Darth Buddha

You know, I don't put much stock in the whole "blonde" thing... except with some of the fake blondes I've seen about who look so BAD with the color change that it does question their taste if not their intellect. Which isn't really any different from when he was here if you think about it. Dumb is Forever. Somehow I imagine Burnsy is the kind of guy who will return with a new name and a proxy... unless he just wanders from forum to forum seeking new people to alienate. I'm betting on the former. Back to the blonde thing: using hair dye and/or bleach has GOT to be bad for the planet. Does that mean there are no fake blondes in Greenpeace? In fact, shampoo and deodorant have a lot of unneeded synthetic compounds too. Does that mean they are all unbleached, undyed, unwashed, and kind of stinky?

I hope this doesn't happen to al-Gore. That would give new meaning to An Inconvenient Truth Yep, like every fact Burnsy here has omitted in his every post. If you want to find examples, Burnsy, check out "Earth in the Balance," and see if you can spot the pseudo-science. Otherwise, you can't even TELL what is an inconveniant truth and what's not. I'm betting that you can't. Yep, and they spin what facts they have and omit facts that matter as much as Burnsy does. That's why I'm anti-Green Peace even though I am pro-environment. Spinmeisters make me sick.

It probably did so well per theater because it was in so few and those most politically motivated just had to go. It's sort of like Scientologists buying up tickets to the dreadful "Battlefield Earth." It had a big impact on a few theaters in California, but not anywhere else. The fact that it did so well per theater is still impressive even given that effect: unless of course there were political (rather than religious) cultists buying up tickets in the same fashion.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We saw the same thing in Canada with the Liberals. I'm more of the mind that power tends to attract patholigical personalities, and that given time they will yeild to their pathology. You might be right, though. Maybe EVERYBODY has some of that pathology. Is it getting progressively worse in Canada as it is in the U.S. I'm not kidding about the scale of lobbyist dollars and proven graft- things are growing in leaps and bounds. I suspect it will no longer matter WHICH party is in office unless there is a constant see-saw of power that keeps the newb's in power honest for a while.

It's impressive, as any neutral observere would have to admit. Tell me, was it as full of botched environmental science as "Earth in the Balance"? He discredited serious global warming researchers so badly by association that I have to wonder if his ghost writer was a closet neocon. The wild claims rather than the simple truth that C02 WILL raise temperatures and the ice caps ARE absorbing a lot of the heat in their melting that wold REALLY increase temperature were they not there to soak up the warmth are really all that's needed. Of course one can add that the warm up has lead to a three foot rise in ocean level in the last half century or so as well. This is basic stuff, not under debate, and is more likely to sway more conservative voters than wild claims. Models with a slew of questionable assumptions that yeild "the sky is falling" really don't do anything to help reasoned scientific debate of the matter. After all, the only way you have a model that really identifies causes is after the event! Wildly speculative models also turn off people who would probably be quite open to a straightforward and model free approach. It's common sense, after all: everybody can understand how ice cubes in a drink soak up a lot of heat, everyone can understand that a lot of ice is melting all at once, and everyone can understand what three feet of water means.

Yep. While I think Bush would sell out any ethic or group for political purpose (just like his Democratic predecessor), I don't think he hates Jews. After all, he's trying to make them an exclusively Republican constituency. Normalizing Ukrainian relations WOULD have been a statement about morality a few decades ago, but such niceties are no longer observed.

Good riddance. Why is it that any party that holds control of a house of congress gets such a bumper crop of these folks? I mean we're looking at Republican Senators and even the White House in the Abramov bribery case. Reminds me of Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski back when the Democrats thought they had permanent ownership of the House, though I must admit the current Republicans have taken graft to a level never before seen by any U.S. party. Businessmen, banker, and lobbyist cronies must just pay better. There are more lobbyists these days, so it could be just sheer numbers, too.

DOVER, Del. - The father of Nicholas Berg, a U.S. contractor believed to have been beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, said Thursday that al-Zarqawi's killing will only perpetuate the cycle of violence in the Middle East. "I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."What a strange take on the matter. Really? George Bush wanted to "finish business" in Iraq before 9/11 according to many reputable sources. Including writers allowed in or formerly from the administration. Neocon thinkers like Pearle had already written that an excuse was necessary for the U.S. to pursue a clearly imperial "regime change." in Iraq. Much like "Mein Kampf," people should have taken these Bush affiliates at their word. I know I sure did. There was no Al-Qauda in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Seems to me that Bush is as vengeful, as internationally ambitious, and as responsible for the current state of affairs in Iraq as Zarcawi was. Bush spawned Zarcawi in a very real sense. What I find strange is that so many fail to even consider these facts. How refreshing: a man of principle rather than just lip service. I can see how he would blame anyone who is responsible for starting hostilities as a guilty party. In this case, while not a pacifist, I must agree with him to a point, but there were plenty of pragmatic reasons to hunt down Zarcawi. Nice one sentence smear. No facts, no thought, no analysis. Why are so many neocons of that ilk? Could it be the inability to think for themselves? Is THAT why they need talk radio so much, to get their marching orders? It's a pity you can't recognize a coherent argument supported by legitimate facts, though not the only valid argument, to be sure. One must suspect that "Johnny Utah" is the male equivalent of Ann Coulter, no? Shady has some thought evident, so I guess he'd have to be in the realm of Rush Limbaugh, or maybe somebody even more thoughtful, well above Limbaugh, but well below George F. Will, perhaps? Bush created the conflict that he carried his revenge killings under, motivated by vengeful feelings toward Saddam to the point of lying about cassus belli. Zarcawi's death won't have any effect unless and until we are able to deliver stability and respect to the Iraqis sufficient to win their hearts. I'm relieved he's dead, personally, but I see it as just another tit for tat in a war that the U.S. is not commited enough to win quickly and convincingly. Winning the Iraqi's hearts by providing security and without the obscene "collateral damage" that U.S. military planners seem perfectly willing to inflice would, in fact, have made Zarcawi into a joke even had he not been killed. Security and respect will win the day, not targetted assasinations no matter how "just" they may be. I do see reasons beyond mere revenge in this case. Zarcawi had to be eliminated for pragmatic security and political reasons in terms of defending Iraq. Not all violence is unjust: I wouldn't agree with Mr. Berg, for instance, in D-Day or other WWII actions by the allies either. Then truly, you belong with Mr. Bush: an infantile leader who is motivated by his "gut" rather than knowledge and the good of the nation he leads into expensive and prolonged conflict under falsified justification. If you are willing to allow revenge to shape U.S. policy, I hope you are in the armed forces where you can put your "guts" and the rest of your body where your mouth is. Otherwise, I think being willing to put our boys at risk for "revenge" is asinine if not obscene. Now that we're there and we've created Zarcawi, we did owe the Iraqi's his capture or death. But that's a matter of policy and problem solving. Not some childish policy motivated by revenge by people too weak in the head to separate their passions from their rational mind. I wish more people on this forum could accept that instead of taking the low road and bashing Berg and Goddard. Yep, FOX News, information for the faily unbalanced. I suspect minds like that couldn't get through a balanced op ed page if their lives depended on it. But hey, typical tactics of political extremists: when you can't argue with the man's rationale, just badmouth him. It's the leading neocon approach to politics: devoid of individual thought. It's not necessarily a waste. Those who feel the need to badmouth the man tell me all I need to know about THEM: people I am ashamed to call 'fellow Americans' as they more closely resemble American fascists in temperment and 'reason'. We really screwed up when we eliminated poll testing: it might filter out the extreme leftists and the neocon bozos who can't separate fallacy from logical conclusion even when it's coloring book simple. Maybe formal logic needs to be taught on the high school level. At least those who really can't would be kept down by denying them a high school diploma. Of course, that would leave a lot of neocons who can think but find it easier to let others think for them still out there. At least there is some hope for such folks: I think a great many have rethought their position on the Gulf War.

Nope. The excuse game is more liberal. Extenuating circumstances, contextual issues, and the like. Health issues are a good example, though I've seen many allegedly conservative types move to the left when they find out just how quickly bad fortune can strike them down even though they've played by the rules and attended church worshipping a God they presumed was rewarding them until their ill fortune. Suddenly despite having paid for health plans for years suddenly they don't have the coverage to even recover. It's amazingly educational: some leeches are in the system, but some really deserving folks are there too and often don't get half the help they need. The blame game is more conservative. Scapegoating, burning subordinates, and even setting someone up in advance to make the fall guy or gal more guilty. I've survived enough purges and layoffs to know the game of the average American businessman. I've also dodged unemployment by bugging out in time when employers were breaking this or that law protecting consumers and/or employees. I've even been witness in two lawsuits (in this case deposed by lawyers before it went to trial), one that ended up in the quarter million range when settled. In both cases, the more conservative management did their best to smear the plaintiff with material both true and manufactured. True, there are some principled businessmen and managers, but I've seen most of them take some serious lumps and/or purging for their ethics. Of course, I've been a technical expert and later a project manager, not a business owner or manager of PEOPLE. That's MY business experience. Wonder how many of these things you've seen, "moderateamerican"? I'm not sure how "moderate" you are, but I am pretty sure that your sample of 'business' is probably from a pretty small sample of events, just as I at least hope that I just got to see a really bad sample by dumb luck rather than representative cross section. What you should have "noticed", is that the debate wasn't centered on whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, all believed that, the debate was centered on what to do about it, more inspections versus removal from power. Again, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UN all had intelligence that strongly suggested Iraq possessed illegal weapons and continued to pursuit illegal weapons programs. Your lies may work with a less informed audience, but not with this one, and not in this forum. Re-write your history someplace else. Did France, Germany, Russia and China tell their citizens that Saddam Hussein has ties to Bin Laden? That was a pretty blatant lie. While we're talking about lies, did IRAQ have ties to Bin Laden? Even a former U.S. commander in Iraq admitted that they didn't in an interview this weekend. Did IRAQ have yellow cake ore? Turns out the CIA didn't think so at the time, and lo and behold that turned out to be true. I think that further reveals who is "re-writing" history, and re-writing the known facts of the case even as the case for war was made. What this really has to do with racism is beyond me, even though it does go to the credibility of certain posters.

You'd be surprised how many libertarian leaning and moderate leaning Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with her schtick. As such, I think she does the country a service: those who aren't repelled by her are already unthinking knee-jerk neocon to the point of neofascist and are irredeemable, but those who are repelled are moving a bit toward the middle. Similarly, the Democrats are considering & voting for some far more moderate candidates for the next election to avoid the revulsion for knee-jerk liberals too. Moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats are the only true hope for the U.S. Much as the so-called "Gang of 14" Senators who have torpedoed both filibusters and outrageous rule changes are problem solvers, the only true pragmatists are in the middle, not the extremes.

Nope, not all of the U.S. has remaining racial or orientation baggage. Try Providence in Rhode Island. It's a veritable San Francisco East. The funny thing THERE was I made quite a few gay and lesbian friends, and they kept being shocked by how many traits they had in common with a heterosexual like me. The best quote was "I guess guys are just guys whether they are gay or straight" from a buddy of mine who is gay. On the racial level, I found that my middle class black neighbors in an apartment/condominium complex outside a major eastern city were more friendly to me (a white male) than my white and asian neighbors. One such white neighbor (a female that I suppose was attractive though not my type who was VERY PREGNANT) was affronted when I said hi and told me "we don't do that around here." My next door black neighbor (who was downright beautiful) on the other hand was willing to chat for a good long time without assuming I had some nefarious intention. I have never used the 'N' word, and would verbally lambaste anyone who used the term no matter what the context. Surprisingly, counter to your experience, I have found only very few Americans who use the term north of the Mason Dixon line. Race & gender relations vary a lot by location. The Northeast is not the South or the Midwest, and in some ways has more in common with California. Update your thinking, and look up the NAACP's actions to help a WHITE man get his radio job back. Then look up the way elected Democrats abandoned the congresswoman who is trying to get a pass on punching a Capitol Policeman by playing the race card. When the NAACP is helping white folks who accidentally mispoke and elected Democrats won't appear with an errant black congresswoman, it's a sign "the left" is developing some sense on race. Especially if you happen to be using the far right's definition of "left" that encompasses anyone who isn't as extreme as they, e.g. the supposedly "liberal" Republican Senator, Arlen Spector, and many a conservative Democrat as well. I'm fairly sure you aren't, but you need to be careful using terms like "left" and "liberal" these days: the uber-right neocons have driven the likes of many a registered Moderate Republican out of the party. That kind of intolerance within their own party is almost fascist, not rightist, but it seems a majority of registered Republicans think that way. Those are school statistics that I believe are still required by law these days, and I am well aware of families that have chosen schools with larger minority attendance over schools that manage to be somewhat segregated despite a slew of Supreme Court rulings. Moreover, race on a driver's license is a statistic that is indeed used in law enforcement and appears in many strongly Democratic states and not just in the south. Race relations in the South and Midwest are not generally what they are in the Northeast, but the mere existence of said statistics or elements on a driver's liscenses is as fallacious as one can get. Check out execution rates and conviction rates if you want some stats that are more relevant. Hmm... racial or gay jokes don't necessarily mean the speaker is racist. When drinking with a gay friend, he tells the gay jokes and I tell the straight jokes. I've even told Scot and Irish jokes whilst a black friend told racial jokes about blacks from the Islands, and know an Aussie who has some killer Aussie jokes. So the use of such jokes isn't a 100% diagnostic. On the flip side, I'd be very wary of dating across a racial divide such as you've described, just as I would not ever again date a fervent religious type as they far too often end up demonizing a well read agnostic (I don't know and YOU DON'T EITHER!) such as myself. I don't blame your girlfriend's caution, but I think she should discuss matters with you to ascertain the underlying truth rather than watching you for examples where you "slip up" in her eyes. Your suburbia example is party proven false by the growth of the black middle class who ALSO lives in suburbia. This trend will only continue.

Yeah, right. I guess conservatives prefer a few poor word choices over more than thirty years of voting records for each party. Of course, I can't USE G.W.'s poor word choices: everybody assumes that half of what he says is result of a poor word choice, so he gets a pass. I never realized how clever the Neocon movement was so shrewd in electing a man whose incompetence in speaking English is legendary. So enough about politicians with their repsective feet in their mouths. If you want to see some interesting statements about race in the U.S., there are some TELLING matteres where actions point out the good and bad. On the up side, check out the NAACP helping a radio show host who was lauding Condoleeza's merits as an NFL commisioner and ran "coup in" to "coon" and was fired immediately thereafter. Surprise is that the newscaster is white. The NAACP has finally matured to the point that they can tell friend from foe even when the speaker who screws up happens to be white. This is more than just "words" in this case, because it is about a man getting a job back. On the down side, check out Cynthia McKinney's physical altercation with Capitol Police when she walked around an X-Ray machine sporting a make-over that I surely didn't recognize her as the same person. When an officer tried to retain her, she apparently hit him. Afterwards what does she do? She plays the race card. Capitol Police had been harassing her. Several black leaders of lesser judgement (Al Sharpton et. al.) than the NAACP has demonstrated backed her up and appeared with her when she leveled such racial charges. That "harassment" by repeatedly failing to recognize her would still not be a justification for punching a police officer didn't dawn on any of these august persons is a real crime. That's the bad news. The silver lining is the withdrawal of support by many Democrats (who have gone so far as to refuse to make campaign appearances with the errant congresswoman). So it seems the race card doesn't buy off assault on a policeman even amongst Democrats in elected office. So there you have it: not slips of the tongue, poor word choice, or poor choice of metaphor: in the realm of actions we have the NAACP backing an innocent white man but Al Sharpton backing a congresswoman who is likely guilty of assault. Topping it off, we have Democrats not helping Ms. McKinney's reelection effort. Seems some "liberals" are still willing to use the race card inappropriately, but even the NAACP and elected Democrats have a bit more sense.

Generally people move toward the left as they are further educated. It's a well known demographic that even the right doesn't contest: they just villify the "intelligentsia" as snobs and/or elitists. I have seen that some fields of education lean more one way or the other. Natural scientists of the "hard sciences" and engineers tend more to the right. Probably because they needn't concern themselves with out terms in their equations (not always a safe approach, as evidenced by the fate of the Challenger crew). Social scientists and epidemiologists tend more to the left, as most social sciences can't really pin down causality one way or another AND they get to see the impact of race and social class on mental health, medical care, etc. I've noted women tend to move from the left to the right, generally, when they have kids. Men tend to lean more to the right overall, and get more so as they become more materially driven and then fearful of change in old age. Fear of death drives older folks to the church, which is another source of drift to the right.

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you buy McLellan's serf-serving reasons for exempting the world's most vicious terrorist group from any sanctions in Canada then you have no integrity or intelligence, and we don't want your support. The world's most vicious terrorist group, or a legitimate player in a civil war where BOTH sides commit butchery? Even if you debate the latter point, it STILL isn't the "world's most vicious" by a damnsight. Nice hyperbole, though. Flags your demagogue's rant quite nicely.

Sure it does, in excess, Monty. Lot's of other "socialist" entities work just fine. Isn't the military "socialist" instead of individuals hiring mercenaries? Aren't the police a "socialist" entity that would be replaced by privately hired gaurds? Isn't the Department of Health, which we would look to for help in the event of an epidemic, just a socialist safety net? Even an insurance policy, a form of pooled risk, follows a socialist model even as it is marketed as a capitalist commodity. I suppose that sort of thinking doesn't work well for anyone who thinks in pure black and white. Those examples are just a little too subtle for such types to follow. Mismanaged socialism, socialism without feedback mechanisms to motivate individuals to be vigilant of costs (that would be a "mixed" model, in case you've never heard of it) truly degrade the system and eventually the people using it. If you want a really good essay on just this, check out "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm. The only problem with his essay is that he never considers mixed models necessary for managing resources like water and air (currently I find the management of the former FAR to socialist and the management of the latter just an opportunity for capitalists to poison another commons). So sure, I admit that poorly designed and/or pure socialism is bad news. Just like pure capitalism (which is just a word for "greed" - odd that religious fanatics are so wholly wed to the concept) makes people worse. Without regulations for the good of all you end up with folks like Ken Lay, and even the "protection racket" so often employed by the mob becomes perfectly legitimate. Get back to me if you read the Hardin essay, as I suspect you'll get the broad strokes but not the subtle implications in the real world: you'll either miss them or ignore them because they won't stroke your dogmatic view of the world. That's the problem with dogmatic extremists: you, Jerry Falwell, Al Zarcawi, Joe Stalin, Michael Moore and Osama... brothers of the brain though not of creed. I wonder if there will every be a treatment for this dogmatic mental illness? You know, provide a pill, create some kind of therapy, implement some sort of lobotomy and the world will NEVER have to suffer the poison of zealotry and dogmatic ignorance of irrational extremism ever again!

His tirades play to the far right in the U.S. and extremist Republicans in the legislature. It's not supposed to be problem solving. It's supposed to be grandstanding. It's not supposed to support legitimate conclusions. It's supposed to mix in just enough truth to dupe some few into buying into fallacious confusions. It's supposed to allow the U.S. to play the victim of some half-manufactured dreadful slight by the U.N. In this regard he is very much like Jerry Falwell, who cries out for the victimhood of his ministry versus his enemies, among them the homosexuals in the nation whom he blamed for the 9/11 disaster. Bolton is a loudmouthed demagogue who is doing exactly what the Bush Administration and the "thinkers" of the Neocon movement want him to do. Much as in the case of the pre-GW-election papers put forth by Pearle and others, it's an approach born of dogmatism. Dogma that even before 9/11 speculated that only a major incident could provide excuse to pursue "regime change" in Iraq. Dogma that downplayed the costs of such actions to the point of idiocy that is now proven by historical fact and U.S. debt. Dogma that rejected multinationalism and international law in favor of unilateral militaristic adventures. Again, the similarity to Falwell should be obvious. What other kind of U.N. representative would those subscribing to such a philosophy WANT? A unilaterist nation with an internationalist U.N. representative would be working against itself. A regime that wanted excuses for militaristic intervention in the Middle East would be foolish to even recognize the authority of such an international body. A movement that wants to force others to obey it's evangelical religious tenets at home and abroad must muddy up any attempt at population control with hysterical rhetoric: a problem solving approach would be inane given such goals. The more mud he slings, the more shrill his complaints, and the more he can play out the U.S. as victim playlet, the more he serves the necessarily anti-U.N. position of the neocon agenda. Bolton is the logical appointee to such a post given the Neocon agenda. If I subscribed to the Neocon agenda, I'd be thrilled with Bolton's performance. Even as one who sees neocons as dangerous unilateralist and anti-civil rights advocates who are really just nascent fascists, I have to admire Bolton. Just as I have to admire Goebbels and Hitler for their propagandistic posturing on the international stage prior to WWII for their success, even as I am revolted by their motives.

That's certainly true of U.S. conservatives and NPR. They're REAL problem with the content is cute too: NPR doesn't give 30 blurbs on the story, they give ten or fifteen minutes to convey some actual information. Not so easy to convince informed people with sloganism instead of specific reason when they have some facts. I'm just surprised the liberals don't dislike NPR too: that sort of reporting has got to inconvenience political animals such as Senator Clinton too.

Thanks. I changed quotes to different text styles instead.

Why? I didn't see anything said as being particularly insulting or improper. Bolton is trying to pick a fight with the UN in the same way the Republicans are trying to pick a fight over same sex marriage - to inspire the masses of dullards who finger their prayer beeds as they donate to the Republican party and then rush off to vote for God's chosen politician - 2006 version. Exactly, and even the majority of Americans who know who Bolton IS know it... even the righties are getting tired of getting played it seems. I'm no fan of U.N. beurocracy, and I think a lot of things could be improved, but Bolton is certainly no agent for change: he's the Jerry Falwell of international politics. Rude, crude, and so's his point of view.

Typical political lies: lies of omission, lies unsupported or fallacious conclusions, and substitution of ad hominem arguments for actual reason. Sounds like Michael Moore to me! (I can't see where I'm screwing up my qutoes: are embedded quotes supported on this forum?)

So Moore is a loudmouthed hypocrite. So what? Yeah, so what if one of the biggest icons of the left is a lying hypocrite? Sure, he had a prize seat beside an ex-president at the DNC. Sure, many of the top leaders of the DNC went to the premiere of the disgusting agitprop known as Fahrenheit 9-11, and gleefully pronounced that the movie spoke the truth. And Bush lauded Ken Lay as a great executive at fundraisers. Politicians as a lot associate with demagogues, robber barons, and lobbyists who shower them with acceptable "gifts" to curry favor. Moreover, most of the INFORMATION that Moore provided WAS true: what HE did was draw conclusions that weren't supported. Watch the film, and if you can actually THINK rather than fume, then you'll probably be able to see exactly what Moore is: a demagogue who presents a few legitimate facts but slips in fallacy and smears in place of logical conclusion. That's the kind of reasoning you are presenting, by the way. But sooo what? Who cares if he is anti-gun but his bodyguard gets arrested on gun charges. Safety and security for me but not for thee--the very definition of a hypocrite. I see. By that reasoning any country that wanted to see a reduction in nuclear arms by treaty but yet wouldn't reduce them unilaterally was a hippocrite. By that reasoning, I as a legal gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms but with better safegaurds for ownership, registration, and even mandatory insurance (like, say, automobiles) is a hippocrite? I can't own a gun because I'd like to IMPROVE the current world of laissez-faire wild west of illegal guns that make owning a gun with THAT kind of world outside my front door is a logical move? Poppycock. In country where guns are in the hands of criminals and/or neoconservative extremists and their even more extreme kin such as various militias and white supremacists, I'd think Moore would be an IDIOT if he didn't have armed bodygaurds. He'd be a HIPPOCRITE if the laws he supports were enacted and he STILL insisted on armed bodygaurds. Seems that subtle difference went right over your head Does that make his factual arguments any less valid, or are you actually fool enough to think that an ad hominem attack in leiu of rebuttal is valid? I go to his film but I verify the facts with a bit of reading afterwards. But even when he's exaggerating, he's still funny. Michael Moore and factual argument do not belong in the same sentence. You can't possibly be this foolish. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, Monty. I've supported probably a third of Bush policies, and I even support SOME of the demands of the religious right for EQUAL treatment under the law (as in, say, the case where a school refused to sell billboard advertising to a church just the same as the local hardware store, or in the manner that state scholarships are fine for philosophy majors but not religious studies majors, etc.). Moore has a few points where he DOESN'T play fast and loose. If you watch Farenheit 911 (don't rent it, download it - after all, Moore ENCOURAGED folks to see it via P2P) and THINK you'll see that Moore almost always presents a series of TRUE facts, but then jumps to a conclusion that isn't supported or uses a smear instead of a legitimate argument. Sounds a bit like your current arguments. Same tactics, but different orientation. You can do better than Michael Moore, and still nail him for what he is with the specific times he plays fast and loose with conclusions. He's a demagogue. Responding to HIM with demagoguery is just legitimizing his tactics. What kind of fool are you to denounce Moore when you are far bigger a hypocrite? Are you saying that she should only own union resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards? Why do you think that makes any sense whatsoever? Just how many resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards ARE union? Why not? Wouldn't it be hypocritical not to? Are you telling us that there are no restaurants that are unionized? What nonsense. KFC in BC has over 50 unionized restaurants. As an aside, if you want to eat at KFC, more power to you. It'd make me ill, both literally and figuratively (could put me in the hospital for a few days). I'm in favor of unions WHERE THE EMPLOYEES VOTE TO UNIONIZE. I'm in favor of employers who pay their employees well enough to forstall any such developments. Costco, the makers of SAS, and others. Having dated a few waitresses and even a chef's assistant in college (and coincidentally at some of the better restaurants I dined in back then), I know that the high end restaraunt employees are well compensated when you figure in tips. One girl had a brother washing dishes in the back, and even HE did fairly well. Sounds to me like those employees didn't NEED a union, so why should I only eat there if they chose to form a union they didn't need? That'd be anticompetitive. Hell, it'd be anti-American! Hipocrisy would be me choosing to shop at Sam's Club when better treated employees at Costco give me the same savings. Hipocrisy would be me choosing to buy a non-union product when an equivalent union product at the same price was available (often, it is - you can find clothes that don't use child or prison labor that's just as good and no more expensive - if you look). So no it isn't hipocrisy. Just because one is pro labor doesn't mean that one has to rule out non-union outfits. Nor does it mean that one has to invest in a failing heavily union-shop (say, GM) when less unionized outfits are turning a profit. Perhaps unionized without all the stupid rules that get in the way , for example - like the rule that said I couldn't move an analytical instrument today but had to wait for a unionized porter to do it for me next week. Unionized intelligently without that silliness but providing an ombudsman who could intervene if employees were being harassed by rogue supervisors, for example. Being Pro-Union doesn't mean I can't also be anti-stupid. You really need to take a remedial vocabulary course: you use hypocrite without grasping the meaning. I guess in THAT way you aren't a hypocrite, you're just ignorant and feel the need to share that fact with everyone. You have no point, and even as a smear this isn't up to muster. Pot, meet the kettle. Nope. Reasoned fact based thought meets unthinking sloganism and smears, omission of relevant facts, and downright lies. All this even when there are legitimate facts and arguments at hand if you did a bit more reading and actually THOUGHT: read both the liberals and conservatives, for example, and you realize that neither tells the whole truth. Read the WSJ, which is very much results oriented but yet cites more liberal sources than most liberal newspapers do (I think the study of this was done in Michigan, but I don't have research library access at the moment). So it's rational man meet ignorant liar. Just how is THAT possible... given his employment and writing history, that rings fasle on its face. LINK. Chomsky did work for the DoD on translating computer languages; MIT gets money from the US military. Do you read anything other than leftwing news sources?[/b] I read the liberals and the conservatives and laugh at their lies. Then I read Reuters and the WSJ to see if there were any lies that I missed. I haven't seen you present proof, and when you detail that even if you ARE correct, it was just translating computer languages, there's no hypocrisy at all. I could make kevlar jackets for our troops, for example, and not be a hypocrite if I argue against the Iraqi (but not the Afgani) War. I could make rifles, I could make tanks. I probably would be a hypocrite if I made nerve gas or maybe napalm, but I'd bet that napalm HAS had some legitimate uses. Pour it into a bunker, for example, and I'm not going to bat an eyelash. Moreover, I've done research at universities that receive DoD monies (even to departments whose classes were in my degree path). That doesn't make me a hypocrite. Monies came from some pretty conservative groups too, and there were also donations from very liberal causes. If I they fund WORK that I think is important, then I can say I agree with them in that instance and not another. So yet again you cry hypocrisy on the level of a child's reasoning, but not an adult one. I'd say open your eyes, but your impediment is apparently in your gray matter. And I am not going to even get into Chomsky's anti-Semitism.] RIGHT. He supported a one state solution for years and flopped to two-state around the time that Israeli war heroes like Barak and Sharon decided it was the only way. He TALKED to Hezbollah in hopes of getting a civilized response in return that would grow (it didn't). Bottom line is, he's a ZIONIST. Just not ZIONIST enough for the extremists. You know, like the conservatives in the German legislature weren't conservative or authoritarian enough for the National-Socialist German Workers Party. Sort of the way LIBERALS call me a Nazi because I like W.I.C as a model for basic socialist safety nets (you can have Cheerios but not Fruit Loops, you can have lean hamburger but not fillet mignon) for a more intelligent way of spending food assistance, health care, and other dollars (while liberals think that's violating recipient "rights" rather than actually giving them OPTIONS and FREEDOM they wouldn't have without such programs existence). Just as CONSERVATIVES think I'm a liberal because I support W.I.C. in the first place. That's the kind of anti-semite that Chomsky is. And Wikipedia? Get real. Anyone can write anything on that site. You DO know that, don't you? You DO know that individual facts and paragraphs that are factually and rationally disputed get labeled "Disputed" don't you? Get one of your coherent friends to do the disputing on Wikipedia, though. You clearly lack the means to do factual or rational. Wikipedia uses a very democratic (lower case 'd' before you go off on another half-baked tangent based on your failure to understand words of more than two syllables) approach which suprisingly leads to getting things right more often than not. Probably not to your liking, though, as it isn't really a servant of any specific dogma. There's lots in there for liberals not to like too. Again, so one proponent of environmentalism doesn't live up to her ideals... I can find a laundry list of consevatives who lobby for exceptions to get around the limitations of the free market, who succeed in getting corporate welfare for their pet interests, and a variety of other hypocritical endeavors. I think you are confused. From the WND article: "Those who believe that the rich need to pay more in taxes proved especially adept at avoiding taxes themselves. Critics of capitalism and corporate enterprise frequently invested in the very companies they denounced. Those who espouse strict environmental regulations worked vigorously to sidestep them when it came to their own businesses and properties. Those who advocate steep inheritance taxes to promote fairer income distribution hid their investments in trusts or exotic overseas locales to reduce their own tax liability. Those who are strong proponents of affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and some had abysmal records when it came to hiring minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was available to protect them from dangerous criminals." Right. So if I am in favor of the environment, I have to spend ten times the price for low impact foods (when simply giving organic food producers (thereby pesticide and chemical fertilizer free - clearly lower impact) a tax break would do just fine. If I'm in favor of higher taxes, I have to GIVE money to the government that I don't owe by the current rules? If I were pro-affirmative action (I'm not) I'd have to hire a less qualified minority when I've got a better qualified white applicant even when the law didn't say I HAD to? Nope. You can support changing the rules, but you don't have to play by those rules and screw yourself by being the only one to play by said rules until they are implemented. A civilized man amongst cannibals will be supper if he subscribes to Tiffany Etiquette. A nuclear power doesn't have to give up or reduce nukes unilaterally without agreement of the opposing nation to also give up (or reduce) nukes. MORE IMPORTANTLY: I still don't see any specific examples in your quoted ad hominem tirade. The quote you posted is as lacking in substance as YOU are. All I see is unsupported generalized smears. If that's seriously your idea of "proof" then you probably belong in one of those nice white coats with sleeves that tie in the back. I can also point out a variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly religious fundamentalists. So what? It wouldn't prove one side or the other more "valid" either way. Okay. You point out the "variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly religious fundamentalists", and I will point out the variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly secular fundamentalists of the left. Examples: Pat Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson. If you want me to itemize their shenanigans, just say so. But the bottom line is, if Jimmy Swaggart presents a policy idea that is FACTUALLY a good idea with arguments of merit, I should still listen to it. I don't like Bush, but I support him in Afganistan. I'm in favor of about three quarters of the Patriot Act and in wanting to streamline wiretaps of FOREIGN calls if not his clearly illegal domestic intelligence gathering. I am impressed by his rational argument that LIMITED and PRINCIPLED amnesty (say, a one time only guest worker offer that could allow them to become U.S. citizens no faster than foreigners applying at the same time through the legitimate channels, with adjustments up and down based on family members here, by family members who are U.S. CITIZENS, or for people who can prove they've been here a decade or more) to deal with a simultaneous (and intelligent) move to strict enforcement of illegal immigrant laws AFTER the amnesty is in place. I'm in favor of SOME demands of the religious right: say that they have the same right to buy ad space at the school football field as the hardware store has. Or that if state scholarships can apply to philosophy majors then they should also apply to religious study majors. If I ignore a valid point that somebody who I usually don't agree with automatically, I'd be pro-stupid. I prefer good arguments and facts. I even know of some arguments to SUPPORT some of your contentions. I won't embarass you by spoon feeding them to you unless I absolutely have to; far better for YOU to present them so I can prove I will agree with you when YOU'VE use legitimate arguments and facts. Let's see who can come up with the most examples. Then again, maybe not. You puling coward. You offer to pony up then again chicken out when proof time arrives. So yet again, no specifics. I can rattle about a half dozen EXTREME examples on the left off the top of my head, just as I can rack up a bunch on the right. I provided the religious nuts above and I'll detail their idiocy if needed. Go ahead and provide a few liberal nuts. Start with Moore and download the movie (after all, Moore encouraged it) to pinpoint exactly what his shenanigans are. You'll have SO much more heft in your arguments when they are specific thought based on specific facts (Moore's specific specious arguments) rather than generalized smear. All I see from you is the lies and smears of a coward who can't back up his words with reason or fact. You misrepresent my arguments, omitting more than HALF of a premised argument with caveats, so you can belittle the bits and parts you want. Playing Chinese Menu doesn't wash, Monty. Arguments aren't Garanimals, you have to address them as stated: if you clip the context, presented caveats, or need to omit central points of the argument, that makes you a liar, not clever.

So Moore is a loudmouthed hypocrite. So what? Does that make his factual arguments any less valid, or are you actually fool enough to think that an ad hominem attack in leiu of rebuttal is valid? I go to his film but I verify the facts with a bit of reading afterwards. But even when he's exaggerating, he's still funny. Are you saying that she should only own union resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards? Why do you think that makes any sense whatsoever? Just how many resorts, restaraunts, and vineyards ARE union? You have no point, and even as a smear this isn't up to muster. Just how is THAT possible... given his employment and writing history, that rings fasle on its face. LINK. Again, so one proponent of environmentalism doesn't live up to her ideals... I can find a laundry list of consevatives who lobby for exceptions to get around the limitations of the free market, who succeed in getting corporate welfare for their pet interests, and a variety of other hypocritical endeavors. I can also point out a variety of highly immoral, unethical, and dastardly religious fundamentalists. So what? It wouldn't prove one side or the other more "valid" either way. Then again, maybe not. Having read your "source" at the WorldNetDaily, which I rate as about as reliable as the latest liberal news releases from "MoveOn.org", I think you ought to do the reading. You need to get a hefty dose of reality: you, like the liberals you criticize, choose to believe highly biased sources that pre-chew your ideas for you. You don't check facts. You don't do your own thinking. You don't bother to question the motives of those you quote. To me, you are just as bad as the worst knee-jerk bleeding-heart rabid liberal: you are wholly unencumbered by the thought process.

Why would he be? It's he said/he said. In other words, a license to lie, so his "being worried" or "not being worried" should really only matter to those fools who accept one side or another, unthining, because it fits their particular prejudices. Sure. I'm all for that. Right after Vallely is for his claims, G.W. Bush is for his pre-war claims, and a host of other liars from inside the Washington beltway. Do we know that? Cite your source, and I'll find it mildly interesting, if it is better than Rush Limbaugh or FOX News, I might even find the report credible. If he lied to congress under oath, he'd have been charged... the absence of such a charge makes me wonder about your veracity more than his at this point. Of course, if since he hasn't, and a member of the Bush administration has, I think what is "known" and "verified" is quite a bit different from what you are representing.