Oh yeah, there's no (subversive, leftist guerrilla) liberal media bias....... :evil4:

So they're equals on the infidelity issue then. Can we talk about politics now please? That's what's supposed to be the vote, isn't it? And I don't care wether Bush went to Vietnam or stayed at home like any boy with the will to live would have done. What we should care about are true issues affecting people: work, health, environment, guns, death penalty, war, welfare etc. Plenty to discuss about without wasting time about personal stories...

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy" Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

the best one was, Saddam Huseins Weapons Of Mass Destruction Are Really Dinosaurs And George Bush Knows It...

Originally posted by Jeff Tomlinson > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy" > > > Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

the best one was, Saddam Huseins Weapons Of Mass Destruction Are Really Dinosaurs And George Bush Knows It...

Don't forget the constant findings of Titanic surivivors some 90 years after the fact

who gives a fuck (excuse the ban punning) if dean had / has a mistress? his wife and kids i suppose, but how is that an election issue?

msn cnn fox are all much of a muchness. patriotic* crap. perhaps bushs biggest achievement is making a star out of michael moore.

So america gets a choice between a rich white male conservative to plunder around the world, or a richer, whiter, maler, neo conservative to plunder around the world breaking emmisions aggreements to pay back the vast sums he owes to military industrialists, industrialists and assorted oil companies who funded his celebrity based white teeth "campaign".

this happens once every 5? years ? tens of millions sacrifice power to a handful of individiuals, who run the counrty with the corporates whose money guarantees them power......... and this is democracy

at least fox is honest. this is where i gets me my news http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

* = dont question your leaders.

Originally posted by nearly there who gives a fuck (excuse the ban punning) if dean had / has a mistress? his wife and kids i suppose, but how is that an election issue? msn cnn fox are all much of a muchness. patriotic* crap. perhaps bushs biggest achievement is making a star out of michael moore.So america gets a choice between a rich white male conservative to plunder around the world, or a richer, whiter, maler, neo conservative to plunder around the world breaking emmisions aggreements to pay back the vast sums he owes to military industrialists, industrialists and assorted oil companies who funded his celebrity based white teeth "campaign". this happens once every 5? years ? tens of millions sacrifice power to a handful of individiuals, who run the counrty with the corporates whose money guarantees them power......... and this is democracy at least fox is honest. this is where i gets me my news http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml * = dont question your leaders.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.

Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.

Michael, you're getting awfully dangerous to the Devil's mark for a total post count (666). At this point, you will reveal that you are none other than John Ashcroft and that you have been monitering all the un-American activity on this board and are satisfied that you can try all of us on charges of treason or just general unpleasantness underneath the Patriot Act. At which point black helicopters will be dispatched to all the various locales of the New Order Online residencies, and a hunt for those who esacpe the first wave will take on a "Running Man"-like game show premise....

Or maybe I just need to go back to bed :D

The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

so its " a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field", a state that RE presents its PUBLIC ?

                 If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.

did i say clinton / dean etc are angels ?As i said, clinton was a democrat conservative, white , male , president, in the pocket of mulitnationals etc.

My point being this "election" is a choice between a anti labour, union busting asshole, a warmonger, and a former soldier - all white , all rich, all male, all old, all looking after the intrests of those(oil companies, missile makers, and car makers) who pay for their campaigns, i.e. not you

not that theres anything worng with being any of the above, just doesnt seem like a choice

              Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.

ever wonder how many tonnes of fuel these militarists/world bank boyos burn when they get together for a "lets kill for peace" / "lets up consumption to please our shareholders" confrences? ferrying their fat asses and private armies along in their private jets? your point is of no consequence. enviromentalists arent anti planes, or trains, or taxis, or buildings, or steel or central heating or anyhting engineered, they just realise that all these things have side effects that need to be looked into. like most humans are, unlike most execs/presidential candidates.

Originally posted by nearly there The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic.so its " a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field", a state that RE presents its PUBLIC ? If by "emissions agreements" you mean the Kyoto Protocol, you must understand that for the US government to enter into any international treaty, it must first be approved by the Senate. It was never introduced by it's greatest champion, the Clinton administration. One wonders why.did i say clinton / dean etc are angels ?As i said, clinton was a democrat conservative, white , male , president, in the pocket of mulitnationals etc.My point being this "election" is a choice between a anti labour, union busting asshole, a warmonger, and a former soldier - all white , all rich, all male, all old, all looking after the intrests of those(oil companies, missile makers, and car makers) who pay for their campaigns, i.e. not younot that theres anything worng with being any of the above, just doesnt seem like a choice Not to go on a rant here, but have you ever wondered why when environmentalist decide to get together, they don't video/teleconference? Instead they burn untold hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying to places like Kyoto and Rio. This is not to mention the greenhouse gases emitted by taxis and buses that haul around these environmentalist once they get to their vacation...I mean conference destination.ever wonder how many tonnes of fuel these militarists/world bank boyos burn when they get together for a "lets kill for peace" / "lets up consumption to please our shareholders" confrences? ferrying their fat asses and private armies along in their private jets? your point is of no consequence. enviromentalists arent anti planes, or trains, or taxis, or buildings, or steel or central heating or anyhting engineered, they just realise that all these things have side effects that need to be looked into. like most humans are, unlike most execs/presidential candidates.

In your assumption that I don't help pay for the campaign of my chosen candidate, you have made an ass of yourself, but not me. I contrubute to the RNC on a quarterly basis. In 2000, I decided to put my money where my ideology was and have been contributing ever since.

I don't think I ever stated that environmentalist were anti-transportation (althought many of them are). However, the point (that you missed) was, in context to Kyoto and Rio, that it seemed the height of hypocrisy that a group would gather to decry the output of emissions by the industrialized West yet have created so much of same to get to said gathering.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Michael, you're getting awfully dangerous to the Devil's mark for a total post count (666). At this point, you will reveal that you are none other than John Ashcroft and that you have been monitering all the un-American activity on this board and are satisfied that you can try all of us on charges of treason or just general unpleasantness underneath the Patriot Act. At which point black helicopters will be dispatched to all the various locales of the New Order Online residencies, and a hunt for those who esacpe the first wave will take on a "Running Man"-like game show premise....Or maybe I just need to go back to bed :D

Actually, I fancy a squadron of AC-130 gunships....

Ahhh, I love the smell of Pringles and Guinness in the morning....did I type that out loud???? Uh oh....

I really dislike the number 6_6. When I'm creating proposals at work, I'll purposely adjust figures to avoid it. Just superstitious I guess.... ;)

Well, getting back to the theme of this thread, I suppose we should have more unbiased reporting from the right? "We don't create the news, we just report it. You decide." Or whatever crap line it is that they spout.

The RNC, as in Republican national congress?

Youre a republican?

Ah, fuckit maan. dealin with a real reactionary here.

Im not, ammm im not you know going to sit here, and go into the ins and the outs, what have you ummm while i try to find out why some republican has problems beyond lack of pacifism.

Mark it dude : http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

Almonso is correct.

Where i come (Irlande) from,a "liberal" is on the right wing - liberal refering to their economic ideals (free trade, although there aint much trade moving "freely" if you live outside the "first" world).

A "leftist" is obviously a socialist.

A "gurellia" is a member of an indigenous army trying to undermine a government. this is independent of political orientation. For instance, the US government supported right wing gurellias who overthrew the democratically elected government of chile, imposing the facist dictatorship of pinochet, and subsequent deaths of thousands on that other september 11. ernesto and pals , on the other hand, were left wing gurellias.

a "subversive" is anyone who sets out to overthrow the elected government (george bush ) - again, independant of political orientation (right or left)

From what my american cousins tell me, a liberal in the states is someone who is pro personal (as opposed to economic) freedom, michael is proberbally just a bit culturally conflustered about that. he is totally wrong on the last two tho;)

Originally posted by nearly there Almonso is correct.Where i come (Irlande) from,a "liberal" is on the right wing - liberal refering to their economic ideals (free trade, although there aint much trade moving "freely" if you live outside the "first" world).A "leftist" is obviously a socialist.A "gurellia" is a member of an indigenous army trying to undermine a government. this is independent of political orientation. For instance, the US government supported right wing gurellias who overthrew the democratically elected government of chile, imposing the facist dictatorship of pinochet, and subsequent deaths of thousands on that other september 11. ernesto and pals , on the other hand, were left wing gurellias.a "subversive" is anyone who sets out to overthrow the elected government (george bush ) - again, independant of political orientation (right or left)From what my american cousins tell me, a liberal in the states is someone who is pro personal (as opposed to economic) freedom, michael is proberbally just a bit culturally conflustered about that. he is totally wrong on the last two tho;)

It would seem that we were dicussing these issues in terms of North America. At least that's what I was doing. Therefore, the fact that the venacular I chose to use happens not to fit your local constructs does not make it wrong.

I can assure you that there is no confusion on my part.

Originally posted by almanso i was reading this thread´s title again.... are you saying the liberals are subversive, as leftist guerrilla? you´re insulting both liberals and subversives without even knowing it, mind! liberals are right oriented. on the left of republicans, true. but still right. but that´s because on the right side of the republicans there´s a wall! you can´t get much right than that. you need to go out more, partner. and maybe read some books for a change. that could help!

I'd happily put up my personal library against yours any day.

Originally posted by nearly there The RNC, as in Republican national congress?Youre a republican? Ah, fuckit maan. dealin with a real reactionary here.Im not, ammm im not you know going to sit here, and go into the ins and the outs, what have you ummm while i try to find out why some republican has problems beyond lack of pacifism.Mark it dude : http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

"Reactionary"??? How political commisariate of you....

"Liberal" has a different connotation in the U.S. than it does in the rest of the world. In the U.S. "liberals" are on the left of the political spectrum, while "conservatives" are on the right.

Those terms themselves are unique to the U.S.; at present, the left in the U.S. would be considered center-right in the rest of the world. There is no real, viable left in the U.S. Yes, there are leftists, and leftist parties, but the winner-take-all (or in the case of G.W., loser-steal-all) election system we have creates a two-party system, and in order to win, a party has to appeal to the greatest number of voters. Thus, there is no viable left in the U.S. We have two center-right parties, or, in the words of Noam Chomsky, we have one party-- the Business Party-- with two wings-- the Democrats and the Republicans.

In the rest of the world, as well as in U.S. academia, "liberal" has its proper connotation-- one who espouses laissez-faire capitalism.

Originally posted by almanso > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by almanso> i was reading this thread´s title again.... are you saying the liberals are subversive, as leftist guerrilla? you´re insulting both liberals and subversives without even knowing it, mind! liberals are right oriented. on the left of republicans, true. but still right. but that´s because on the right side of the republicans there´s a wall! you can´t get much right than that. you need to go out more, partner. and maybe read some books for a change. that could help!

I'd happily put up my personal library against yours any day. Time magazine doesn´t count as a book, man.... and your library.... the fact that you have millions of books doesn´t mean you read them. in fact all of this you wrote shows CLEARLY you didn´t! ;)

So, what tomes of enlightenment are on your shelf, hot rod????????

Don't play dumb semantics guy , it does not suit you. You know what I meant by "personal library".

Porno? :p

Playboy has good articles

I learned "How to Please Your Man in Bed" from Cosmo.....I mean, I looked at the near-naked models on pages 26-104!

I said in my post that you weren’t wrong about lumping liberal in with the other 3 terms (Leftist, subversive, guerrilla)? Didn’t I? just equating the "last two".

A guerrilla is automatically a subversive, but a subversive is not necessarily a guerrilla. To say someone is a subversive guerrilla is akin to saying that someone is a "human male man" or the like.

Regardless of culture, anyone in the Republican Party who has read up anything on their party, the party they fund and vote for (you), should know that it is one of the most forceful practitioners and exporters (often by force) of “neo-LIBERAL market economics”. Since your library didn’t inform you of your party’s economic / social policy, one can only assume that it is indeed stocked with a lower grade of porn than “playboy” :p

Time magazine isn’t a book :D

Originally posted by nearly there I said in my post that you weren’t wrong about lumping liberal in with the other 3 terms (Leftist, subversive, guerrilla)? Didn’t I? just equating the "last two". A guerrilla is automatically a subversive, but a subversive is not necessarily a guerrilla. To say someone is a subversive guerrilla is akin to saying that someone is a "human male man" or the like.Regardless of culture, anyone in the Republican Party who has read up anything on their party, the party they fund and vote for (you), should know that it is one of the most forceful practitioners and exporters (often by force) of “neo-LIBERAL market economics”. Since your library didn’t inform you of your party’s economic / social policy, one can only assume that it is indeed stocked with a lower grade of porn than “playboy” :pTime magazine isn’t a book :D

Oh, you're sooooo right. JFK and LBJ never did anything like what your suggesting.

Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

It would appear by your comments that you need to bury your head in a few books.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

If thats the case why won't Dubya go into Haiti ? (when the people of the country are begging for help)

And with regard to the bit about ratified treaties - why does the US still support Isreal then ??

(Oh, and you forgot to mention about the gaining control of of the black gold)

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Regardless, if you find the liberation of millions of people, the ouster of a murderous despot and the honoring of duly ratified treaties to be distasteful and worthy of scorn, then that sounds like a personal problem you'll have to struggle with on your own.

so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

i'm constantly amazed when people try and justify the war as follows: we liberated iraq from saddam hussein, so let's forget the original failed objective, which was iraq's proliferation of WMDs and the imminent danger this posed to the US and the rest of the world, and concentrate on how the planet is now rid of this evil dictator. did i miss something here? did saddam hussein become bad only after the US broke ties with iraq after the 1980s? was it okay to give saddam hussein WMDs during the iran/iraq war? was he a soft, gentlemanly dictator back then? was the torture of iraqis okay back then because saddam hussein was our ally, and only our enemies can do nasty things? come on. there are a lot of baddies in the world--many of whom we cozy up to--and the war in iraq was not about ridding the country of a 'murderous despot.' it was a misguided attempt at shifting the balance of power in the middle east and gaining control of key natural resources: textbook neo-realist doctrine. let's not sugarcoat it with all of this bleeding-heart nonsense.

Daft cunt :p (note the eerie resemblence :D )

Originally posted by AgentWood so, the US liberated iraq from saddam hussein. what exactly did we liberate the country towards?

*Exactly. Even before the war started, I was already saying Saddam was a bastard, but his oppositors are no better. They're fundamentalists of the worst kind. It's unbelievable, America repeated the same error made years ago when, to get rid of a Communist dictator, they sent the Talibans in Afghanistan (who were refugees in the friendly Pakistan). And you know what happened next, the worst regime ever together with Hitler and Pol Pot (btw, another mate of the USA because he was anti-Vietnam). You never learn, do you?

i just typed "leftist gorilla" into Yahoo images just for fun, and pulled this up