you really think that Hitchens has done all this? "His book on Kissinger has done far more to stop the outrageous actions and policies of the west than you ever could with a gun."

Absolutely. I don't think any one person could do more with a gun than Hitchens book has.

Honestly I don't think Hitchens has stopped anything. Nearly all the crimes he mentions in his book, I'm sure, have gone unpunished. Nearly all the criminals he shines a light on continue to walk free, with money in their pockets, and their bellies full.

And one man with a gun would've not only failed to stop those, it also would have failed to even bring those crimes to light. At the least Hitchens book has brought more attention to the crimes, even if it hasn't taken Kissinger's Nobel from him.


But as it is, it seems like the only people who know about him and who have read his stuff are extremely small in number, and few are close to political power greater than a city council chair.

I think you are looking to blame the general public there more than Hitchens, no?


Hitchens gets furious about people criticizing American or British troops

You missed the point. Lots of other talking heads might thump their chests with that cliche for no reason, but Hitchens is not. He is condemning those like the questioner who don't merely criticize, but go even further to BLAMING the soldiers for the security problems that exist. There is some justification to bringing up the contrast of blaming the people protecting you for causing your problems.


most of these soldiers he wants to celebrate are people who repeatedly vote against the ideologies of people like Hitchens, and few are for "women's rights" as Hitchens advocates for at the end of this video. They're not going to throw acid into a woman's face, but few think women are the intellectual equals of men, which makes me wonder if they even believe women should have the same number of votes as men.

Uh, so you don't think much of soldiers, that's your business. Don't go beyond expressing that opinion into inventing lies like the above to slander them as well, ok?


If so, how easy is it to convince foreigners that Americans are liberators, punishers of the wicked, and not colonizers, if large-scale war criminals (who often have fond opinions of colonialism) go unpunished in America itself?


Easy, 'foreigners' will treat Americans like they treat anybody else, by how they are acting at the time. You'll notice the Kurds and Iranian reformists have no trouble embracing the Americans at all, and America has a bad track record towards them in the past.

Finally, is democracy itself even a worthy ideology to pursue? ... even if a global democracy was established tomorrow, most Westerners would desire more power than their population numbers would deserve.

And your point is what? The rest of that paragraph you spent basically denigrating 'westerners' and declaring them all too greedy to really want democracy? Are you answering your own question about democracy being worthwhile then? Is the answer then 'yes' because it would teach those evil westerners to be more fair? Alright, I'm pretty sure your point was just to rag on the west in general. Good for you, I suppose. A few more years of study on what everyone else in the world has done that's as bad or worse and you'll be as universally cynical as Hitchens. Come back in ten years and re-read your post.

Well, ok, then it must be ok???

yeah..you got me..you got the tater.
was waxing nostalgic last night.im glad somebody else enjoyed starships "stranger",and while i did enjoy DIO's solo projects ..well..ok,only the first two albums,i totally agree with you that he did his best work with sabbath.
i read an interview with tony iommi and he stated that dio had such a great range it freed him up to play much more complicated scales than with ozzy.
while i am an avid sabbath fan,my favorite ozzy/sabbath albums are really just the first 5.never say die and technical ecstasy are ok but too experimental in my opinion.

Oh. umm .. yeah. I knew that. *cough* ..
Well .. ok then. Carry on.

well, ok, ok, no more caps. but i do think this belongs in *terrible indeed

ohhh.. Well, don't do that, I never check it! PM's here would be lovely. I'll peek at it when I get home today though.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I invited you to a google doc through your msn address and been trying to reach you through that..

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
Well ok! Weren't you going to supply me with an info thingy on it?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
It's just that we're getting busy with the game, so we'd love your input if you have time.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I'm...Right here!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Hey! ProcrastinationBee! Where are you at?

I invited you to a google doc through your msn address and been trying to reach you through that..

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
Well ok! Weren't you going to supply me with an info thingy on it?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
It's just that we're getting busy with the game, so we'd love your input if you have time.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I'm...Right here!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Hey! ProcrastinationBee! Where are you at?

Well ok! Weren't you going to supply me with an info thingy on it?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
It's just that we're getting busy with the game, so we'd love your input if you have time.

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
I'm...Right here!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Hey! ProcrastinationBee! Where are you at?

There are no free rides. This coming from someone who just spent the last 3 1/2 years getting my AA. (I work full time; I'm not mentally impaired.


Well, ok. Maybe a little.)

>> ^bluecliff:
Any atheist who is in something called the Atheist Foundation is exactly not an atheist. well, ok, perhaps there are some real atheist. but my impression was that being an atheist means not having to belong to bullshit groups.

Really? I thought that being an atheist just meant that a person doesn't believe in god(s).

If a person doesn't believe in god(s) then it isn't surprising that they wouldn't want (for instance) laws and government practices based on religion. Trying to educate people about atheism by ones self would be rather difficult, so it also isn't surprising that they would want to form a group based around that idea.

>> ^DrPawn:
Well OK sure Darwin was right. But whats came before the big bang. Or who created the universe. Or at the very least where did the universe come from ? Why is it the way it is. Why is there anything in the first place.
As smart as he is. He avoids these questions.


So who designed the Designer?

Any atheist who is in something called the Atheist Foundation is exactly not an atheist. well, ok, perhaps there are some real atheist. but my impression was that being an atheist means not having to belong to bullshit groups.

http://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.com/2007/05/pseudo-atheists.html

Well OK sure Darwin was right. But whats came before the big bang. Or who created the universe. Or at the very least where did the universe come from ? Why is it the way it is. Why is there anything in the first place.

As smart as he is. He avoids these questions.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I didn't read the entire blankfist vs netrunner word salad, but I think blankfist's point is that Rachel Maddow isn't on TV to bring us the news; she's on TV to tell us what Republicans are doing wrong.
It doesn't make her wrong but it does make her a bit annoying and unprofessional.


If she wasn't doing it, noone would be.

Well, ok, Olbermann would, but ugggh that guy is blech.

Well, -ok,- if its for me. And it -is- NPH.

But watching SNL these days is like having a sickly nuclear wind blowing upon me.