Hack's Election Thoughts

It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of Cuban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.

It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.

My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of ban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.

It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.

My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States. [/quote]

PERHAPS, there’s a kernel of truth in what you say about some of those people. But I’m glad you figured out that the arch-conservatives are just as bad or WORSE with their own agenda in the opposite direction. The actual intentions of both could be greatly debated.

But at the least, both very liberal and very conservative politicans are quite misguided and very divorced from what the people want and what would be best for the country.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of ban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.

It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.

My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States.

PERHAPS, there’s a kernel of truth in what you say about some of those people. But I’m glad you figured out that the arch-conservatives are just as bad or WORSE with their own agenda in the opposite direction. The actual intentions of both could be greatly debated.

But at the least, both very liberal and very conservative politicans are quite misguided and very divorced from what the people want and what would be best for the country.[/quote]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that ‘arch-conservatives’ are bad or worse. I totally disagree with that. The Bush-haters have put the Clinon-haters to shame. THe rancor is and has been at a fever pitch. It’s everywhere and it’s poisonous.

My POINT is that I want what’s best for America. Unlike the Bush-bashers (Sarandon and Robbins, Penn and Streisand, Vidal and Maher, Chomsky and Carter, Gore and Kerry, Asner and Mellencamp, on and on, et al) I don’t claim to know for certain what that is. I don’t care if the answers come from George Bush or Nancy Pelosi. I guess I’ll know it when I look around and see an end result that’s positive and I can say, “Yeah. Things are pretty good, right now!”

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of ban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.

It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.

My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States.

PERHAPS, there’s a kernel of truth in what you say about some of those people. But I’m glad you figured out that the arch-conservatives are just as bad or WORSE with their own agenda in the opposite direction. The actual intentions of both could be greatly debated.

But at the least, both very liberal and very conservative politicans are quite misguided and very divorced from what the people want and what would be best for the country.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that ‘arch-conservatives’ are bad or worse. I totally disagree with that. The Bush-haters have put the Clinon-haters to shame. THe rancor is and has been at a fever pitch. It’s everywhere and it’s poisonous.

My POINT is that I want what’s best for America. Unlike the Bush-bashers (Sarandon and Robbins, Penn and Streisand, Vidal and Maher, Chomsky and Carter, Gore and Kerry, Asner and Mellencamp, on and on, et al) I don’t claim to know for certain what that is. I don’t care if the answers come from George Bush or Nancy Pelosi. I guess I’ll know it when I look around and see an end result that’s positive and I can say, “Yeah. Things are pretty good, right now!” [/quote]

Well, ok. I think Bush gave a lot more solid reason to have serious detractors than Clinton, and I certainly wouldn’t simply use the liberal celebrities as the only representatives of that group. Not all Clinton-bashers were arch-conservatives either. That’s a select group, and most of those are every bit as venemous as the most virulent Bush-basher. But you believe what you believe. No point in arguing about it. I do agree that I don’t really care where positive progress comes from, be it George Bush or Nancy Pelosi.

I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.[/quote]

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want. [/quote]

If America cared so much about other people. Why not establish democracy in Africa first? Why not put troops there to guard the peoples in Darfur?

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want. [/quote]

And for the record, you should listen to non-Americans, as I should listen to non-Canadians and others who disagree with our perspectives to understand that there are people who have other viewpoints that may be more accurate than ours or have a different take that we never though of.

The reality is there a ton of people in poor countries where people are dying where the US does not help because it simply does not see the financial profit in doing so.

We are not American, that is why we see these things happening. You don’t because you’ve never stepped foot into an impoverished, violence-ridden country where half the population just doesn’t understand what to do about their situation so they resort to more violence.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
It’s incorrect to say that I’ve never read Chomsky or seen him debate. I’ve seen him “debate” on Bill Maher a few times. I was wholly unimpressed by his “points”, even as he was backed by an approving and howling audience (and Maher himself). I’ve read bit of his work here and there. It’s the same tired old anti-American / pro-Everone Else garbage that is pervasive among the liberal elite. He’s against any action the U.S. might take to defend it’s self but makes excuses for the likes of Castro, blaming “show trials” and mass exectutions of Cuban citizens on, you guess it, George Bush and the old U.S. of A. Seems U.S. boycotting and embargos drive Castro to kill Cubans.

It’s so much drivel masquerading as “liberal thought”. Too bad it’s not guided by morality or anything relative to reality.

My intent on this thread was to voice my hope for progress in our government, no matter who is in charge. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the great liberal “thinkers” like Chomsky. People like him and Michael Moore and Gore Vidal and Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and, well, I could go on, are not going to support anyone in anything they do unless it exactly suits their own liberal agenda. It does not matter if it’s what the country or what’s best for the citizens of the United States. [/quote]

Were the russians who opposed state policy anti-russian?

Calling people anti-american is nothing more than a method of trying to quell discussion. Much like using the term “conspriacy theorists”. One side uses it in hopes of making the other look like they don’t even merit consideration.

Actually Chompsky has exudes more morality in a eyelash than this whole administration and probably previous ones as far as the eye can see.

What bothers most about the man is that he has the nerve to point out atrocities committed by the U.S. This doesn’t fit in with the propagandized assumtion that this country is essentially peaceful and benevolent. If only people would look beyond the corporate press and look through other avenues they could begin to see the snare that has caught them.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

If America cared so much about other people. Why not establish democracy in Africa first? Why not put troops there to guard the peoples in Darfur?

[/quote]

Pretty simple reason: The citizens of the United States (the people paying the TAXES!?) do not operate a charity. While it’s nice to throw money at every cause that strikes your fancy, you generally don’t have enough dough to take care of everyone in need. So you make decisions. You try to get something for your investment. The leaders in Africa have demonstrated time and again that it is virtually impossible to get aid to the folks who need it. It’s a corrupt place.

Private citizens of the U.S. also give more money than any other citizens in the world. Even the Utopites up in Canada!

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

And for the record, you should listen to non-Americans, as I should listen to non-Canadians and others who disagree with our perspectives to understand that there are people who have other viewpoints that may be more accurate than ours or have a different take that we never though of.

The reality is there a ton of people in poor countries where people are dying where the US does not help because it simply does not see the financial profit in doing so.

We are not American, that is why we see these things happening. You don’t because you’ve never stepped foot into an impoverished, violence-ridden country where half the population just doesn’t understand what to do about their situation so they resort to more violence.[/quote]

Look, asshole. Let’s get something straight: I’ve been all over the world. I’ve lived in China and Saudi Arabia. I’ve been to South America and I’ve been to Europe.

I’ve seen poverty and I can assure that I’ve done - and continue to do - all I can to help individuals and communities in those places.

And as for your closing BULLSHIT remark that implies that America creates the violence visited upon it and their allies by other, lesser countries simply because they don’t give enough money…well…that’s childish and you can go fuck yourself.

Grow up. Understand the events and the situations you are trying to discuss. Take off your liberal goggles that show everything in bright relief: Conservatives BAD, Liberals GOOD. Get a clue.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

And for the record, you should listen to non-Americans, as I should listen to non-Canadians and others who disagree with our perspectives to understand that there are people who have other viewpoints that may be more accurate than ours or have a different take that we never though of.

The reality is there a ton of people in poor countries where people are dying where the US does not help because it simply does not see the financial profit in doing so.

We are not American, that is why we see these things happening. You don’t because you’ve never stepped foot into an impoverished, violence-ridden country where half the population just doesn’t understand what to do about their situation so they resort to more violence.[/quote]

Here is one question I have for you, assface: How much is enough? Did you do the search? Get back to me with the number and then tell me what the U.S. SHOULD have given.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

And for the record, you should listen to non-Americans, as I should listen to non-Canadians and others who disagree with our perspectives to understand that there are people who have other viewpoints that may be more accurate than ours or have a different take that we never though of.

The reality is there a ton of people in poor countries where people are dying where the US does not help because it simply does not see the financial profit in doing so.

We are not American, that is why we see these things happening. You don’t because you’ve never stepped foot into an impoverished, violence-ridden country where half the population just doesn’t understand what to do about their situation so they resort to more violence.[/quote]

You know, there is some truth in what you say. BUT, we have limited resources. We cannot ‘save’ the rest of the world. If we are to choose between helping poor countries where we also have a financial interest in doing so or help one of dozens or hundreds of poor countries where we have no financial interest, is it so wrong to choose the former?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
Good Post. But let’s be honest with ourselves. We went into Iraq because of oil - what George Keenan called “The Greatest Material Prize in History.” It’s why we support Isreal, have military bases in Saudi, and why Bush gives a back rub to the Saudi King every time he visits.

Controlling the world’s energy resources gives what George Keenan called “Veto Power” over other countries. We don’t want to own the oil, but “we want to have our hands on the spicket” just in case… [Noam Chomsky]

The claims about WMD’s was a joke. The reason they had to claim that Iraq bought “yellow cake” (enriched uranium) from Niger was because Iraq didn’t have a nuclear reactor capable of making uranium. The whole Valerie Plame case was Bush’s revenge on the CIA agent (Plame’s husband) who investigated the Niger yellow cake claim and basically said it was bullshit.

Umm… WHat are you talking about? This whole paragraph has nothing to do with Hacks post. At all. Stop trying to stir something up, this isn’t a thread about left or right, it’s a thread about left and right combining to make a better America.[/quote]

Ummm…what the fuck are you talking about!!! He devotes one whole paragraph to why we went to war and why we are still there. I’ll post any fucking thing I like. You don’t like it - don’t read it!

Firstly, I didn’t say the US was solely responsible or anything.

As for limited resources? What on earth? The country has enough money to amass a war machine that can bombard countries miles away… There are more than enough resources. There is even a food surplus here in our countries causing a ton of diseases for us, while others are starving. As members of a fitness forum, you should be aware of that.

I am not a Leftist or Rightist or whatever political lingo you want to throw at me.

All I’m saying is the US has a mass of resources, power and influence at its disposal, enough to affect the world in a very positive way. Yet this influence is being wasted in waging wars abroad where innocent civilians and US soldier’s are dying needlessly. If the country actually did help charitably there would be no stigma against the US and it would actually be viewed as a wonderful country with wonderful values.

And giving money doesn’t do crap, we’ve already seen that in Africa, you’ve said it yourself, the African governemnts are too corrupt to utilize it for their people. Shouldn’t it make more sense to go there, change THEIR governments so that their people can get aid?

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
I hope the new government will also have the compassion and sympathy to help out other countries in need, not just focus on its own nationalistic objectives all the time.

ReallY? Do a search and find out how much the United States doles out in foreign aid each year. Of course, your attitude is common among non-Americans. Your main concern is what you can get out of us, so long as it’s exactly what you want.

And for the record, you should listen to non-Americans, as I should listen to non-Canadians and others who disagree with our perspectives to understand that there are people who have other viewpoints that may be more accurate than ours or have a different take that we never though of.

The reality is there a ton of people in poor countries where people are dying where the US does not help because it simply does not see the financial profit in doing so.

We are not American, that is why we see these things happening. You don’t because you’ve never stepped foot into an impoverished, violence-ridden country where half the population just doesn’t understand what to do about their situation so they resort to more violence.

Here is one question I have for you, assface: How much is enough? Did you do the search? Get back to me with the number and then tell me what the U.S. SHOULD have given. [/quote]

First of all, stop swearing, you’re not making yourself any more credible. Second, take a look at annual US military spending at tell me if it is THAT hard to donate at least a fraction of that to humanitarian causes?

Others can and should be helping too yes, that is indebatable, but no other country is as powerful or wealthy as the United States. I know its cliched, but there is a definite responsibility that comes with such power.

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
BluePfaltz wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:

Noam Chomsky? I may not be a ranting anti-liberal in THIS thread. But I’m not ready to hear anything Chomsky has to say unless I want to experience extreme liberal elitism. So much so that the guy’s almost a parody of himself.

I disagree with that on alot of levels, but as for your original point, I want to compliment you on bieng rational, and respectfully civil.

I do agree and hope there is a good change, so Im with you on that one.

Well, you can disagree on as many levels as you like. I’m never going to be a lap-dog conservative for liberals to enjoy because they will not stand their ground on the issues that are really important. If you do not have problems with people like Chomsky then you have either not READ or been exposed to his anti-American rhetoric, or you agree with him. If the latter is the case then I’ll just regard you as another liberal crackpot, concerned more with your ‘world citizenship’ then with the well being of the United States.

Let me make things a bit more clear. I believe that Noam Chomky not only hates AMERICA, I believe that he hates AMERICANS. That is, he hates Americans that do not share his liberal, “enlightened” views (i.e. anti-Americanism). He is part of the insolated, isolated liberal elite that do not seek or accept views outside their own. They preach tolerance while they have NO tolerance for anyone who disagrees with their fundemental views. They preach against ‘racism’. As long as it’s the RIGHT ‘racism’. Do not discriminate against blacks, or Arabs, or whatever current minority catches their fancy. But to be one of them you must also BE ‘racist’. You MUST view Christians, southernors, conservatives, Israel with derision. You must ridicule them and mock them.

So while I hope that this country can improve and do better, I also don’t think that we are in QUITE the dire straights that you and the Chomskites might have us believe. Unlike them, I don’t care who does what’s right for America. I just what what’s right. What’s best for me and my family and my country. Liberals like Chomsky want what they believe in mandated for all. And they want the people THEY believe in to spread the gospel and make the changes. If a ‘non-believer’ wants to make his mark, well, he’s not part of the club, now, is he?[/quote]

…and you’re right back to your retarded self again.

[quote]

You know, there is some truth in what you say. BUT, we have limited resources. We cannot ‘save’ the rest of the world. If we are to choose between helping poor countries where we also have a financial interest in doing so or help one of dozens or hundreds of poor countries where we have no financial interest, is it so wrong to choose the former?[/quote]

Give me one example where we’ve ‘helped’ a poor country that we have a financial interest in? If we have a financial interest in the country it’s obviously not going to be good for their people. But that’s what America wants everyone to believe - that we’re the good guys, we’re ‘liberating’ those poor souls from their misery.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Firstly, I didn’t say the US was solely responsible or anything.

As for limited resources? What on earth? The country has enough money to amass a war machine that can bombard countries miles away… There are more than enough resources. There is even a food surplus here in our countries causing a ton of diseases for us, while others are starving. As members of a fitness forum, you should be aware of that.

I am not a Leftist or Rightist or whatever political lingo you want to throw at me.

All I’m saying is the US has a mass of resources, power and influence at its disposal, enough to affect the world in a very positive way. Yet this influence is being wasted in waging wars abroad where innocent civilians and US soldier’s are dying needlessly. If the country actually did help charitably there would be no stigma against the US and it would actually be viewed as a wonderful country with wonderful values.

And giving money doesn’t do crap, we’ve already seen that in Africa, you’ve said it yourself, the African governemnts are too corrupt to utilize it for their people. Shouldn’t it make more sense to go there, change THEIR governments so that their people can get aid?[/quote]

You are very naive to think that because we have a built-up military, we can afford to solve the problems of every country in the world. Last time I checked, we have a large debt and deficit. We have problems with education. Social Security is in trouble, and something needs to be done or it won’t exist.

We haven’t even secured our own security by enacting all of the recommendations of the 911 commission. I certainly support some aid to other countries, but in my opinion we have devoted too many resources to ill-chosen paths abroad and execuued them poorly. The way in which we’ve handled Iraq is only one example. We need to do more to fix our own domestic problems.

[quote]jason1122 wrote:

You know, there is some truth in what you say. BUT, we have limited resources. We cannot ‘save’ the rest of the world. If we are to choose between helping poor countries where we also have a financial interest in doing so or help one of dozens or hundreds of poor countries where we have no financial interest, is it so wrong to choose the former?

Give me one example where we’ve ‘helped’ a poor country that we have a financial interest in? If we have a financial interest in the country it’s obviously not going to be good for their people. But that’s what America wants everyone to believe - that we’re the good guys, we’re ‘liberating’ those poor souls from their misery. [/quote]

Yes, it is a fine line. There is always a concern when you are self-interested that your actions have little benefit to the people. That doesn’t mean they are automatically mutually exclusive. But I can’t say that our track-record is very good in countries where we have a vested interest. You are probably right that the real good that we’ve done has been in countries where we haven’t profited.