SuperJerk

Any man who can get an arena of 16,000 people to point to their shoulders with their thumbs in perfect unison deserves at least one world title run, says I.

And that's why you're a Nobody. That witty comeback made no sense. Aw, well.

I looked at the title of this thread, "Noam on Iraq", and got an idea. We could do a whole series. "Noam on Politics" "Noam on Wrestling" "Noam on Sports" "Noam on Decorating" "Noam on Film" "Noam on Noam" Then, for each episode, MikeSC and C-Bacon could debate the merits of what Chomsky might say on each topic. For example: This might work.

Well, linguists *do* have to understand other cultures in order to decipher their language.

You know, its not like YOUR party's leader is a master orator or something. Geez.

The report from last October says he didn't even have a program in the months leading up to the war. He kicked the weapon's inspectors out so it'd look like he had them (so he wouldn't be attacked and could keep his people in line), when in fact he lacked the capability to make them. And, let me just say...MAN, DID THAT PLAN BACKFIRE!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't see how being charged thousands of dollars for something demonstrates that I have a "right" to it. If I went to an emergency room without insurance, that's what would happen.

Okay... ...these are all good points, but... ...I have no fucking idea why we're talking about Cuba.... ...at all.

I have the right to go to an emergency room, but not the right to get an operation or get medicine. Why do we give lawyer's services for free to the public, but not doctors? You're not exactly the nation's only tax payer. The expense to you alone would be miniscule.

It makes more sense than saying a guy with a 40% approval rating could win a reelection campaign. Which is why they voted for Perot and not the Democrats. The Republicans had shunned them as well, though. Kerry carried almost 20 counties, though. Not bad. Beleive it or not, I searched forever trying to find out exactly how many lost. Good show, sir. My crack about the "only 12%" was kind of in jest, by the way. That's actually a pretty big shift. True. The fact that Dean wants to court Southerners proves he has more of a brain than the previous party heads.

That's certainly where the evidence points. Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something. But Clinton said he had them when he decided to make regime change the official policy of the US gov't in 1998-9. -=Mike And Clinton said that he didn't have them and the sanctions were working back in 2002.

In a fair and just society, it should be. I disagree. Your rights should not cost me a dime. For example, your right to own arms doesn't cost me anything. Nor does your right to free speech. Health insurance would cost me money. -=Mike Maybe not health insurance, but a right to health care should be.

Akio vs. London???? FUCK! I can't believe I fucking forgot what time it was on tonight. I was looking forward to it all week. Must....find....download....

I'll blame STDs. I always wondered --- given her acting talent, can Torrie actually sell an orgasm? -=Mike

Is anyone SURPRISED by this? This is what happens when you leave your little "talent search" open to women already in the entertainment industry. On the other hand, some Michelle McCool porn would be awesome. Is she even still with the company?

Gwen has already been brought back to life; the Jackyl cloned her and she's still running around the Marvel Universe..... That's not the same thing. Nor is the adult child she had with Norman Osborne that looks exactly like her.

That's certainly where the evidence points. Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something.

In a fair and just society, it should be.

And that's why you're a Nobody.

I did explain. No its not. I have real numbers and everything! Look at them! I even used a calculator. Not in the cities, its not. Those may have been the only two incumbents who did loose. Foley lost on gun control, and Tennessee's Sasser was facing a challenge from a doctor (Frist) at a time when the Congress was attempting health care reform. That's a pretty strong showing, but only a 12% change. We're not exactly talking New Deal-level landslides here. Which is a stupid strategy considering how well Democrats still do in southern cities.

^Yeah, what he said.^

Fucking cockroaches.

No, it wasn't that close. Bush lost by 6 points. Again: -Clinton lead by a good margin during the months before the election when Perot wasn't even running, from July-October. -Bush's approval rating was hovering around 40% for months before the election. -Perot had a platform that included huge tax increases, spending on social programs, and reduced military spending...hardly the kind of thing that would siphon great numbers of Republicans away from Bush. -Here a good article I found about it: http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm Had Perot not been running, the final score would have given Clinton at least 51% of the vote, even if only 1/8th of Perot voters voted for Clinton and 7/8th voted for Dole. If Clinton and Dole been the only two candidate, and all the Perot voters sat home, Clinton would have gotten 54.7%. The Republicans only gained 4 seats in the House this year. Besides that, they've used their control of various state legislatures, particularly in the South, to gerrymander Democratic districts out of existence. The 10 years of control is also due in part to the fact that incumbents in general get reelected easily. Even in 1994, only one or two Democrats lost their seats. The Republicans owe a lot to the fact that so many Democrats decided to retire before that election. This is not to say that the Democrats don't have an uphill battle, or that they don't have some serious problems to fix. I just don't think that its as dire for them as you are claiming. Bush has adopted the one quality I hate most about the Democrats: the mindset that says the only way to fix a problem is to throw money at it. There's so many factors that'll play into the 2008 race, of course. With 8 years of complete control of the federal government, it will be difficult for the Republicans to claim problems aren't their fault (rightly or wrongly). Inversely, if the economy's good, the deficit is going down, and Iraq's rolling along just fine, the Republicans will get all of the credit.

Consider the irony of someone pretending to have WMDs to keep from being attack, only to end up being attack precisely because others thought he had WMDs. I'm still not in favor of the war, but that doesn't keep me from thinking Saddam Hussein was a fucktarded dickhead.

Yes, but do they visit as much as we did, and more importantly spend as much money, before the embargo? For some reason I'm thinking they don't. Of course, I realize that the fact that they have a communist dictatorship hurts tourism probably just as much or worse as the embargo does. My point isn't that the embargo is hurting them, but that their biggest industry can't sustain their economy. I argue that Castro's policies have killed their economy more than anything else. If Castro's dictatorship is preventing the tourism industry from maximizing its potential, then sure. I love the way communist governments always seem to pop up in countries where communism has absolutely no chance of working. Communism was designed for heavily industrialized societies, not agricultural ones. The theory already has enough things to keep it from working to begin with. Its like building a house of cards on a fault line. It was already doomed to fail, but by putting it where they did, the failure was just that much worse.