>> ^KnivesOut:

Well you know he's a secret gay muslim terrorist who is going to start governing the US under Sharia Law. I mean, he only had to fake 4 years as a "normal" president so he could get his second term, so that now he can REALLY fuck up this country by inviting his Al Qaeda mole operatives to attack the waffle house down the street.
Muslim.
9/11.

Really? Damn, that Obama is one cunning motherfucker. Good thing those Pakistanis are onto him.

Well you know he's a secret gay muslim terrorist who is going to start governing the US under Sharia Law. I mean, he only had to fake 4 years as a "normal" president so he could get his second term, so that now he can REALLY fuck up this country by inviting his Al Qaeda mole operatives to attack the waffle house down the street.

Muslim.

9/11.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Hybrid:
As a non-American, I and the rest of the world, want Obama to win. I simply do not understand how it is such a close call in America itself, yet the rest of the world clearly sees that Obama is the only logical vote...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687

Amen, brother. Romney should put that in his campaign.
"Romney! Slightly more people in Pakistan reckon he'd be a better president than Obama"
@shinyblurry, you said that "Obama is going to radically transform this country even further (for the worst)". Exactly what "radical" transformations has the US undergone? From the outside, it looks pretty much as it always did (with marginally more humane healthcare).

I'm still waiting for fundamentalists/conservatives in this country to realize that all the terrorists (Al Qaeda/Taliban/whatever) that they hate so much are fundamentalists/conservatives themselves.

What? Do you really think we are fighting the enemy's liberals/Democrats?

In case anyone is curious, here is an article on Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born Al Qaeda leader Obama allowed to be killed in Yemen, on the condition that it were not feasible to take him alive.

I get the feeling that the Koch Brothers like to keep their videos as vague as possible, to keep actual reason from clouding the corporate agenda of The Reason Foundation.

Right, because Al Qaeda terrorists are going to strike an airport terminal. This is stupidity and fear mongering at its worst level.

Yes, if you don't support gay marriage, you are, by definition, anti-gay. (I have never heard of any gay person who doesn't like straight people getting married. Have you???)

You're correct that homosexuals aren't defined by their ability to marry one another. They, like all humans, are defined in part by their rights, of which marriage is one.

You're correct, Chik Fil-A didn't donate to anti-gay campaigns. They donated to the anti-gay organizations that run them. Same difference, as far as I'm concerned, but if you want to split hairs...

As our country is more closely aligned with fascism inasmuch as government is "gay married" to the corporations, then where/how corporations spend their money is of increasing importance to the consumers who are, in essence, voting to support issues with their dollars.

Your analogy of the birthday present is not the same thing, because I, unlike a corporation, do not have political power like they do. If the present was $50 Million, and it was donated to Al Qaeda, then yes, you would have supported terrorism with your "gift."

Anyone who says the following is clearly running an anti-gay agenda:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A Pres. and COO, The Ken Coleman Show, June 16th.


... even though he clearly has little understanding of how marriage was originally defined in the Bible (which commands that brothers-in-law marry widows, or that rapists marry the women they rape) as if that even mattered!.


>> ^Edgeman2112:

>> ^Trancecoach:
You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.
Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:
This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.


Yes I watched the video, but you are the one who fell for the sensationalism.
Let's be rational and fair here. If you don't support gay marriage, does that automatically label you as anti-gay? F-ck no it doesn't. If gay people don't like straight people getting married, does that make they're anti-straight? F-ck no it doesn't. It's a ludicrous generalization.
Each group of people isn't defined by their ability to marry one another. This is the mistake complainers are often guilty of making.
And no, they didn't make donations to anti-gay campaigns. They made donations to the organizations. What they then do with that money is not Chic Fil A's business. If I give you 50$ for a birthday present, then you donate that to Al-Queda, the media will portray me as supporting terrorism.
I don't like to jump to conclusions based on things I hear on the internet, and I do love that spicy chicken sandwich with a half and half sweet tea and waffle fries.

>> ^Yogi:

Chomsky was right...Bush jailed people without trials indefinitely. Obama skips that step and goes straight to murder. It isn't legal, it isn't moral, Obama is worse than Bush and the American Empire is still kicking. We need to put it down here at home if we're going to have a chance at a civilized life.


I'll take a wild guess that everything Cenk is talking about most certainly did happen in Afghanistan and Iraq first during our dear leader "Junior Bush", let alone "during the Obama administration". I won't bother to say any more than that as any president that must inevitable go to war with another nation has failed his people (to some extent, some leaders are given no choice and some are caught off guard--but many use it like it's a fraternal right of the presidency--make war and no one complains) and we WILL be committing murder on the large scale, that will always be a partial description and definition of war; except for a few extraneous and special circumstances were we defend ourselves, but in the end we turn into the monster we tried not to be: WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, South VS. North USA, even the Cold War and are malicious proxy wars...

Trust me this has been around a long time, might as well bring up the every presidents "expenditure" or whatever they ended up calling it in those days and ages. War really is one side murdering the other for not a single good reason between the two, but their own bigotry created by...

...Organizations (like Al Qaeda) are capable of strikes that can affect a city block (a large suicide bomb) typically and in a grand while one that effects perhaps 20 blocks (the World Trade Center, which was felt "afterwards much farther away than 20 blocks, it circled the globe)... But, overall they have an effect on a much smaller section of people. It's hard to decide what to give up sometimes as we see others suffering, but we do wish to help them. At some point though an organization is a small group that becomes a country; like our Republicans and Democrats, two flavors of a one flavor system (unless you like pure batshiat crazy, we have that one too).

Ai, ai, ai! So many!>> ^jonny:

You forgot French, Iroquois, Mexican, Cuban, Malay, Korean, Panamanian, Venezuelan, Columbian, African but oddly not Afrikaner, ... and don't forget Poland! oh... actually, I guess we never really hated them. But really, no one can forget how we hated Ourselves.
>> ^Fusionaut:
First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)
P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

You forgot French, Iroquois, Mexican, Cuban, Malay, Korean, Panamanian, Venezuelan, Columbian, African but oddly not Afrikaner, ... and don't forget Poland! oh... actually, I guess we never really hated them. But really, no one can forget how we hated Ourselves.

>> ^Fusionaut:

First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)
P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

First, Americans were afraid of the British, then the Natives, then the British again, then other Americans, after that the Africans, then the Spanish, then the African-Americans, then the Germans, then the African-Americans, then the Germans and the Japanese, then the Russians, then other Americans (Commies/Atheists), then the Vietcong, then the Russians again, then the Iraqis, then the Iranians, then the Al Qaeda, then the Iraqis again, then other Americans again (TSA), and NOW they're afraid of losing electricity. (I may be missing some groups and this list may be out of sequence)

P.S. oh yeah, don't forget Muslims!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TSA, terrorist, al queda, airport, violation, battery, chicago, child, toddler' to 'TSA, terrorist, al qaeda, airport, violation, battery, chicago, child, toddler' - edited by lucky760

@MrMark4000
It's one thing to kill a person because it's your job.

It's a completely different thing to go out of your way to disgrace that person once they're dead.

Hell, even ancient soldiers knew how fucked up a thing that is to do.
i.e.
"Hector had begged for an honorable burial in Troy, but Achilles was determined to humiliate his enemy even in death"

One of the cornerstones of military service is respect & honor.
This further illustrate that stereotypical American has neither.

Who cares if they won that battle?

All these soldiers have done is created more propaganda for Al-Qaeda & the Taliban and ensured the resentment of all U.S. troops in the region for decades more.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?


There's way to much history you have to study before we can have this conversation. Let me just say, it's our fault as well that the Taliban and Al Qaeada have become anything of note.

Again, what would've been better?
Chomsky's normal advice, do nothing, would've left Russia holding Afghanistan.
Personally, I'd have preferred we done more rather than less. After getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, just leaving it to whichever war lords amongst the fighters there was strongest was the wrong approach, and foreseeably so. If nation building was too expensive, we at least could have used military muscle to knock of the least desirable candidates like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Dismissing this as too much history is recusing yourself from the discussion. If you do NOT know of a better alternative, you don't get to say somebody is doing things all wrong. Well, your free to say it, but you just look like an idiot.


No you're incorrect about Russia holding Afghanistan. Also you sort of sound like a Neo-Liberal the way you say we should do more around the world rather than less. Influence more, try and control people.

Also I have an extensive knowledge in this subject, I just thought I'd let Chomsky talk about it. I'm not going to hold a class in a comment section bcglorf. You can study this on your own.