Alberto Gonzalez resigns

[fuckin crazy]

The position is open for now. The Dept. is being run by a Dep. AG. Bush will have an uphill battle to fill the position if he trys to pick anyone who isn't very likable since the Dems control both Houses of Congress.

[SLCPUNK]

Michael Moore tries to blame every problem on the current administration, but steers clear of any facts compromising his agenda. By polarizing Bush and the republicans the focus is taken off what is not a left/right problem, but a rotten system where every politician is forced to follow the same corruptive agenda that has plaged the country for decades.

Moore has been out spoken against Clinton (as well as various other corporations and individuals no matter what their political leanings) in the past in his other films, not just Bush and the Neo-Cons.

Noam Chomsky is another. One of the most knowledgable persons on the earth, with soaring and intelligent criticism of the system, marvelously seems to have missed the influence on policy by the likes of CFR, TC, The Bilderbergers and the general Capitalist Elite. He's a brilliant commentator, but don't contribute shit when it comes to solutions. His mission is to get everybody pissed, but fails miserably as to where this anger should be pointed. In the end, he's nothing but a tool. A protector of the status quo.

Chomsky is critical of hypocrisy and lies, regardless of the political party, spanning decades. The rest of your paragraph seems the exact opposite of what I gather from his writing. He seems quite precise.

[polluxlm]

Moore has been out spoken against Clinton (as well as various other corporations and individuals no matter what their political leanings) in the past in his other films, not just Bush and the Neo-Cons.

I never claimed him to exclusively cover Republican activities. But I did say he deployed the very same tactics as the right wingers. That is, paint a certain picture by downplaying one side and exaggerating the other.

It's actually pretty laughable of you to claim otherwise since this tactic has been around since the dawn of politics. If there was a manual you'd see it on the first page.

Chomsky is critical of hypocrisy and lies, regardless of the political party, spanning decades. The rest of your paragraph seems the exact opposite of what I gather from his writing. He seems quite precise.

Yes, but only the hypocrisy and lies he's comfortable with. How can a man be so blunt and honest on most domestic and international affairs, yet so avoidant when it comes to the true corruptness of institutions like the Fed, CIA, NSA, Pharmasutical industry, IMF, the World Bank etc. etc.?

Most get a pass in my book for their opinions since they're so ignorant of the world around them. Chomsky on the other hand knows what's going on, but choose not to talk about it. That may not directly apply to what we're discussing, but it is none the less a serious issue considering his position.

[SLCPUNK]

I never claimed him to exclusively cover Republican activities. But I did say he deployed the very same tactics as the right wingers. That is, paint a certain picture by downplaying one side and exaggerating the other.

You seem to be twisting around what you would like to argue about.

Moore and Chomsky don't take their talking points from anybody. They are not talking heads like junkie Rush, or Sean Hannity. The right wing all gets together and acts as one organized group. Their mission is to muddy the argument and attack others who don't agree with them. It starts with Rove and trickles its way through it's various media outlets and out of the mouths of their public supporters.

Your claim was that the left is no different that the right in regards to logical fallacies, purposely spreading misinformation, and out right deceit. I disagreed. You pick Moore as an example. I pointed out that Moore has gone after government officials on both sides of the aisle-before taking on Bush, he was taking on Clinton. I don't recall anybody in the Neo-Con propaganda machine take issue with any republican past or present (Except, for those who speak against Bush.) All I do see, is them walking lock step on AM radio, Fox news, loony right wing websites, news papers and via talking heads such as Hannity, O'Liely, Coulter and so forth. They have the same message they spit out daily, it's all the same. Vicious lies, half truths, innuendos, strawman arguments and personal attacks. They have their very own network they claim is "fair and balanced". That network has daily memos every morning of what the right wing message will be. That is not news, that is propaganda. The left wing simply is not this organized or cunning.

The left has been lazy and irresponsible, but in no way, do they even approach the ruthlessness that the Neo-Cons have to misinform the public, smear their opposition, and lie- no way in hell.

Yes, but only the hypocrisy and lies he's comfortable with. How can a man be so blunt and honest on most domestic and international affairs, yet so avoidant when it comes to the true corruptness of institutions like the Fed, CIA, NSA, Pharmasutical industry, IMF, the World Bank etc. etc.?

Most get a pass in my book for their opinions since they're so ignorant of the world around them. Chomsky on the other hand knows what's going on, but choose not to talk about it. That may not directly apply to what we're discussing, but it is none the less a serious issue considering his position.

That is an interesting argument. You seem to be attacking his silence. In your view he should be addressing these issues you find important, and since you feel that he is not, then he must be avoiding them. Even if I were to accept that argument (which I won't) what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Here is a transcript of a speech where Chomsky attacks both sides of the aisle for their dishonesty towards the American public during the 04 election, in particular Kerry. His claim is that these men are merely puppets of the "pharmaceutical industry", "financial institutions" and the "insurance industry".

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/2005012502.htm

In a great interview with Chomsky he addresses the greed of the Pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.cptech.org/pharm/noam.html

In this particular speech, Chomsky addresses the IMF/World Bank and domestic issues created by globalization. "This talk was given on what political activists call S26, the international day of action against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank."

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N46/46chomsky.46n.html

I could find that with a simple search in a minute.

Sounds like you have been reading too much Prison planet to me...

Don't assume I'm as lazy as you are, throw some Alex Jones shit to the wall and think it will stick.

[fuckin crazy]

They are not talking heads like junkie Rush,

Please don't sully the names of junkies everywhere by linking them to him.?  

[polluxlm]

Moore and Chomsky don't take their talking points from anybody.

Nor did I claim them to.

Your claim was that the left is no different that the right in regards to logical fallacies, purposely spreading misinformation, and out right deceit. I disagreed.

You're treading right wing territory now. This is what I disagreed with: It's a typical right wing maneuver to get people off the subject at hand.

You pick Moore as an example. I pointed out that Moore has gone after government officials on both sides of the aisle-before taking on Bush, he was taking on Clinton. I don't recall anybody in the Neo-Con propaganda machine take issue with any republican past or present (Except, for those who speak against Bush.) All I do see, is them walking lock step on AM radio, Fox news, loony right wing websites, news papers and via talking heads such as Hannity, O'Liely, Coulter and so forth. They have the same message they spit out daily, it's all the same. Vicious lies, half truths, innuendos, strawman arguments and personal attacks. They have their very own network they claim is "fair and balanced". That network has daily memos every morning of what the right wing message will be. That is not news, that is propaganda. The left wing simply is not this organized or cunning.

The left has been lazy and irresponsible, but in no way, do they even approach the ruthlessness that the Neo-Cons have to misinform the public, smear their opposition, and lie- no way in hell.

Well, it seems we're in disagreement on what we view as difference. True, the right are more brute in their approach, whereas the left deploy more intellectual methods. But the tactic remains the same; make your opponent appear worse than he is and downplay your own.

That is an interesting argument. You seem to be attacking his silence. In your view he should be addressing these issues you find important, and since you feel that he is not, then he must be avoiding them. Even if I were to accept that argument (which I won't) what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

What are we talking about? I can only answer for myself: The dishonest use of knowledge and information.

Here is a transcript of a speech where Chomsky attacks both sides of the aisle for their dishonesty towards the American public during the 04 election, in particular Kerry. His claim is that these men are merely puppets of the "pharmaceutical industry", "financial institutions" and the "insurance industry".

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/2005012502.htm

As far as terrorism is concerned, the administration very consciously chose actions that it was expected would increase the threat of terror and, in fact, did. It?s not because they want terror, it?s just not much of a priority for them.

The first example of my view.

Notice how he first brings up a serious point, which is a great piece of information, but instead of taking the full leap he backs down right before the finish line. "The administration very consciously chose actions....". That's pretty heavy indication of them wanting more terror, but he dare not say it.

In a great interview with Chomsky he addresses the greed of the Pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.cptech.org/pharm/noam.html

I have no problem with the information presented here. But what is he not mentioning?

How about the use of formaldehyde in food, water and vegetables?

How about the increasing use of sleeper drugs in the population? How about the fact that they want as many people on drugs as possible?

I think I've seen him mention some of this, but he always contributes this to the greed factor.

How about linking the CFR members views on population control and dumbing down the population to enforce their policies? The people hanging out in organizations like this are also the main influent and owners of the pharmasutical industry, so how about that for a connection?

In this particular speech, Chomsky addresses the IMF/World Bank and domestic issues created by globalization. "This talk was given on what political activists call S26, the international day of action against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank."

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N46/46chomsky.46n.html

Chomsky gave several examples to support his claim that the World Bank and the IMF continue to make erroneous predictions about economic situations. He even poked fun at the tendency the organizations have for writing new theorems without empirical data. ?Every crisis spawns new models,? Chomsky quipped.

He thinks this is funny? Attributed to some sort of laziness or misinformation on their part? These organizations employ some of the most brilliant minds in the world. They have think-thanks where people do nothing but analyze and think up new strategies 24/7. Could it be possible that the economic exploitation is only one part of the scheme?

Every crisis spawns new models

Well, they're not really new models, more like phase 2 models. They very well know what they're doing.

Greed is part of globalization, and a serious one. But the main purpose is control, control over people.

Once again he fails to make the blatantly obvious connections, or should I say, choose not to.

And that is my main concern with him. He might not 'take orders' from anyone, but the fact still remains that his activities are supporting the elite's real goal, world government.

I could find that with a simple search in a minute.

Sounds like you have been reading too much Prison planet to me...

Don't assume I'm as lazy as you are, throw some Alex Jones shit to the wall and think it will stick.

Sorry man, assumptions and personal attacks are not my style.

[stolat]

free the heads, jail the feds, free the heads jail the feds, free the heads jail the feds.............

Quite a catchy tune there FC!

[fuckin crazy]

Actually, at the time, most people called us freaks.

It is a badge of honor.

[SLCPUNK]

Nor did I claim them to.

You certainly elude to it.

You're treading right wing territory now. This is what I disagreed with: It's a typical right wing maneuver to get people off the subject at hand.

You seem to be missing the point.

What are we talking about? I can only answer for myself: The dishonest use of knowledge and information.

LOL, what are you talking about?

Notice how he first brings up a serious point, which is a great piece of information, but instead of taking the full leap he backs down right before the finish line. "The administration very consciously chose actions....". That's pretty heavy indication of them wanting more terror, but he dare not say it.

Woah woah woah. You are attacking perceived silence again. You have missed the point entirely. It is not something I will accept as an argument.

Besides, it's irrelevant to this conversation, and I only pointed it out to show you that you can use the internet to find plenty (not just the quick ones I showed you) interviews (Chomsky does a lot) with him discussing the very issues you claim he is silent about. And to put more simply, I could care less.

Sorry man, assumptions and personal attacks are not my style.

You aren't doing anything but repeating Alex Jones and his ilk. I posted links to show you that there are plenty of articles out there that show the opposite of his/their claims. I'd call it lazy, since it took me all of a minute to do so.

[jabba2]

I love how his hand continuously reached under the toilet stall trying to grope someone.

[polluxlm]

You certainly elude to it.

Your instict is correct, but not the conclusion. Let me give you an example.

In a country whos name elude me right now, Enron had an operation. Due to reasons I'm sure you're aware of, it soon came to massive demonstrations against the company. Not long after the problem was solved when the army came in and 'took care of it'.

Now, nobody's claiming Enron issued any orders or demands (although that is certainly possible given that there are a fair amount of people out there who arrange this for companies). But the local authorities and/or generals know where their interests are, and acted accordingly. In this scenario both parties have total deniabillity, but the end result was still the same. The dissidents 'went away' and everybody could get back to business. I'm sure you're familiar with these implicit agreements in the political landscape.

The same of course applies for Moore and Chomsky, and really almost everybody else in the world who want exposure beyond the grassroot level. If they don't agree to the rules of conduct the career is over.

That's what I'm eluding to, and that's why, even though their message is both true and intelligent, I have no respect for their work

You seem to be missing the point.

We both missed the point from the start.

Woah woah woah. You are attacking perceived silence again. You have missed the point entirely. It is not something I will accept as an argument.

Well fuck the argument. Forget this meaningless left/right bickering and let's talk about that quote. We both know Chomsky has reliable information, and that shit right there is pretty big. By 'very conscious actions' I suppose he's referring to the administration's steel determination on taking those actions. So how does that not suggest a conscious effort to increase the terror threat? Even I can see that warfare based on lies to achieve concealed goals will most definitely lead to more terror. So it's not incompetence. It could be greed attributed to the oil, arms industry etc. But again, that does not explain the neo cons hardcore determination on the issue, nor the pre-written terror laws.

So considering these factors, how can the fact-pattern-conclusion oriented Chomsky possibly not conclude this to be what it appears? Imo that is a blatant consistency error.

Besides, it's irrelevant to this conversation, and I only pointed it out to show you that you can use the internet to find plenty (not just the quick ones I showed you) interviews (Chomsky does a lot) with him discussing the very issues you claim he is silent about. And to put more simply, I could care less.

I read him for a short period myself, but I've yet to see him adress those issues. And I can promise you, if he did there would be immediate reaction on certain sites. The man is much talked about in those enviroments.

You aren't doing anything but repeating Alex Jones and his ilk. I posted links to show you that there are plenty of articles out there that show the opposite of his/their claims. I'd call it lazy, since it took me all of a minute to do so.

Jesus, again? Where does this urge come from?

If I were you I'd say you're doing anything but repeating Chomsky and other credential leftists. If I were you I'd say you've become emotional attached to a dogma, forcing you to defend issues you at heart may have some problems with. I'd say you had become a slave to limited belief.

But I'm not going to do that because I know the world is not that black and white.

And yes, you posted links and I read them. All good readings, but there's nothing in there contradicting my belief. Just different conclusions. And stop with the Alex Jones nagging. Just because I've referred to him once or twice does not mean he's my sole occupation, far from. But perhaps he's the only one you know of, and figure he's the boss of alternative information or whatever (that chain of thought seems familiar).

[SLCPUNK]

Punk, you have my utmost respect, and polluxm you are a close second. Fight the good fight, stick it to the man!!!!thoses a-holes tha.t deserve it

Trust me, I always give it to the assholes who deserve it. But I can't find it in myself to attack perceived silence, or compare it to the blatant lies of the Neo Cons.

Hey, Polluxm thinks they are all bad. Dems are the same as the neo-cons in their smear and misinformation campgains. Michael Moore and Chomsky are merely talking heads for the elite leftist agenda, that also supports the IMF, World Bank, CIA, and looks the other way while the pharmaceutical industry rape Americans.

[SLCPUNK]

I love how his hand continuously reached under the toilet stall trying to grope someone.

LOL, well the guy is persistent!

[polluxlm]

Punk, you have my utmost respect, and polluxm you are a close second. Fight the good fight, stick it to the man!!!!thoses a-holes tha.t deserve it

Trust me, I always give it to the assholes who deserve it. But I can't find it in myself to attack perceived silence, or compare it to the blatant lies of the Neo Cons.

Hey, Polluxm thinks they are all bad. Dems are the same as the neo-cons in their smear and misinformation campgains. Michael Moore and Chomsky are merely talking heads for the elite leftist agenda, that also supports the IMF, World Bank, CIA, and looks the other way while the pharmaceutical industry rape Americans.

I gotta hand it to you. That's a beautiful piece of republican rethorics.

[SLCPUNK]

Punk, you have my utmost respect, and polluxm you are a close second. Fight the good fight, stick it to the man!!!!thoses a-holes tha.t deserve it

Trust me, I always give it to the assholes who deserve it. But I can't find it in myself to attack perceived silence, or compare it to the blatant lies of the Neo Cons.

Hey, Polluxm thinks they are all bad. Dems are the same as the neo-cons in their smear and misinformation campgains. Michael Moore and Chomsky are merely talking heads for the elite leftist agenda, that also supports the IMF, World Bank, CIA, and looks the other way while the pharmaceutical industry rape Americans.

I gotta hand it to you. That's a beautiful piece of republican rethorics.

Rove is out, and I'm always looking for work.