Hollywood + Politics = Disingenuous. See anything by Michael Moore and then look up how much people paid to hear his shallow, simplistic, 'right/wrong' opinions... People eat hollywood stuff up like sheep, (hell they'll even pay a LOT of money for it) and regurgitate what they heard without a single independent thought to the complete issue... Or even a single moment of non-biased research of their own.

Again, look how much profit is hypocritically made by selling anti-capitalistic/anti-libertarianism/anti-consumerism opinions to the paying masses (again Moore is proving a prime example of this with his latest movie). You just can't add Hollywood to an issue and expect anything that makes sense. Unless you are a sheep.

Garofalo is just another mass-media star profiting on a shallow political opinion. But that's just the way it goes: The sheep follow the stars.

That's just very patronizing to hear. All U.S. service members make a personal decision to serve and they sacrifice a lot in order to continue to serve. Even (or especially) those under 33. Calling them babies isn't doing anyone any justice, even if well-intended.

...Yes, they grow poppy in Afghanistan. They also grow marijuana. Their culture is different than ours and they don't throw people in prison for years for drug possession. Prohibition is mainly an American thing...

...Didn't mention Hussein.

...Of course a dead soldier can't collect unemployment. He/she wouldn't ever have been unemployed. And familiarize yourself with SGLI and survivors benefits. Kind of blows the 'Obama hates soldiers and want them to die' theory...

Just saying. =P

I don't get it. Gen. McChrystal is saying that civilian casualties need to be reduced even further as part of a larger effort to reverse the strengthening Taliban/mujahadin/AQ tide.



You guys are getting the baby killing, heroin harvesting, Obama, unemployment thing from where?

"Never play leap-frog with a unicorn." -- unknown

Yeah... even good 'ole George Washington commanded the revolutionary army using a military backed by intelligence gathering. Impossible to have a military without centralized intelligence - that is if you want your defense force to maybe be a little more organized than private security guards. The Constitution wouldn't have even made it to creation without a military - I just can't understand these kinds of arguments. Sorry I tried.

The Constitution is a statement of basic human rights that the government is not allowed to impinge upon. Despite all the fear-mongering, the CIA does not operate domestically on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement (like the FBI) operates domestically on U.S. citizens. This is constitutional and prudent to survival and the defense of life.

If I'm understanding right, you are in favor of dissolving federal agencies and relying upon private security and uncoordinated militia groups?

How would the military or even a defense force work without any intelligence/usable information? A country just wouldn't exist for long without centralized coordination for defense. That's a little bit of a problem.

What is the basis of the claim that intelligence gathering on enemies is unconstitutional?

Yeah, American is eeeeeeeeeeeevil and all Americans have lost their ability for introspection, we demand and end to decency and want people's bodies shown on the news, and the CIA should fight nicely. Got it.

That's great and all, but as it currently stands - health care in the US is already better than in Canada (who's system has even more problems with limited resources). Why would Americans want to model health care on the Canadian system? It has nothing to do with Americans feeling superior to Canadians.

You mean like how the internet anti-globalization conspiracy crowd uses 9/11?

I pointed out that you are getting your information from a website run for political reasons. That alone should be enough for anyone that wants fact to stay away from it.

In addition, that website posts up any story that matches their political views - there is no fact checking there. You can see articles on the front page with today's date that have been re-circulated around the internet for 10+ years with only little changes made to them to make them appear current.



Reuters is no more a source than a website - Reuters just disseminates stories other people write from all over the world.



Yeah and there are neo-conservative websites on the internet that do the same thing with 'fact' and sources. I would never claim any political website (especially one that masquerades as something it's not!) as being unbiased. Especially when they blatantly use fear-mongering as a primary tool. But to each their own I guess...

Hey man - I'm a hard-core libertarian by personal views. I just think that spouting internet conspiracies serves no one but the political fronts that back the publications in the first place.

If you want to bash the press in the US fine (I agree it sucks), but hold yourself to a higher standard with re-publishing information or you are a hypocrite. It seems you have decided to take an even lower standard for what you post up by functioning as a mouth-piece for these groups masquerading as legit news sites. Why do that to yourself and what you believe in?

First, 'Global Research' is not a legit source for any article unless you are an internet conspiracy freak or just can't think for yourself. It's a font for limited political (if you can even call it that) views. In other words, your source sucks and you are a willingly blind fool for using it as information like they want you to.

The rest of that anti-globalization (which is why Walmart was included in the conspiracy) dogma isn't even worth discussing.

Just to add also - that same 'story' has been re-circulating for years on the internet. This is just an more modern concocted H1N1 version of it that includes Walmart.

Thanks for that picture - lol

lol Even included Walmart in the conspiracy.

Hallo und Herzlich Willkommen. ^^

I'm no fan of the media - but you'd have to be crazily naive not to believe N. Korea wants nothing more than to take over the rest of the country. We've been at war with N. Korea since the 50's to stop just that from happening. As well as the fact that N. Korea is quite vocal regarding their plans and desire to finish taking the rest of the populace.

Oh and N. Korea was never a sovereign nation. S. Korea is the original government that was recognized by the world... it is just incapable of even holding onto the southern part of the country without U.N. (U.S.) help considering how large of a military state N. Korea is.

Also, pay attention to the news - the U.S. and the rest of the world gives concessions to N. Korea all the time to keep the populace from starving and to try and make deals with N. Korea. But it doesn't matter, N. Korea uses all its resources to maintain one of the worlds largest standing armies despite its small size.

Again, it's just a crappy situation.

Because history repeats and little is learned.

Just like when this whole thing started (the Korean War). It was a 'U.N. operation'... but the U.S. was the only country to really put any forces in under mandate despite the dire situation in the South and the pleas of the country to the U.N..

Once again (many times over), N. Korea does what it wants knowing the U.N. or any country other than the U.S., just doesn't matter. The U.N. member-states will do no more than talk and not follow through with anything as usual. And even if sanctions are actually passed? China doesn't care and is more than happy to help N. Korea by-pass them (at some profit to China).

So the deal: The U.S. will still be left holding any burden alone; as it has since the Korean War started. The U.S. has 3 choices - 1. Go on the offensive to overthrow the N. Korean regime... 2. Maintain the current stand-still of the war... 3. Withdraw and let S. Korea perish.

The problem is, the second choice will go away once N. Korea is nuclear armed. And since the first and third choice equal wide-scale death and carnage anyway they haven't been pursued up until this point. That's why we'll keep on seeing N. Korea raising the stakes until they get what they want: long-range nuclear capability. Once that happens choices one and three are also completely gone - replaced by threat of nuclear war. Once that happens, the U.S. is out of the picture as the U.S. has no options left other than using nuclear force first. S. Korea will fall violently once the U.S. is out of the picture.

Crappy situation...

[Just my opinion - take with a grain of salt. =P]

That's why I prefer my Glock 23... 13 rounds before reload and comes with 2 magazines. 14 rounds if you chamber one proir to magazine load. So it's more like:

*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang* *reload* *bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*bang*...

Much more satisfying.

That would be funny if it weren't so sad... =/

Where do processed chickens come from anyway? And did they come before processed chicken eggs?