cbacon

Coming from you Mike, that statement speaks volumes.

Bin Laden conspiracy theory? Buh? I posted an transcript of his tape. I fail to see how i'm claiming some sort of conspiracy there. No, I called the late (great) greatone ethnocentric for stating something along the lines of "who gives a fuck what the world thinks?". I'd point you to a dictionary, but rationale comprehension dosen't seem to be your area of expertise. I guess i'm wrong then. Show me the way, Mad Dog

Just when I think you've hit your worst moment you manage to top yourself. Congrats you've become a worse poster than INXS. Ah yes, glad you could chime in with your oh so insightful words of wisdom, Mad Dog . Seems like all you can really say are things "C-Bacon is so dumb like INXS LOL! No wait, worse!!" whenever I post something. Funny how you never really add anything to the discussion. Or is it just convenient that you share the same opinons of Mike, Powerplay and the like? Yeah, that must be it, no need for you make any points or counterpoints right since theres no need right? If so many people have the same opinion when you post trash like that, it might be time ask yourself if you're the problem. GASP! 'Cause the general concensus MUST mean i'm wrong! Profound logic there.

Just when I think you've hit your worst moment you manage to top yourself. Congrats you've become a worse poster than INXS. Ah yes, glad you could chime in with your oh so insightful words of wisdom, Mad Dog . Seems like all you can really say are things "C-Bacon is so dumb like INXS LOL! No wait, worse!!" whenever I post something. Funny how you never really add anything to the discussion. Or is it just convenient that you share the same opinons of Mike, Powerplay and the like? Yeah, that must be it, no need for you make any points or counterpoints right since theres no need right? Someone could post pictures of turds and they'd be a lot more insightful than you. And you add nothing more than stupidity. Just because you say something different doesn't mean you add shit to anything. Hahaha, thanks for proving my point. All the more power to ya...

Just when I think you've hit your worst moment you manage to top yourself. Congrats you've become a worse poster than INXS. Ah yes, glad you could chime in with your oh so insightful words of wisdom, Mad Dog . Seems like all you can really say are things "C-Bacon is so dumb like INXS LOL! No wait, worse!!" whenever I post something. Funny how you never really add anything to the discussion. Or is it just convenient that you share the same opinons of Mike, Powerplay and the like? Yeah, that must be it, no need for you make any points or counterpoints right since theres no need right?

On a different scale, their not mass murderers.

They're equally a problem.

Simple. The Bush Administration is leading your country, and the world in general down a very scary path. Do some background research. Main points to be taken into consideration: - Was the war in Iraq really beneficial to the security of the people of the United States? Was Iraq really a threat to the American people? Or just another example to expand global hegemony? How much tax payers money has to be lost for this? How many of the 1100+ troops does it take to secure these needs? How many of the 15,000+ of many innocent Iraqi civilians will it take? How has GWB eased terrorist tensions? - Why is it, after 3 years, that this administration has not caught OBL? Despite having technology that can see us mow our lawns from outer space? - The Bush Adminstration is following is turning your society into that of an Orwellian one with such measures including the Patriot Act - The exploitation of American fears in post-9/11 society has ushered in a new age of paranoia in order to secure this administrations goals. Now, Kerry may not be the strongest choice the Democrats could have used, but this article sums up the situation and the candidates differences nicely: All in all, Kerry must win. For the sake of humanity. George W. Bush sold you out.

He's preeching the public take control. Anarchy, anyone? I'm up for it.

That has 'reality TV' written all over it.

I'd probably tune in to Smackdown again during Booker's initial run as champion. If he's booked well, it may even be a continuous pratice.

Meh. I'll be watching Jon Stewart's all-day election coverage. At least that way i'll get some laughs before hearing of the continued reign of terror as my faith in humanity falls a little bit lower.

What? They canned the "OK Blue Jay!" song?

Raven dosen't get his own chapter? Other than that and the lacking match list, it sounds good.

Anyone know when these episodes will air in Canada?

If you choose to ignore the writing on the wall.... What are you talking about? Muslims worldwide are condeming the acts of these terrorists. Yeah, they just tie up black guys to their vans and drag them across dirt roads. And Christianity and beheadings do indeed have an historical background. Well, at least now I can now add bigotry in the long list of reasons not to take you seriously. You truly are ignorant if you have that kind of view on the Muslim world. I see you have no qualms about US suported dictatorships then. Good to know. I'm not trying to justify all extreme islamics here, but point to the reason why the think the way they do. Ah yes, the Canadian empire. Soon to be joined by the American Empire (work in progress)... Looking at revisionists history, it would seem that way. Using the Soviet excuse is one of those wonderful excuses apologists like to use when a country suffers as a result of US intervention. Those countries in Central America REALLY benefited from the heroic Americans. And I suppose the US didn't know he was gassing the Kurds when they were chummy with him? But, if France does it, oh it validates it. Dictatorships are 'unpleasant people' now? How cute, and I love how you try to equate France dealing with Saddam as being on the same levels of the numerous dictatorships that the US supports, all the while using Iraq for justification for removing another dictator. The riches that the Middle East provides. You could bomb them easily, but that probably wouldn't look very humanitarian now would it? No, you have to be a bit more discreet than that, so it looks good on paper. Ok, dodge the issue. You have no qualms for the US putting Shah in power? And does the coup not act as further proof that the main goal in the US is to benefit from it's industries? Who did they vote for?: So what was your point in posing that question? That the US heavily favoured Chamorro over the Sandinistas (with the embargo threats), suddenly that makes the crimes of the past (Somoza and the Contras) right? That having that much influence in a country's national electiona a good thing? Furthermore, you seem to have no objections to the US funding of the contras and support of repressive regiemes, so it's not surprising you try to undermine issues that are repeating themselves today. Gee, I must have missed where they changed the meaning of 'fix' to 'create' Mike, you clearly have a mis-guided, jaded, and overall skewed revisionists version of history. Picking and choosing what parts you want to mention that suits you best.

Well, while your theory of a 'lone article' pretaining to the issue was debunked, of course believing that such a story could hold some merit would prove contradictory to Iraq's 'democratic' puppet regieme, so i'm not surprised it gets no sold. Either way, it's a matter of opinion on how much of this story we want to believe, obviously there will be some bias given our political differences. Fighting a war with an ever-changing objective that has caused no resolve for the citizens of Iraq, while tens of thousands of civilians are killed is a huge human rights offence. Had the war been justifiable then you could say that they didn't die in vain. But the justification for removing Saddam and invasion of Iraq was the 'war on terror'. In other words, to remove an imminent threat, one of which showed no signs of posing a threat towards the US, notwithstanding the whole WMD fiasco. It should also be pointed out that Saddam was less of a threat in 2003, than he was in 1998. . Murder is murder. Just because thousands died under Saddams regieme doesn't make it any less of a crime than being killed via US air strikes. The UN maybe guilty in their dealings, but dosen't override the fact the US occupation of Iraq has not proven worthwhile except for the US themselves. Saddam, or not. It's ironic that many of the Iraqi's that are fighting against the US are the one's that cheered Saddam's capture. Seems like the same old in Iraq, fighting off a nother occupier of their country. You have to wonder what these intentions are when discussions of invading Iraq occur merely a day after 9/11. To tell you the truth, i'm not trying to convince you. You can talk about reality, but if reality is that of a repeated lie solidified as belief, then its an improper use of it's context. The fact that many have no grasp of coming to terms with the fact that they just may have been duped in a society of 'free thinkers' is a serious epedemic. No matter how direct or obvious, the knee jerk reaction that cries 'lunacy' won't be far behind. It won't take convincing by anyone, but to witness it first hand. The New World Order thread, speficially makes note of Dick Cheney and co's intentions for future Middle East endevaours and even uses an event like 9/11 as a pre-text for imperialism. You don't need me to tell you this though. Nothing in that doctrine has anything to do with the world events of today now does it? The world vote article has conveniently been taken of taken context, and i've explained it numerous times, so i need not say anything more about it. You can prefer to live in a dream world rather than comes to terms that you've been had, after all, it's much easier that way.

Islamic Fundamentalists are trying to take over the world....the current war on terror can be equated to that of World War II.....bombing Iraq holds the same priniples as bombing Nazi Germany circa 1942....Whose really wearing the tin foil hat here? I find it hilarious that you use that logic, yet at the same time declade me a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much indication there is that clearly points to to the sinister aims and goals of the Bush Administration Islam Fundamentalism is whack, just like any other fundamentalist religion. They can endores spreading their word and empoweing the Islamic culture, but the ones who take it to the extereme levels that result in terrorism are in the minority. Use the Koran as proof of their plots for 'world domination' but its the same principles as fundamentalist Christains taking the story of Adam and Eve literal, or mis-interpreting the Bible for whatever reason. You can't look at the fanatical minority and paint it is the entire ideology of Islam, which is typically peaceful. The reason there's such backlash against the West does not derive from spreading Islam beliefs, but anger towards the US siding with Israel, US support for dictaorships in the middle east, US bases in the holy lands, and a general hatred for Western culture, of which it deems 'evil' Don't like buzzwords like "American Imperialism"? We can call it the extension of the American empire then. What part of this extension should be eliminated? How about the part where you try to dictate behaviour in the Middle East and Central America? Where you stop hypocritically supporting dictatorships while using the removal of them as justification when convenient? Or using human rights as a scapegoat to further foreign interests? That's just a few. To believe the roots of terrorism lie in the Middle East alone is very naive, when you meddle in foreign affairs, you can expect blowback. For the sake of civilians abroad and at home in the States, it requires a repression of these re-occuring tendencies. US foreign policy in the Middle East has been a huge issue since WWII. The State Department has even stated it's source of stragegic importance, and have been ensuring energy reserves ever since. And when someone poses a threat to these reserves, such as that of Iran in the 1950's, they over throw they're democratically leaders (after which American oil companies dominated almost half of Iranian oil) As for Nicaragua, I don't know where your getting these ideas from, Mike. Nicaragua certainly did not gain from US intervention. After years of supporting Somoza's dictatorship, they invested $100 million to get rid of the Sandanista rebels. They bombed residential neighbours , trying to fight the Sandanistas, killing thousands in the process by arming the Contra terrorist group. The country was decimated. Of course it didn't help that the US ignored the World Court's demand for reperations for the destruction it helped to finance. So, i'd like to know, when did all this help towards Nicaragua occur? And of course, history is repeating itself.

edit: wrong thread.

It's been widely reported. Maybe I should have said "accused" rather than impying that it was fact, given witness testimony, it all seems very likely. Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses Did Allawi Shoot Inmates in Cold Blood? Govt should explain Allawi claims: Brown I'm not saying it's "America's fault" but rather noting their track record for being largely hypocritical. In this case the so-called endorsement of human rights. You can't scream 'human rights' while condoning and participating in it. Or as people like Mike would have many to believe, bombing a third world country that poses no immediate threat as the equivalent of bombing Germany in World War II. Human rights is such a lovely justification.

http://streamingmovies.ign.com/ps2/article...4_01_wmvlow.wmv So awesome.

Allawi, by every account, is actually quite well-liked and it the odds-on favorite to win handidly. -=Mike Very well liked by the CIA of course. His assasination clock is ticking. It's funny that human rights are brought up in the context of Iraq, knowing that Allawi is responsible for shooting prison inmates in cold blood.

Yes, that's it, hit the nail on the head. Let it forever be known that I hate democracy. And an inaccurate and manipulated voting system is a good way to determine democracy I take it. How representitive. Pax Americana disguised as democracy.