The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3049868.stm
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
--
Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".
I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.
Page:
Whatever, I've got it sitting on the shelf here. I'e lifked through it but nothing else more, read the odd bit. That's all, as for Moore, no way I'd by his toss.
Besides, you haven't explained why you state as far as Chomsky is concerned that the cold war still exists.
Nice blurb from Zdnet.org etc, but you haven't explained your blase dismissal of a man you have repeatedly stated you don't read.
Until challenged on it...oh...
Nice blurb from Zdnet.org etc, but you haven't explained your blase dismissal of a man you have repeatedly stated you don't read.
Until challenged on it...oh...
Practical Magic wrote:
> I'm running out of time so I'll have to respond more fully tomorrow,
> but one of my main criticisms of Chomsky is his abject belief that the
> USA is an all powerful global superpower. To me, he still thinks in
> terms nation states exercising power over other nation states and that
> military power is the main leverage. From what I've read of Deterring
> Democracy that's how I interpret the basis for many of his points.
--
Or rather the bits you didn't glean from Amazon and other book reviews?
Sorry, but since you have repeatedly stated how you dont read Chomsky, suddenly when challenged on this, you drop in "from what I've read"??
You lie Mr Finkle, you lie.
> I'm running out of time so I'll have to respond more fully tomorrow,
> but one of my main criticisms of Chomsky is his abject belief that the
> USA is an all powerful global superpower. To me, he still thinks in
> terms nation states exercising power over other nation states and that
> military power is the main leverage. From what I've read of Deterring
> Democracy that's how I interpret the basis for many of his points.
--
Or rather the bits you didn't glean from Amazon and other book reviews?
Sorry, but since you have repeatedly stated how you dont read Chomsky, suddenly when challenged on this, you drop in "from what I've read"??
You lie Mr Finkle, you lie.
I'm running out of time so I'll have to respond more fully tomorrow, but one of my main criticisms of Chomsky is his abject belief that the USA is an all powerful global superpower. To me, he still thinks in terms nation states exercising power over other nation states and that military power is the main leverage. From what I've read of Deterring Democracy that's how I interpret the basis for many of his points.
To me, the greatest leverage now is not military power but information and the control of it, and we no longer have a world where anyone is a superpower any more. Thinking in terms of super powers is Cold War thinking, it implies that a superpower can do as it wants when this is plainly not the case. No nation can exist in isolation anymore.
I also find it simplistic how Chomsky asserts that the media is implicit in the flow of information to the public and that the public is really that easily decieve or powerless to act against political actors. I just don't buy into the kind of world vision he puts forward in Deterring Democracy. From what I've read he is focused narrowly on the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia. It is easy to look back and criticise but less easy to make the call without having a crystal ball at the time.
Still, more tomorrow.
To me, the greatest leverage now is not military power but information and the control of it, and we no longer have a world where anyone is a superpower any more. Thinking in terms of super powers is Cold War thinking, it implies that a superpower can do as it wants when this is plainly not the case. No nation can exist in isolation anymore.
I also find it simplistic how Chomsky asserts that the media is implicit in the flow of information to the public and that the public is really that easily decieve or powerless to act against political actors. I just don't buy into the kind of world vision he puts forward in Deterring Democracy. From what I've read he is focused narrowly on the US to the exclusion of all others - such as Russia. It is easy to look back and criticise but less easy to make the call without having a crystal ball at the time.
Still, more tomorrow.
*pop*
Because during the rest-gaps you take between ejaculating violently onto Tom Clancy novels, you can explain why Noam Chomsky still thinks the cold war is ongoing.
I mean, you dismiss a leading academic and professor of linguistics, the foremost intellectual social commentator as "trash", so you'll obviously explain why you think so.
Having admitted to never reading Chomsky because he's a "leftist".
I mean, you wouldn't dismiss an opinion without actually being aware of where that person is coming from....oh...
So, even though you'll ignore this post - I'm politely asking you to justify comments made in retaliation to reasonable posts,
Noam Chomksy - still thinks the cold war is ongoing because....
Because during the rest-gaps you take between ejaculating violently onto Tom Clancy novels, you can explain why Noam Chomsky still thinks the cold war is ongoing.
I mean, you dismiss a leading academic and professor of linguistics, the foremost intellectual social commentator as "trash", so you'll obviously explain why you think so.
Having admitted to never reading Chomsky because he's a "leftist".
I mean, you wouldn't dismiss an opinion without actually being aware of where that person is coming from....oh...
So, even though you'll ignore this post - I'm politely asking you to justify comments made in retaliation to reasonable posts,
Noam Chomksy - still thinks the cold war is ongoing because....
Yet again you miss the point.
However, I'll take up a couple you raise here.
You dismiss Moore and Chomsky. Both know a lot more than you about a lot of subjects, but that's not the point -
How can you dismiss authors you admit you have never read? In order to dismiss a viewpoint, you must first be aware of what they talk about.
So, tell me what Chomsky's views on The Gulf War of 2003 are. Because then and only then can you talk with authority on why you dont agree with them.
Actually, please explain why Chomsky thinks the Cold War has never ended.
Please.
My point here was that, as Blank has said, rather than admit you are wrong on a subject, you resort to "apprentice" jibes and deliberatly ignoring the points made rather than admit you are wrong.
As you were on Kapos being regarded as Nazis, and what labelling someone as a Kapo meant.
Rather than say "Sorry, I didnt realise", you ran off.
Which is not the way to behave.
So, further to your comments today:
Why do you claim Chomsky thinks The Cold War is still in operation?
And why do you flee a topic rather than, at no loss, admit error?
However, I'll take up a couple you raise here.
You dismiss Moore and Chomsky. Both know a lot more than you about a lot of subjects, but that's not the point -
How can you dismiss authors you admit you have never read? In order to dismiss a viewpoint, you must first be aware of what they talk about.
So, tell me what Chomsky's views on The Gulf War of 2003 are. Because then and only then can you talk with authority on why you dont agree with them.
Actually, please explain why Chomsky thinks the Cold War has never ended.
Please.
My point here was that, as Blank has said, rather than admit you are wrong on a subject, you resort to "apprentice" jibes and deliberatly ignoring the points made rather than admit you are wrong.
As you were on Kapos being regarded as Nazis, and what labelling someone as a Kapo meant.
Rather than say "Sorry, I didnt realise", you ran off.
Which is not the way to behave.
So, further to your comments today:
Why do you claim Chomsky thinks The Cold War is still in operation?
And why do you flee a topic rather than, at no loss, admit error?
How many times must a man look up before he sees the sky?
Erm, reading back, whoever said this was bullying ?? I don't think it is, all it is is a case of the typical "holier than thou" liberals suffering shock that no one apart from them really cares we kicked out Saddam's regime and did it without giving a toss about them and their anti-war buddies...
I've said this before, and I'll say it now because it winds certain people up. If you opposed the war in Iraq to remove Saddam's regime than you are a pacifist. You are the reason the world is in the mess it is now. The best way to counter a threat is to remove that threat for certain, not appease it, not negotiate with it. Remove it, legally or illegally. I fundamentally believe that anyone who engages in illegal terrorism, or who acts like Saddam did, has no claim to human rights whatsoever.
Actually, what is the problem with the Iraq War ?
Was Saddam better in power than out ? Nope. Would he step down peacefully ? Nope. Was he hoarding money that should have been spent on the country, all the time whilst he protested for the lifting of sanctions to help the country ? Yes.
Face it, if you opposed the war you wanted Saddam left in charge by default. No one with a conscience could let that happen.
Sure, say I'm stupid, I don't care, really. If that's the best you can do then you're not worth anything. Fight information with information - heck, you asked in another thread for stuff about the 2000 US elections, I replied, neither you or Light refuted any of the points. If anyone acted to swing that election they were going left....
On another note, My results for the second year are in and unfortunately I missed a first grading by 3%, so I'm obviously stupid. In fact we're all stupid, us ~hawks~ as I believe Light likes to call it. Everyone who doesn't agree with Bill Hicks, Michael Moore or whatever his name, they're all stupid. You guys know The Truth TM. You know better, oh yes..... alternatively you're raging against a world you don't understand and seeking solace in those in the same position. But, who am I to argue with people like Moore, a loudmouth American idiot, and Chomsky who thinks the Cold War never ended, and rattles out predictable trash after trash.
Ah....
I've said this before, and I'll say it now because it winds certain people up. If you opposed the war in Iraq to remove Saddam's regime than you are a pacifist. You are the reason the world is in the mess it is now. The best way to counter a threat is to remove that threat for certain, not appease it, not negotiate with it. Remove it, legally or illegally. I fundamentally believe that anyone who engages in illegal terrorism, or who acts like Saddam did, has no claim to human rights whatsoever.
Actually, what is the problem with the Iraq War ?
Was Saddam better in power than out ? Nope. Would he step down peacefully ? Nope. Was he hoarding money that should have been spent on the country, all the time whilst he protested for the lifting of sanctions to help the country ? Yes.
Face it, if you opposed the war you wanted Saddam left in charge by default. No one with a conscience could let that happen.
Sure, say I'm stupid, I don't care, really. If that's the best you can do then you're not worth anything. Fight information with information - heck, you asked in another thread for stuff about the 2000 US elections, I replied, neither you or Light refuted any of the points. If anyone acted to swing that election they were going left....
On another note, My results for the second year are in and unfortunately I missed a first grading by 3%, so I'm obviously stupid. In fact we're all stupid, us ~hawks~ as I believe Light likes to call it. Everyone who doesn't agree with Bill Hicks, Michael Moore or whatever his name, they're all stupid. You guys know The Truth TM. You know better, oh yes..... alternatively you're raging against a world you don't understand and seeking solace in those in the same position. But, who am I to argue with people like Moore, a loudmouth American idiot, and Chomsky who thinks the Cold War never ended, and rattles out predictable trash after trash.
Ah....
Light wrote:
> Quazimodo wrote:
>
>
> Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the
> sunlight?
>
> Heh. Nah...the sunlight burns my flesh; only holy water stings
> worse...
What about pee
> Quazimodo wrote:
>
>
> Everyone must hold hands and stand in the circle dancing in the
> sunlight?
>
> Heh. Nah...the sunlight burns my flesh; only holy water stings
> worse...
What about pee
Which is odd, because only sticks and stones hurt me.
But massive ones, a bit like Gulliver.
But massive ones, a bit like Gulliver.
Page: