Ben Affleck has a great toupee

[Slartibartfast]

P.S Slartibartfast, i think i can guess which way you would vote at a European referendum.

Same as any other election, I'd make a little X with the pen they provide.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What has the EU to do with Ben Affleck and Noam Chomsky?

Nothing, who said it did? My post was a response to Ty suggesting that the US has more influence on the UK's future than our own elected representatives.

So, what does a fish have to do with table tennis?

Slarti

 

[The Gardener]

Noam Chomsky is not censored in America. I read his stuff in college along with several other prominent leftists. At that time, I was a raving super-liberal and was part of the ilk who would protest at economic summits, etc.

Since then I've grown up quite a bit and realized that Chomsky, and the far left viewpoint, is bankrupt. They have an assumption that things would be all fine and dandy in the world if people would just play nice and tone down the harsh competitiveness that permeates our society. Bullshit. Chomsky's views on how the world should be would be a recipie for anarchy, economic disaster, and massive poverty. We live in a world that requires order, and the leftists take this order for granted in their thinking.

That being said, I think Bush needs to go. Every now and then it is good to have a US President who is a badass and rattles the cages of all the Europeans and scares everybody. He was the right guy at the right time after 9/11, but now I think he's getting a little crazy and he just plain fucked up Iraq. I think Iraq will turn out okay in the long run, but we'll be paying through the nose for decades to keep them propped up. I think its time for a Democrat to come in.

 

[Guest]

Every now and then it is good to have a US President who is a badass and rattles the cages of all the Europeans and scares everybody.

why is this good ?

the man is a c***

 

[Bismarck]

What has the EU to do with Ben Affleck and Noam Chomsky?

Nothing, who said it did? My post was a response to Ty suggesting that the US has more influence on the UK's future than our own elected representatives.

So, what does a fish have to do with table tennis?

Slarti

Sorry. Didn't read the entire thread - just the title and something completely different. Many posts here turn into a political debate. Isn't Chomsky a computer scientiest or did he do any research in language theory?

 

[Brasileirao]

Noam Chomsky is not censored in America. I read his stuff in college along with several other prominent leftists. At that time, I was a raving super-liberal and was part of the ilk who would protest at economic summits, etc.

Since then I've grown up quite a bit and realized that Chomsky, and the far left viewpoint, is bankrupt. They have an assumption that things would be all fine and dandy in the world if people would just play nice and tone down the harsh competitiveness that permeates our society. Bullshit. Chomsky's views on how the world should be would be a recipie for anarchy, economic disaster, and massive poverty. We live in a world that requires order, and the leftists take this order for granted in their thinking.

That being said, I think Bush needs to go. Every now and then it is good to have a US President who is a badass and rattles the cages of all the Europeans and scares everybody. He was the right guy at the right time after 9/11, but now I think he's getting a little crazy and he just plain fucked up Iraq. I think Iraq will turn out okay in the long run, but we'll be paying through the nose for decades to keep them propped up. I think its time for a Democrat to come in.

I agree with you, the only different is that I will still vote for Bush. Most of you here will probably want to kill me for saying that, but Kerry is just as bad. I just CANT believe that the best the Dems could come up with is Kerry. If someone like Clinton would of ran again he would of had my vote. But for now, we need a president that has balls and has experience. I think Iraq will be fine in the long run and we will some how like we always do benefit from it. Trust me, we have had our times of bad and good and in the end we always prosper. I find it funny that no matter who we have in office we will always be hatttted. Anyways, those are my two cents and like I said, most of you will kill me for saying what I have said but we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Take care guys!!!
Tony

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Saying Kerry is just as bad as Bush is just plain idiotic. Are your parents Republican?

 

[Brasileirao]

Saying Kerry is just as bad as Bush is just plain idiotic. Are your parents Republican?

I figure someone would say something like this. I understand that you may hate Bush, but Kerry is not the man who will beat him. I would vote for anyone else but Kerry.He lacks charisma and is just a dull sort of guy. By that I mean, Kerry, doesnt have the presence that Clinton had. Bush at least has balls, although the war is questionable. Kerry just doesnt seem like someone who would know how to run a country. I know I probably dont make valid points to some of you, but with all honestly I just dont see a man like Kerry taking office. I feel that if the Dems had choosen someone, maybe even Gore, they would of walked away with a presidency..HOW COULD THEY NOT? After the Dem convention Kerry had the WORSE bounce of any president, he only jumped up a few percentage points. His wife only makes matter worse by running her mouth. Please understand that I was trying to bring out my own opinion. Dont throw out words like idiotic unless you want to start a word fight.

This is the last time I will respond to anything on this thread.

Tony

 

[21gone]

Midnight everyone has their own opinion deal with it, everyone's opinion is right in their own mind.

 

[Bismarck]

Seems that charisma is more important than anything else ... :x

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Okay, I apologize for calling your remark 'idiotic'. This whole political season is getting to me. There's a civil war brewing here in the U.S. The Red states against the blue. I never thought I'd be so angry about all this. I can't wait till Kerry's elected and we get on with the healing process.

 

[Guest]

so affleck, wig or not ?

 

[21gone]

I think he has something. After watching some of the dem convention and his cameo's it just looks fake especially with his hairstyle he has now. Just my opinion.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

so affleck, wig or not ?

Yes, I just saw a rerun of his interview with Bill O'Reilly. He's definitely wearing one. But it's a great one. We should all get ones like his, and then we'd be balling fine women like J-Lo. And then get dropped. :roll:

 

[21gone]

mmmmm J-lo ( before she went diva crazy)

 

[Brasileirao]

Okay, I apologize for calling your remark 'idiotic'. This whole political season is getting to me. There's a civil war brewing here in the U.S. The Red states against the blue. I never thought I'd be so angry about all this. I can't wait till Kerry's elected and we get on with the healing process.

I said I would not reply, but, I understand where you are coming from. Just remember that the USA is a great nation and no matter good things will happen.

OUT!
Tony

 

[21gone]

Anywho I think at this point it is an opinion of who is the lesser of two evils, I think I am going to vote for myself as a write in, that way I can say I voted for the right person, lol. I personally do not like either, you would think with all the people in America we could come up with better canidates.

 

[The Gardener]

Every now and then it is good to have a US President who is a badass and rattles the cages of all the Europeans and scares everybody.

why is this good ?

the man is a c***

Well Tynan, a response to this requires me to delve a little more deeply into my personal political manifesto. And in order to express that, I have to state my opinion which means I am going to use terms of speech that may seem like absolutes when in fact I am just expressing my opinion for discussion's sake. I don't know all things of course, so everyone feel free to pick me apart, this is just my opinion.

American power, now, stands for global capitalism. This is not a new concept, in fact, the British have been at this game far longer than we have. In fact, all Western nations, US, UK, Germany, and even France, and all Western nations and even a growing number of ex-'third world' nations are all pulling for global capitalism. Sure, there are cracks from time that nations such as France try to manipulate from time to time, but they do this not out of honest sympathy for struggling nations, but moreso out of gaining some advantage in particular markets for their own capital investments.

I am a big fan of global capitalism. Both parties in America, and both parties in the UK and even the Lib Dems are too, despite much of their rhetoric. The difference between the current Republican philosophy and the current "new" Democrat (and "new" Labour philosophy as well) is that the Democrats/Labour believe that globalization should have a more level playing field.

Why is this an issue? Well, some prominent ex-third world nations have signed onto the agenda. In some nations this has been a rousing success, such as South Korea, Chile, and now Mexico. They understand that in order to develop their economies they need to attract investment capital. In the US/UK, access to development capital is taken for granted. Heck, we give out practically free loans to small businesses. But for ex-third world nations to catch up they realize that to attract investment capital they have to protect the investments from uncompetitive taxation regimes at best, and from nationalization of the invested assets at worst.

Many ex-third world nations realize this and are now in the game. I admire nations such as Brazil. They, in recent years, are fully into the globalization game. They are standing up for free trade, but not just on the American or British terms... they want full liberalization. They have made some minor structural improvements, but the very fact that they are regular players at the WTO and that they are willing to give access to imports as long as US/Europe is willing to make access to their exports shows me that they are playing the game.

The only problem is that this game needs some ground rules, and these rules need enforcing. This is usually done via diplomacy, but is sometimes done via military. Brazil has become very proactive, sending peacekeepers to Haiti and other nations. They know that with their 'seat at the table' requires some responsibilities as well. Anarchy is intolerable in a globalized economy, as it creates loopholes that undermine the system. The US and UK, unfortunately, are usually left shouldering most of the heavy lifting in this regard, which is unfair. For far too long many nations in Western Europe have benefitted, and profited, from the stability guranteed by nations such as the US and UK, whilst contributing little to the cause of international stability, and this stability brings predictability and confidence in making capital investments in poorer places.

France pulls this sh*t a lot. They sometimes talk like they are the anti-West, against globalization... but in reality they are big time players at it. They do this to curry favor with economically unfavored locales to make THEIR investment capital more politically palpatable. The only fault in their argument is that when the sh*t really hits the fan, they are just as prolific in globalizing as we in the US and UK are. That's why, despite their apparent intransigence in supporting US/UK activities in the Middle East, they are doing a LOT under the table to help us. They know it is in their best interest to do so, in the long run. They have a significant force in Afghanistan and they are helping train Afghan officers in their new Army. Despite their reservations about the Afghan campaign, they know that bringing Afghanistan into the fold as much as they can is best for the long-term globalization plan. And, they know that by sending forces to Afghanistan, it frees up US and UK resources to help stabilize Iraq. In short, they have a public stand on Iraq, but under the table, they are really with us. They were a bit bitter about the American redistribution of Iraqi drilling contracts, but considering that under Saddam Total Fina Elf had a nice finger in Iraqi oil, who can blame them for trying to play both sides of the issue as it suited them?

Global capitalism means global competition, which means jobs and lower prices for goods for all involved. Anti-capitalists argue that western companies come into deflated economies and offer 'sweatshop' wages to indigenous workers. Well, what is the other option? For these western companies to pull out and for these people to have no jobs at all?

This brings me back to your original question... why?

Well, sometimes some of the Western European governments forget and take for granted the fact that US and UK military presence helps them get rich by protecting their investments. Every now and again it is helpful to rattle their cages a bit, and remind them that without stability things tend to go to sh*t. Before Reagan/Thatcher, we were starting to buy off on accommodation with the Warsaw Pact. What a mistake that would have been... only now do we realize that these Warsaw Pact nations were easily freed, and are now becoming more successful at managing inward investments and are starting to turn the corners a bit. Good thing Reagan rattled the Europeans' cages back then, or many of these nations might have been in a shape more parallel to what Russia looks like now, rather than them looking more like their successful neighbors to the West, as is the case currently.

Basically, I think it is time for a Democrat. Bush has played his role, and I think it is time for someone to come into office to heal rifts between the globalizing nations. Bush rattled the cages, swept the sabre, but we need someone more internationally tactful at this point to help bring consensus with the Middle East issues and to help bust through a few specific roadblocks faced by the WTO.

 

[Guest]

yeah like I said the guy is a c***.

 

[Guest]

The guy did an advert in the UK for a shampoo.

It shows him running his hands through his hair with water running down him, promoting the shampoo.

Why the hell would Loreal use him if he was wearing a wig?

He doesn't.

It's just a Myth.