cbacon

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132946,00.html Gold.

An excellent observation: Source

Some notable points from the debate that i haven't seen mentioned yet: 1. Bush choosing not to address the fact the US is instituting a nuclear weapons program. 2. Both candidates failed to mention the thousands of Iraqi and Afghani citizens that lost their lives.

IT'S HARD WORK~!@! Indeed, Mr. Bush. Indeed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0922-07.htm Further reference: Poll Of 35 Countries Finds 30 Prefer Kerry, 3 Bush Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh Canadians against the re-election of George Bush In short, US foreign policy directly effects the rest of the world, thus the rest of the world should have more of a say in whom runs the country. Of course to the average American this notion would seem asinine, but the principle behind I believe is just. Discuss.

Sadly, this isn't likely to change Do you know how impressive it is to have the stupidest post in a thread that includes INXS? Instead of taking shots why don't you actually say something. Is it stupid to believe that future terrorists won't be aided? Or that it's a good idea?

Sadly, this isn't likely to change

Iraq War: wholeheartedly against it. A war that cannot be won. Big Gov't/Small Gov't: Small War on drugs: A failure. In it's roots, it's a convenient means for US intervention abroad. The issue in itself should be dealt via education/rehab. Marijuana should be legal. Abortion: Pro Gay marriage-Pro Guns- The lifting of the firearms ban was a terrible injustice. Guns serve little to no purpose in a civilized society. Affirmative action: Shouldn't go out of it's way to cater to minorities just for the sake of doing so. But the intentions are noble and work in theory. Death penalty: undecided Teaching practical sex-ed: Fire away. Across borders racial profiling- Cat Stevens... Medical Care= I'm glad I live in Canada. Bush=Evangelistic tyrant who needs to be removed from office. Kerry= won't cause an overnight reversal of trends, but i have no beef with him....yet. despite being a weak candidate in such crucial times

I'll be at the Mississauga show in November.

Wow, JBL can't even get a decisive win over Hardcore Holly. Since his post-Mania stint the only legitimate guy he's beat has been Guerrero. If they have confidence in this guy, why isn't he beating contenders left, right and centre (that don't happen to be Guerrero or a random crusierweight)?

A statement like "who cares what the world thinks" is highly enthnocentric and ignorant. If you can grasp the simplest concept of reading comprension, I explain in my first post: "Of course to the average American this notion would seem asinine, but the principle behind I believe is just." If I said something along the lines of "It's in an justice that everyone on Earth doesn't have a right to vote in the presidential election" or I mentioned specifics in the article that implied this, then maybe you'd have an argument. There's really no way in refuting, taking into account a board made up of mostly right-wing Americans. Not that i'm condeming the fact, but anything that remotely criticizes US policy or right-wing policy will immediately fall upon deaf ears. That said, the response to the article was predictable and in hindsight was probably not suitable for this forum at least. At the risk of not countering your argument, i'll just say that i won't go as far as saying all people of all nations should have a vote in the presidential electior. However, i believe there should be a semblance of influence or say from outside the US on a regieme that may ultimately effect counrties and the very lives of millions of citizens. And i'll just leave it at that since it's off topic. The content of the book in question does infact have relevence today, thus i fail to see how discussing it 9 months later, or even years later (because i doubt we'll be seeing a change in foreign policy in our lifetime) is stupid. Scroll up and skim through the first post to see why.

I find this second quote profoundly relevant to the situation at hand. . Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos. What is there to dispute? The argument was basically settled months ago. The quote is about someone bringing shitty and unoriginal debate back up doesn't count towards anything like discussion. Besides, HMW basically shows what Noam truly is. And coupling this last part with your last thread, I'm fairly sure you are an idiot, and I'm sure many people will agree with me. Oh dear. Because you know, my previous thread was to be taken 100% literal in the sense that I fullly endorsed the idea, rather than merely acknowledging the principle behind it. Oh how distortions and manipulations run so freely in this folder.

This is a well documented mis-understanding of one of Chomsky's books, one that which places his thoughts out of context. In the 80's Steven Lukes accused Chomsky of trying to down play Pol Pot's regieme in Cambodia and endorsing the Khmer Rouge as a whole. However the actual subject of Chomsky's book had to deal with how Cambodia was garnering more media attention than that of East Timor which had far greater human rights consequences and atrocities. The whole "Chomsky supports the Khmer Rogue" stems from a bad case of selective reading and mis-interpretation. Of course the Khmer Rouge would not have come to such power had it not been for the 4 year bombing raids, by you guessed it, the US. Which seemingly destroyed the country. A good article on the situation is presented here Anyone who opposed the war were deemed apologists for North Vietnam. This is no different. I'm interested in hearing where Chomsky describing the Vietnamese as 'honorable peasants' however. The rest of your points i can't vouch for, I suspect the rest of his book will touch upon many of those subjects though. I'll take your word on those claims however, but it also should be noted that Chomsky's writings are of his own opinion and will obviously not coincide with the beliefs of everyone. Like all authors on such subjects, it's important to aborb everything subjectively. Taking someone's opinion as factual truth is dangerous. However, it's not like Chomsky is making things up here, he's presents factual events and conveying his own opinion on the matter. I'm not saying everyone should agree with everything that he says, but to flat out deny many of the atrocities committed by the United States would be absurd, no matter what Chomsky says about them. Otherwise you get a country unknowingly supporting leaders that commit such crimes or they're aware and blindly grasping for irrational justification. That, or they're flat out in denial. Either way, Chomsky helps to bring such matters that wouldn't normally make the evening news, into perspective. It's interesting that you have such distain for Chomsky while having such a positive opinion on Ann Coulter of all people. Intersting, i find it profoundly obvious that this is the best you can come up with , without you know, not really saying anything or disputing anything at all. Kudos. Very. By that token, is replying to any thread neccessary? What difference does it make if it's 9 months old? If your implying that it's no longer relevant due to it's age your sadly mistake, given the current geo-political climate. Of course you did. It didn't contain any pictures of Sylvain Greneir burning the American flag so i can see why you might be confused. I'll try harder next time.

It's easy to dismiss Chomsky as one of those "blame America first" types. He's not saying what the general consensus wants hear. But when it comes down to the issues that he brings up , especially in this book, most seem to dismiss his arguments since he's a 'soft lunatic'. Obviously the information will be relevant to his opinion, but American hegemonic tendencies in a broader sense is mostly definetly a large empedemic that needs to be addressed, which is why it is important for activists such as Chomsky to take such stands.

But when your actions begin to effect millions of others then it's in the best interest of the other parties to have a say. Painting a house and meddling in affairs of other nations and the very lives of their citizens are a tad different.

That's the kind of ethnocentric attitude that has caused such outrage. You may not care, but the rest of the world does.

California 12 noon Eastern.

Being "mis-led" and "making things up" are not the same thing. And yes, a mid card wrestling tag team are the one's who set the bar for the notion of ciriticizing America, and thus I hang on their every word. Good insight.

The consistent use of wrestling analogies don't exactly help support your arguments. I'm not saying America is good for nothing, but much of their "aid" has been in the form of hidden agenda, and for all the admirable good the country has done it seemingly can't let go of it's imperalistic and hegemonic tendencies. This is not something that has been fabricated by those in poorer countries or those deemed "jealous" of the United States. It's an ongoing threat that has no signs of slowing down.

Ah, so your admitting here that the Bush Administration mis-led the public to fit it's own war agenda. And that the the moral reasons wouldn't genereate support? Immoral actions usually don't. But thanks for clearing that up.

Is it now? Over 17,000 Iraqi's have died already, around 300 a week, the equivalent of a 9/11 happening every week in the US per capita. Less we forget the woman on Nightline (who is pro-American and teaches English btw) stating that things are so bad since the American invasion she sometimes wishes Saddam were still in power, which is a widespread sentiment. And the reasons for the war? Please, enlighten me. No one's ignoring Bush's reason, they hold extremely dertrimental consequences. So, what are they? The WMD? Well, we all know that story. So they "might" be in Syria? Good to know the US started a war on such ambiguous assumptions. To remove an oppressive dictator? So that was the real reason 150,000 troops were sent to bomb Iraq? Gee, there's no hidden agenda here, otherwise the World's Police would be removing various other dictators around the world. Oh wait, many of those dictators are supported by the US democratically. And as mentioned before, Iraq is certainly not in better shape than it was before. So honestly, some rationale justification here please. Uh huh, so you don't dispute the aforementioned point. And when the US is attacked by a group of mostly Saudia Arabians, US attacks....Iraq? Gotta love that logic. C'mon, at least give your fellow countrymen a bit more credit. Ah, so the entire world is wrong and America is right? It's that type of arrogance thats casts the US in such a negative light around the world. Not being able to recognize past and current mistakes only makes things worse. For all the good the US does, it seems to never acknowledge it's blunders and worldwide exploitations. If by prod, you mean implement sanctions to countries that don't follow suit, then i'm glad the US is setting such a fine example. Or, as in the case of Australia coaxing the country into a free trade agreement to join their cause (despite 70% of the nation opposing the war) So the large majority in nearly every country that oppose such actions are wrong? Ya, and they've all proven to be a farce with nothing redeeming coming out of it. These are two entirely different beasts. Often poor, tribalistic divisions with hundreds of martyrs are not nearly as rampant in the US . For thousands of years Iraq has never, are not and never will be unified. Due to the various factions and tribes all at odds with each other, thus it's impossible to have everyone unified. Iraq lacks various economic, social and cultural conditions that have set the sate for democracy in other nations, and has no previous experience with such a concept. Democracy needs to be built into cultural values, not makeshift parties, elections and puppet regiemes to 'make everything better'. Tolerance is another key issue, a reason why the US is able to sustain it's "democracy". This of course, in reference to religious and cultural ideologies, including racial tolerance and freedom of speech something that will simply not stand in Iraq. In short, Iraq lacks all the precondtions needed for a democracy to flourish. Iraq is not an agreed upon creation by it's people, and if elections were held today the people would vote to stop having democracy, but instead a rabid fundamentalist group. And these connections were? And they relate to the bombing of Iraq in what way? Whether deemed illegal or not, it's painfully obvious the war is immoral and a huge humanitarian crisis with little to no positive outcomes. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home have not increased security or insured liberty.

ding ding, we have a weiner

So your saying people believe don't believe Kerry would take such irrational endevaours? Kerry wouldn't pursue an illegal war, undermine the UN, mis-represent the truth while thousands of Americans and Iraqi's die? Kerry wouldn't have pandered to Saudi Arabia when it came time to investigate 9/11 and acted in the best interest and safety of the American public? Are these the actions of George Bush that you refer are referring to? Kerry may be a weak opponent, but jeez, if the people of the United States truly share the same beliefs and attitudes of George Bush, then it's just inforcing the war-mongering, imperialistic and backwards stereotype of Americans, and we know that not to be the case (well, of most at least). I'm sure the American public is smarter than that, and that most that support Bush are for the reasons i outlined above. That all depends on how Russia handles their situation. If it was such a necessary action to invade Iraq, why is the war still being protested around the world? Iraq has their new regieme fully in place with plans to hold an election in January. Mission accomplished right? Iraq is in much better shape than it was before right? I think not. Still waiting on the justification for the war. Ok, and the reasoning behind that is? Your saying that all of the issues during the war including the false WMD excuse? Your saying Bush didn't try to make the al-Queda/Sadaam connection as a justifiable reason? That Bush didn't endevaour in an illegal war and that everything will be just dandy in Iraq thanks to America? Work with me here. Modern day Iraq and Afghanistan are far different from Germany and Japan when they became democratic i'm afraid. We're talking about an entire different way of life in the middle east. The tension between certain groups and religions in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Shiite and Sunni Muslims for example, are not comparable to that of the West. You have to get used to the notion that the West can not force our way of life onto those in said countries. Something the United States hasn't seemed to understand for decades. This is laughable. Of course there wouldn't be as big of an outrage, your saying that bombing country is equal to Kerry using a small group of 9/11 widows to further his election agenda? Maybe in principle only.

While the password isn't as obvious as previous pre-sale previous, it is quite surprising.