Kitch

I was going to dispute what you said because I am very cynical of corporations too. But you make a good point.

Newspapers aren't 'filtered'? Sorry, off topic.

How do we stay on topic if the discussion is contingent on how we define the people who are intolerant (in your view) and the rest of society (as you define it)? So gay = the entire 'left'?

So how does that extend to the 'left'?

You used a particular example to highlight some ill-considered opinion and you think discussing that example is going off topic? Is it a 'conservative' trait to categorize so broadly? Especially when speaking of people or ideas you disagree with? Or is that limited to people who, more fairly, are just closed-minded?

Define "these people".

Well, one (presumably) gay person makes a comment and you attribute this to the entire 'left'? Besides, even if you could blame this group of people you label the 'left' (as though political ideology is as definite as nationality) for being intolerant... they're intolerant of society? If I marry my girlfriend, what impact does that have on society? (And we're not talking tax benefits here. The definition of marriage has been disputed). What happens to me when a gay couple gets married in my town? Is it all because you're going to be struck down by the 'lord' because some dude polishes another dude's pole? (And when I say you, I'm referring to those who care enough to tell people who can get married and who can't).

You have some very interesting ideas. What could be some of the problems with each politician's vote counting for the proportion of popular vote that they represent though? Do you think that it would ever be possible for citizens to vote on certain issues at any time? Sort of like referendums on a number of issues, but internet based to (maybe?) reduce the cost.

Why do you think that?

What kind of animal is the Dow Jones? I didn't know it could respond to such stimuli. So, either the "MSM" buried the story, or, it exaggerated the story... well, here's an article quoting the same FOX reporter as saying that there were two men standing outside the polling station but that there were no incidents. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20081104/0...ing-station.htm Here's a video of the police arriving. The two guys weren't standing directly in front of the door, as the 'witness' in the FOX report said. They were standing a good distance from the door. Not to say that they weren't trying to intimidate anybody... but if they were, it was simply through their presence. http://www.electionjournal.org/2008/11/04/...-polling-place/ AND another that hints at the possibility of the "MSM" over-blowing the story. So, which is it? I suspect that one's decision as to whether the story was buried or exaggerated will be directly related to their political ideology/chosen candidate. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...lown.html?cat=9

That's more like it! The psychopath comment was a joke... it may have sounded more aggressive than intended, but, whatever's clever. I like to think that I'm a fair minded individual. I don't see how petitioning to eliminate Israeli influence/support makes somebody an idiot. Maybe angry, spiteful... but not an idiot. I didn't bother looking at the second link (although maybe I will pick up the book), but I read the first one and WOW. This muse of yours is guilty of all the same things of which you accuse Chomsky. I've heard Chomsky speak about Israel... he is not a neo-nazi or a holocaust denier. He is, however, a strong advocate for freedom of expression, which is why he had no problem writing a forward for a holocaust denier's book. He is indeed anti-zionist, though. Is there something you see wrong with this? Because that might be THE reason why Chomsky is so criticized in some circles. But a lot of what I've read from these people, similar to this Dershowitz, is propaganda in it's own right. There are certain truths that these people treat as self evident (no reference intended). For example, the notion that Israel is occupying Palestinian regions for protection. I don't think that this is true, but that's another discussion. Chomsky doesn't put wild "spins" on information that he sites! Perhaps these "spins" are based on information that is of the same flavour that zionists spew. Propaganda goes both ways. Chomsky, from what I've read, does indeed try to explain the other side of the story... or rather, motivations of people that he's criticizing. But I didn't see a hint of that in Dershowitz' little piece you posted. Have a read of this: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3251

If you don't devine 'n' then you leave your variable open to be anything! Besides, simply repeating yourself doesn't make your words any more true. It makes you a psychopath for repeating failed attempts though... if you can really call those attempts.

Disagreeing with him doesn't make him an idiot. I'd LOVE to see somebody actually disagree with some point he's made and back it up with some magical citation though... the man reads EVERYTHING. Read one of his books. They're about 400 pages with 150 pages of references! Many people attack the man, but won't touch his ideas.

I don't know bud, you seem to like to over generalize when you refer to 'Canadians', 'Americans', 'Liberals', etc. I sure hope that people living in the U.S. don't see this thread and assume that you are the standard of a 'Canadian'... or else I wouldn't blame anyone for not taking us seriously. I don't enjoy putting people down but MAN, you whine a WHOLE lot. You accuse people of the same illogical discussion tactics that you've steadily employed. You're uncompromising, except in jest, and your views are so narrow... it's like you're not capable of even entertaining an idea that you don't already hold. Suck it up bud!! From the other thread, you said that you thought it made us... 'Canada'... look like wimps because some people want to change a school logo. Well, you're not helping to stave off that perception.

It's the only FOX that I get in Toronto... WUTV Buffalo. They WERE reporting on the election but then Seinfeld came on. And the FOXNews website was messed up all night.

What's wrong with you man?

No, FOX is limp right now, so it seems. I'm wondering, for real, if FOX stopped reporting because Obama is seemingly going to win. Or if it's just in my area. I'll stay away from slang so as to not be misunderstood in the future.

Seriously

Dude, no need to bust a nut over the results.

Why did FOX stop reporting the election? Or is this just in my area?

Good point. I can't believe that the logic you've introduced had eluded me. Noam Chomsky is far from an idiot. That's why so many people line up to hear him speak and not some clown on a web forum.

You're making it clear that you care not to converse about things that you aren't very informed about but want to assert an unfounded belief anyway. Clever to request a mutual concession because you can't go any further though.

Actually, Canada and Europe banned it because it initiated an immune response and also caused the development of cysts in rats. This is an indication that it might not be safe for humans... a big indication. How are you so sure that the reporters had no 'proof'?

In your use of the term 'cover up', are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in preventing the truth from being broadcast, or are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in determining what the 'truth' is?

The problem comes when people lose the ability or willingness to perceive something being terribly wrong with their country. In some circles, patriotism has come to imply uncritical support for the leaders of one's country.