savoir from all this. So let the war begin. Kevin

mrcool, I know I may be digressing here. But wasn't it Mr. Bush and his people who oh repeated many times that they were going in there because of weapons of mass destruction? I think people did listen then. So why should they listen now? After they realized that there was no weapons of mass destruction, and they stopped repeating oh so many times on the media about the WMD. The tone changed to one of what was suppose to be sincere caring, when they said it was for the Iraqi people. I truly wanted to believe they really cared for the Iraqi people. But it just so hard to believe that, when considering there is many other countries they could care for, even during their friendship with Iraqi leaders. The only time the U.S government seems to actually CARE is when there is a threat to themselves. Explains why the Genocide in Rwanda happen with no help from the U.S. Not even any political pressure from the world super power. 800,000 people dead. Yah they just so care don't they. If the U.S was attacked from Rwanda, or if only Rwanda had rich resources the U.S had interest in. Then maybe those 800,000 would have got the help they needed. Naive I must say some people could be. Now I will admit Canada is just as much to blame for Genocides and suffering countries. Canada is a wealthy country yet many smaller. less wealthy countries have a better record then Canada when helping those countries. Based on per capita, the U.S and Canada are way down at the bottom when it comes to helping out. Like I said I would digress. But the point still stands, exist strategy could be just as valid as Iraq having WMD, or the U.S caring for the Iraqi people. I have no problem and respect if you believe this stuff your saying mrcool. We have a different perspective of all this. So agree to disagree on this? :cool: Kevin

Your maybe right. And now imagine what sort of country can have a two party system, one party having full power. Then set out to make the second party seem evil because of its Liberalism. Then tell the American people that they are a democratic country. I remember reading something a few months back, that explained based on population, the U.S had a lower voting rate then undemocratic middle east countries. It is said that if Iraq had the same amount of voting based on population, they would not even consider the election legitimate. Hence the amount of people voting in the U.S is in fact not legitimate. Such a small part of the population is determining who leads them. Some say its because of many non voters are just happy with the current state of the Country and the current leader. Some are not so naive and know that its about voters just feeling fed up. Like seriously, if people were that happy, they would go out and vote to make sure the leader is re-elected. That's not what happened. I believe voter percentage did go up in the last election, but still very low. Almost the entire world chooses more democratic voting systems then the U.S. However, even Canada's voting system is nothing to brag about. It allows Liberals to rob us for way too many years, however, they have done some good for Canada. Just time to try some progressive ideas. Then again there is no more progressive party to vote for. Before someone tries to label me as anti-american. Please! Please! understand that I am far from anti-american. But if talking against your government makes me anti-american, then I'll accept that label, even though it is far from true. In free countries, democratic countries, its not considered (ex: anti-canadian or anti-britain) when someone speaks against the government there.) It only seems to be in the U.S that label gets used. Thanks to good old brain washing neo-con media. With all that said. I feel there are good things in the American system that Canada can use. Kevin

Yep 51st state. Interesting enough the U.S has some Northern areas that talk about being more like Canada. Vermont had a petition out to see the response would be about becoming Canada's 11th province. Or is that the 12th province now. It is said Boston and Vermont are attracted to Canada's way of life. Many patriotic Americans frown upon these places considering them as evil because the Liberalism there. Kevin

They don't exactly have to invade Alberta. They already know that they can count on good old Raph Klein. No need to use military force and invade Canada. We have Canadian foot soldiers handing it all to them one company at a time through "U.S way or the highway" free trade agreements. With 40 centuries of American expanionism. Will Canada survive another 40? At this rate, I'm a pessimist and will say NO. :angry: Kevin

Exit strategy; :huh: There is no strategy, and anyone who believes they know what to do next, are the same naive people who believe the same leaders who claim to protect them now, are the same people who were leading the country when thousands died in the World Trade Centre. It goes something like this. "We will protect you, no one else could, but just forget that it was our mistake in the first place." "Trust me before, and I failed you, trust me again, maybe I won't fail you again". I can't believe the Americans didn't stick it to those politicians after failing so miserably to keep them safe. Or not only keep them safe by security, but to keep them safe, from not creating enemies in other countries. This war isn't going to solve the problems. It will "add wood to the fire". The fire the U.S started with the match called 'oil interest', or in other words 'economic interest'. Two different matches, used at the same time to ignite the attacks on American soil. Maybe some positive outcomes will come of this. I hope there is. But for now I can't help but disagree with this war. Personally it's a concern when the country leading this war, has a leader who uses GOD to "legitamize" the war. Religious history is dark with so much evil with the name of God used. Wars, slavery, discrimination and racism. How could this man "Mr. Bush" be the one to claim "God Wants" this war to happen. Kevin

Um to be honest. If you are 29 years old like your profile say's, then the first 3 years I didn't exist. As for the other years. Well I was a young boy in a small town of 300 people in Nothern, Ontario. Grew up on a farm with all kinds of animals. And now I'm living in the city with all kinds of animals still :D I hope to be able to move back to the small town. Can't get it out of my blood. I think I took your question literally :wink3: Kevin

If anything I thought my posts were light on stockowners. And I never said stockowners "as great evil". I apologize for not being clear enough. I guess by saying there is some truth to the statement, automatically makes it seem like I mean I agree. But like I said I disagree with the context as it was put. And I thought I explained that pretty well. I was talking about their choices and action being evil. That could be said for anyone or any organization, not just stockowners. Maybe my example was a bad one. It was maybe too general for some. I hope others understood it as an example. Kevin P.S....Isn't war making money? :P According to those companies that profit from it. It sure is money.

Back on topic. (Re: stockholders are evil). I would disagree with that statement when its put in that short context too. However, if you dig deep into that statement, you do find some truth to it. If a person is driving his car 150 and drunk, drives around a corner and hits a mini-van with 4 kids kills them all. Is this person evil? How about the guy who one day decides taking his own life and his wife and kids is better then dealing with his house that is being taken away from creditors. Is he evil? How about the guys who run into a bank and steals all the money. Are they evil? One could probably say yes to all those questions. But the guy who drove that car drunk and high speeds. Didn't he have at his disposal the option to not drink, not drink and drive, or even not drive at high speeds. The part of him that could have chose the moral choice. Is he still evil if he chose the moral route? How about the guy who kills his wife and kids. Couldn't he have chose not too, and deal with the problems head on. If he chose not too. Is he still evil? And the guys who rob the bank who all decide their going to get a job and make a living, rather then steal the money from the bank. If they did, are they still evil? Now the answer would probably be No if the actions were different. So now on the idea that stockholders are evil. Do they not make moral choices when purchasing stocks? If they choose a to purchase stocks from a company who is doing harm to the earth, or harm to humans using or consuming their products. Is that a evil thing to do? Let me see. If someone is buying a stock into a tobacco company. Knowing that their products kill millions every year to cancer. (My brother died of cancer so this is a touchy subject for me). Are they evil for choosing that company? Well a stockholder isn't interested in the company whole behaviour in the market. They just know profits. But if they support (example if we say donate) to a company that is killing people. Does that make them evil? Not exactly. Evil is a thought or an action. A person could be either good or evil with their thoughts or action. Its like there is a tipping point. The tipping point of a stockholder I guess is whether he will support good companies that are doing good for the earth and human life. Caring about what they are doing, rather then just bottomline. Problem is what stockholder will prosper doing that kind of investing? Probably not many. But you know what. We can go even deeper and put the blame on consumers. Because consumers have the power to create change. We have seen in recent years a change to organic foods being popular, or fuel efficient cars and no GMO food interest. But still not enough. So if consumers are buying that pack of smokes, and the stockholder buys stock in that company, there is two moral wrongs. So I guess this goes out to those bashing stockholders here, while even they themselves are probably supporting the same companies by using their product or service. So think about what you say :wink3: Kevin

Bijeli_Miš, Argue it that's fine. I'm talking about those religious people who want to push laws and rules on society. I'm going to assume that George Soros has no interest in Church and State connecting to make our policies. If he did he wouldn't have donated to a Liberal party. Because truthfully a Liberal party would want to keep seperated the two. I figure there is a difference between Liberal having support by someone who has no agenda to push the bible on society. And the Conservatives who have someone who supports them with their agenda to push the bible on society. Kevin

Just my personal understanding of it all. Not going to do the narrow minded thing and say I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm open minded and will accept anyones disagreement with what I just said in that post. I mentioned that right wing nut who made those comments about Canada. Well I edited the post again and included her name. Anne Coulter I would like to rant about as well. Anne Coulter shows a real dislike for Canada. Claiming that we are too Libearal. And you know what. I agree with her to an extent. If she means too Liberal that we should be more like the U.S. Then I disagree with her. We may need to slant a little to the centre, but not far right like the U.S. I guess hopping on the capitalist train is a natural outcome of a country that grows in population. Because the conservative right start telling us we can't afford all the luxury this tax system gives to EVERYONE. They tell us we Can't afford to help everyone anymore. Now I agree with this to an extent. Because some of those people our tax system supports are a bunch of lazy free loading humans. The solutions is not to lower tax. The solution is to learn from other countries. Take for example Norway who has one of the highest standard of living with crime, health, poverty and education. Why is that? well for one there is only 8 million people who live there. But the other reason is their system that will not leave people behind the success of the countries wealth. Now who knows maybe the conservative right will take over that country sooner or later as well. Its a disease that hits everywhere :wink3: Claiming to save us from Liberal. In exchange they want to take our Liberty through a connection between church and state. I'm not pretending here to have the answers. Because to be honest I think the liberal system is flawed as well. Flawed because it doesn't seem to have a plan for order in society. Which is something conservative and religious system has solved (Bible = Laws). The problem I have with that system is the hypcrosiy of their causes. Below is just two example of their hypcrosiy. A religious right in the U.S will come out screaming of the idea of Canada legalizing marijuana. But that same preacher is going home to have a bottle of man made alcohol drink, or a man made tampered tobacco. They basically tell us every time they speak out against marijuana, that anything legal by man, made by man, that still kills millions of people every year in every country, is good for you. But anythhing made by God at time of creation is bad for you. The marijuana issue is comical. Because although the U.S is trying to bully Canada to put stricker laws on marijuana. Saying that if we legalize marijuana it will make the border harder to cross for Canadian products and people. But on the other hand the current level at the border is o.k for all those illegal hand gun's crossing over to Canada. That's o.k apparently. I guess though this is our government lack of leadership on this issue. Another example of the hypocrisy. Is the Terry Schiavo case. This girl who probably never once asked for a religious group to speak for her, or never once told them what her wishes were. Had them screaming their lungs out on the news. They were claiming to pull the blug was evil. The plug of a system that was never created by their God in the first place. I'm a little confused by this. They accept all man mad technologies, even if it means deciding whether one lives or dies. But they preach that only God decides who lives or dies. Back in the times when there was religious rule, I don't think someone had to decide whether someone died or lived just from unplugging a machine. My heart goes out to Terry and her family. That really touched me that story. I had no agenda. The religious groups surrounding her did have an agenda. Their agenda is that they are looking for any means to get noticed in society. Because slowly with Liberal ideologies they are loosing power on society. So they want to start influencing policy to reflect religious scriptures. In my opinion those religious people should have been on the streets and on the news when their government was spending millions of dollars to change a lens on a aging scope in space, while there was millions of Americans starving in poverty. Oh and I DON'T mean those who choose the streets, I mean those who are legitimately poor because of the capitalist globalization system (re:downsizing). The people they pushed down that they don't talk about when they preach the capitalist system. Now I understand this is not for all religious people in the U.S. I understand there is millions of religious people out there doing allot of leg work without government help to deal with poverty in the U.S. through private organizations. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of religions trying to make policy and how they would not be consistent in making policies that make sense. Imagine this. Tampered tobacco and all alcohol illegal in society. Marijuana legal in society to cook with, take as a pill or smoked through a vaporizer. All of the above has no evidence of health risk. Smoking it has some health risk, but still not as much as acohol or tampered tobacoo. Get this. It takes only a ratio of 1:4 to die of alcohol poisoning. And it takes a ratio of 1:40,000 to die of overdose to marijuana. That means it takes 4 times the amount it took to get drunk to get alcohol poisoning and 40,000 times the amount it took to get high from marijuana. A book could be written about the difference between alcohol and tobacco risk and marijuana risk. Marijuana would probably get a chapter if that. The other two would fill up another 20 chapters or more. May as well even throw in caffein in there. Since it has just as much chemicals as marijuana, and has chemicals that caused cancer in rats. I got side tracked again. Sorry about that. I often do that. My brain just goes on and on and I sometimes have to bang it against the wall to make it stop :idea2: Anyways all I'm saying here is consistency in policy. Either legalize marijuana or make illegal caffein, tobacco and alochol. Kevin P.S...There is actually a book written on this topic of marijuana. Its called "Perscription Pot". Written by two guy's who are fighting the American government on this issue. Because the Republicans had put a stop on any new claims to use marijuana for medical reasons. So only those who were signed up during Clinton can still use it, while any new applicants have to suffer when all conventional drugs fail. Refuse a human a God made drug. Yah that makes allot of sense.

I have to agree to disagree with everyone that may have praised Fox news on here. Because any News station that goes around blaming other news companies of being Liberal and then claims they are balanced, even though they are not truly balanced, then they loose their credibilty in my opinion. I agree with the studies that prove there is a Liberal slant in media. But it is no different then what Fox has been doing, accept slanting it completely to the right. There is no such thing as balanced news. News companies know very well that there is two large groups of audiences. Liberal and Conservative. In other words (Liberal) not so religious or even spiritual people. Although Liberal does have its Catholic bunch who believe in seperation of state and church. Then you have Conservatives the ones that sware on traditional values and religious scriptures. And the bunch that think church and state should reunite and create policy. There isn't a large group of people in the middle of this equation. Which is why the biggest media companies will always gear the content to those two groups. Liberal media gears to those people who want freedom to just be and not forced to be. Conservative media here in the west is starting to gear its content to the patriotic reilgious right. Their making the Libearl out to be an enemy. I guess in a sense it is an enemy, because Libearl doesn't represent capitalism and globalization. It also doesn't represent any religion. Liberal accepts changes in society. Sort of like the lyric in "Scientist" science and progress. Liberal will accept science and physics as a human choice to study. That's what Libearl is all about. Conservative/Religious will never accept changes in society. They would much rather keep things hush hush. Know the problems are there, but try to forget its there, that's the religious approach. The religious approach also say's physics should be taken out of our schools because its based on theory, and that the bible should be taught instead because its fact?. Now for those who will say I shouldn't be connecting conservative with religion. Remember the conservative government you all elected in the U.S uses God and preaches in his speeches for a reason. To attract the Christian right to the party. Because they will work well together. Capitalists get what they want, and (the loss of LIBERTY) the religious right get what they want. I got side tracked. Fox news is no better then any brain washing Liberal media source. They are both out to attract an audience that is already there, and all the while trying to brain wash the middle people one way or the other. Myself I choose to stay in the middle where I agree with a little bit of both ideologies from Conservative and Liberal. Now let me rant a litle bit about Fox news. This same station allows this right wing nut Anne Coulter to say that Canada is lucky that the U.S allows them to exist. She also say's Canada is lucky the U.S doesn't just roll over one night and destroy Canada. She also went on to say that the U.S should attack all those countries in the middle east and convert them to Christianity. What arrogance. Fox news in my opinion is a right wing nut news source. Just as many other outlets are left wing nuts. I recall a show where Bill O'Rielly claimed that if Canada didn't go along with the U.S invasion of Iraq, that the U.S could stop trade with Canada and make Canada bankrupt. Now this is coming from someone who is educated. Or at least we think so. Because if he only know that there is like 32 states that their highest trade is dependant on Canada. He also forgets that the U.S has allot of interest in our water. Since we have a richer source of it then they do. Bill O'Rielly also claimed that France lost billions of dollars and almost went backrupt when the U.S put a stop on trade. He was quoting an article from a magazine that didn't even exist. And even if it did, the source was not very credible. Yet he choose to use it. Cause that is just what they do, use any source to make their point no matter how much crap it is. Its the same tactics Liberal media used for centuries, and now their using it. The best source for news today is anything that is independent (internet) and doesn't rely soely on Reuters. They supply to many many networks, which causes one to question their part in the brain washing arena. As for Gibson. Well he can have all the economic knowledge in the world and have economist backing up his economic plan. But for every 10 economist that prove the capitalist system, there is 10 economist that will prove it to be wrong. These economic plans are all based on a theory. The capititalist system for those religious believers in a anti-christ, should think about how this group is pushing towards a globalization system, which will lead to a one leader (maybe not in our time). The capitalist will create a one world government. Kevin

Hey Acoustiks. I signed the ONE Declaration. You know its exactly this sort of stuff I hope to write about, if I ever get to write some of my own songs. Not expecting to reach a large audience, but at least reach friends and family when I play for them at gatherings. Its a great way to talk to family and friends is through the music. Hey do you play "One" by U2? Maybe you have the tabs and YOUR strumming pattern you can share with me. Maybe e-mail it instead of using this Coldplay forum.? Thanks in advance. [email protected] Kevin

Hello Acoustiks, Thanks. I'm having so much fun with this. I'm 26 years old, and never really thought of playing guitar. Just since I started listening to U2 and Coldplay have I became to have an interest in music like never before. There is just something about the sounds they create that blows my mind. The most attractive sounds to me is the acoustic and the piano sounds. I can't put the guitar down for more then 10 minutes :) I hope I could play all of Coldplay songs in the near future. I must admit though some of their songs really work the fingers, making me use them like they have never been used before. I'm thinking there is easier ways to play it, just will have to learn as I go. Kevin

Hey the song "Scientist" would I be picking up the rythym accurately if I'm hearing just downstrokes? I think I hear some upstrockes, but can't make it out for sure. Anyone? The song seems to be an easy song to pick up on guitar. However, it seems like a song that needs other instruments to make it sound better. Still sounds good to me though. Kevin

Thanks Kapone. I'm very anxious to start learning Coldplay material. I was lucky enough to get strumming ideas for songs like "Knocking On Heaven's Door". It feels so good to get a tune going. But I'll feel much better when I can play "Scientist". That song has awesome lyrics to it and sound. Kevin

You know what. I'll just do what everyone does. Listen to the song, and get the feel of the rythym and go from there. Kevin

I hope you took me serious when I said I am a beginner acoustic player. I've learnt most of the chords, and learnt some strumming patterns. I'm not sure how the strumming patterns work though, because every song is different. I guess I will have to actually listen for the strumming patterns on the songs to know. Or is there a consistent strumming pattern that Coldplay uses? I'm starting lessons next week. I'm sorry if my questions are wasting any of your time. Kevin

So that means I'm on the right track then. I do understand those tabs then. I must have sounded dumb with that question. As for the song, well I can't figure it out. I haven't tried any of Coldplay songs yet. I'm also not really good at listening to a song and understanding entirely what is being played (re: chords). I'm new to this, and I mean really new. Looks like my first song I will learn is "Wish you where here" by Pink Floyd. Easy song to learn. I'm looking forward to playing Coldplay. Especially "Scientist". Actually sat and litened to the acoustic in that song. What a song. Really like that one. Kevin

Let me see if I understand. PART:1 -------------------------------8------------- -----------------8--------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ---10---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Means: 8 Fret 6th string. 8 Fret 5th string. 10 Fret 4th string. So one would use fingers 1 - 2 - 3 Am I on the right track? Kevin

I'm sorry for being slow. But I do not understand those tabs. They look nothing like what I learnt. I'm new to acoustic guitar playing, so those tabs are probably something an acoustic guitar player should be able to read. So bare with me. Kevin

Thanks for the warm welcome. Look forward to chatting with you all. Kevin

I just realized that "God put a smile apon your face" is also an acoustic song. Sounds like a fun tune to play. Can't find the tabs for it though. Kevin

I think I would like the songs "Fix You", "Oh Brother" and "Speed of Sound". If you know of any other paticular Coldplay songs that play well with just acoustic. Let me know. thanks. Kevin