Jane Fonda

[nobody]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=688686

A man spit tobacco juice into the face of Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new memoir.

He said he doesn't chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

Good for him.

[Canelek]

Did he get his book signed first? He better have, because the chance of being able to get her autograph in the future may not be that great!

[Lohrno]

Disgusting...I don't care who it was...

[nobody]

Not as disgusting as what she did.

[nobody]

BTW this might be interesting

from snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

[Lohrno]

Ok posing for pictures with North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners is pretty bad, but I still applaud her for trying to stop that unnecessary war.

[nobody]

i agree, the war was stupid but the way she treated the vets was disgusting. it's comperable to someone today going to Iraq and posing with Al Qeada insurgents. i hate the war over there, and i'm a soldier, but that doesn't justify trashing the soldiers who for the most part don't even want to be there anyway and are suffering the worst part of it.

[Lohrno]

i agree, the war was stupid but the way she treated the vets was disgusting.

The way everyone treated the vets was disgusting. Still I don't think she was traitorous though. If that was her intention she would have moved there...

You also have to remember that that was the first televised war, and the things that they were seeing on TV may have mischaracterized the American soldier in everyone's eyes. It's true many of them committed atrocities, but not all and maybe not even most...But that's what people saw...

[nobody]

She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese.

[Lohrno]

Right...but remember what she was seeing on TV...US soldiers setting fire to village houses, etc... I would even say that hadn't it been for TV she might not have done all that.

[nobody]

I see your point but that doesn't justify actually supporting the side of the North Vietnamese. I could understand protesting the war but to campain FOR the commies was just wrong on all counts.

[Winnow]

She did engage in threesomes. That's got to count for something.

[Lohrno]

I see your point but that doesn't justify actually supporting the side of the North Vietnamese. I could understand protesting the war but to campain FOR the commies was just wrong on all counts.

If it was a North Vietnamese singer that came here and started applauding our GIs, would that be right?

[nobody]

certainly not, i'm not saying she should have supported the war at all but why did she find it important enough to fly all the way over there and kiss ass to one side. she should have denounced both sides if anything. At least the people of South Vietnam WANTED to have democracy.

[Lohrno]

certainly not, i'm not saying she should have supported the war at all but why did she find it important enough to fly all the way over there and kiss ass to one side. she should have denounced both sides if anything.

I'll give you that she probably took some uninformed actions, and probably she should have denounced boths ides. I just don't think that all that gives this guy the right to spit tobacco juice in her face...

[kyoukan]

Jesus fucking christ are you getting dumber? You think it's okay to physically assault someone for having an opinion? Why do you even bother living in the USA? All of the rights and freedoms that your forefathers fought for are obviously nothing to you. You'd probably be a lot happier in some south american or east asian dictatorship where you are shot for disagreeing with the government.

I won't even fucking bother bringing up the sheer stupidity of spitting on someone at a book signing, when the most important part of the fucking book is Fonda admitting how she was when she went to north vietnam.

i agree, the war was stupid but the way she treated the vets was disgusting. it's comperable to someone today going to Iraq and posing with Al Qeada insurgents.

What al'queda insurgents? Are you twats still on that kick? Even your president who's ass you shamelessly lick every day on these pathetic fucking forums admits that al'queda has nothing to do with Iraq.

[nobody]

AQ had nothing to do with Iraq before we wrongly entered there but now are responsible for the insurgency. Iraqi's ARE NOT part of the insurgency more than a small percentage. The AQ insurgents are from various muslim countries thoughout the region including Syria and Iran. It is similar to when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and OBL fled Sudan to set up camp there to order fight the infidels along with thousands of other muslims who came from other Islamic countries to fight a jihad against the invaders. The difference being that the Iraqi's, now that we are there, want to have a free and democratic government.

Of course it is wrong to spit in someone's face but that doesn't mean she didn't deserve it.

[Nick]

The Vietnamese were violently fucked over so the US could continue retain it's hegemony and stop the spread of possible "leftist/communist/free movements. This is not legitimately justifiable unless you believe that it's ok to build an empire at the cost of innocent lives.

Secondly, Al Quaida may account for a tiny proportion of the insurgency, but not even (at a generous maximum) 5%. You are severely mistaken.

Jane Fonda is fucking awesome looking in Barbarella.

Get your facts straight mate.

[Winnow]

A. The Vietnam war is one of America's most shameful moments, tough shit to anyone stupid enough to fail to understand this. Good on her.

The Vietnamese were violently fucked over so the US could continue retain it's hegemony and stop the spread of possible "leftist/communist/free movements. This is not legitimately justifiable unless you believe that it's ok to build an empire at the cost of innocent lives.

You're so wrong. Don't you check into things before spewing this stuff? Vietnam was about making billions of dollars for our war industry. It all ties into the coup d'etat by L.B. Johnson and assassination of Kennedy. That's why it's one of the more shameful events in american history.

It was also shameful for american civilians to blame the common soldier in that war and treat them like shit instead of focus their hate on the leaders at the time.

[Nick]

Yeah I thought that one was so blindingly obvious it didn't need mentioned, so that and what I wrote above. If you like.

Edit: Yeah the not targetting the leaders thing seems to be a trend you could do with sorting out.

[nobody]

hi teeny! long time no argue

AQ is not the only group in Iraq but they are providing support and direction more a good portion of it. And i believe in supporting those who want to fight for their OWN freedom. If a country is already or has begun a revolution on their own to become democratic then i believe in supporting them.

the US was involved in Vietnam as early as 1945, before the communists gained control there and not after.

Jane is a hotty with a body.

[Nick]

Hey Nobody

This is interesting, even for the craic.

The Meaning of Vietnam

Noam Chomsky

The New York Review of Books, June 12, 1975

The US government was defeated in Indochina, but only bruised at home. No outside power will compel us to face the record honestly or to offer reparations. On the contrary, efforts will be devoted to obscuring the history of the war and the domestic resistance to it. There are some simple facts that we should try to save as the custodians of history set to work.
In its essence, the Indochina war was a war waged by the US and such local forces as it could organize against the rural population of South Vietnam. Regarding the Geneva Accords of 1954 as a "disaster," Washington at once undertook a program of subversion throughout the region to undermine the political arrangements. A murderous repression in South Vietnam led to the renewal of resistance. Kennedy involved US forces in counterinsurgency, bombing, and "population control." By 1964 it was obvious that there was no political base for US intervention. In January 1965, General Khanh was moving toward an alliance with anti-American Buddhists and had entered into negotiations with the NLF. He was removed as the systematic bombardment of South Vietnam began, at triple the level of the more publicized bombing of the North. The full-scale US invasion followed, with consequences that are well known. The civilian societies of Laos and then Cambodia were savagely attacked in a war that was at first "secret" thanks to the self-censorship of the press.

In January 1973 Nixon and Kissinger were compelled to accept the peace proposals they had sought to modify after the November 1972 elections. As in 1954, the acceptance was purely formal. The Paris Agreements recognized two equivalent parties in South Vietnam, the PRG and the GVN, and established a basis for political reconciliation. The US was enjoined not to impose any political tendency or personality on South Vietnam. But Nixon and Kissinger announced at once that in defiance of the scrap of paper signed in Paris, they would recognize the GVN as the sole legitimate government, its constitutional structure—which outlawed the other party—intact and unchanged.

In violation of the agreements, Thieu intensified political repression and launched a series of military actions. By mid-1974, US officials were optimistically reporting the success achieved by the Thieu regime, with its vast advantage in firepower, in conquering PRG territory where, they alleged, a North Vietnamese buildup was underway. As before, the whole rotten structure collapsed from within as soon as the "enemy" was so ungracious as to respond, and this time Washington itself had collapsed to the point where it could no longer send in bombers.

The American war was criminal in two major respects. Like the Dominican intervention and the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, it was a case of aggression, conscious and premeditated. In 1954, the National Security Council stated that the US reserved the right to use force "to defeat local Communist subversion or rebellion not constituting armed attack," i.e., in violation of "the supreme law of the land." The US acted on this doctrine. Furthermore, the conduct of the war was an indescribable atrocity. The US goal was to eradicate the revolutionary nationalist forces which, US officials estimated, enjoyed the support of half the population. The method, inevitably, was to destroy the rural society. While the war of annihilation partially succeeded in this aim, the US was never able to create a workable system out of the wreckage.

Opposition to the war at home made full-scale mobilization impossible and placed some constraints on the brutality of the war planners. By 1971, two-thirds of the US population opposed the war as immoral and called for the withdrawal of American troops. But the articulate intelligentsia generally opposed the war, if at all, on "pragmatic"—i.e., entirely unprincipled—grounds. Some objected to its horror; more objected to the failure of American arms and the incredible cost. Few were willing to question the fundamental principle that the US has the right to resort to force to manage international affairs. Throughout this period, there was a negative correlation between educational level and opposition to the war, specifically, principled opposition. (The correlation was obscured by the fact that the more articulate and visible elements in the peace movement were drawn disproportionately from privileged social groups.)

The gulf that opened between much of the population and the nation's ideologists must be closed if US might is to be readily available for global management. Therefore, a propaganda battle is already being waged to ensure that all questions of principle are excluded from debate ("avoid recriminations"). Furthermore, the historical record must be revised, and it will be necessary to pretend that "responsible" political groups acting "within the system" sought to end the war, but were blocked in their efforts by the peace movement. People cannot be permitted to remember that the effective direct action of spontaneous movements—both in the United States and among the conscripted army in the field—that were out of the control of their "natural leaders" in fact played the primary role in constraining the war makers.

The US government was unable to subdue the forces of revolutionary nationalism in Indochina, but the American people are a less resilient enemy. If the apologists for state violence succeed in reversing their ideological defeats of the past years, the stage will be set for a renewal of armed intervention in the case of "local subversion or rebellion" that threatens to extricate some region from the US-dominated global system. A prestigious study group twenty years ago identified the primary threat of "communism" as the economic transformation of the communist powers "in ways which reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West." The American effort to contain this threat in Indochina was blunted, but the struggle will doubtless continue elsewhere. Its issue will be affected, if not determined, by the outcome of the ideological conflict over "the lessons of Vietnam."

Anyone got any other's that give maybe a more (I hate to say that but for the sake of argument) RIGHT WING slant? To tip the scale to a more "central" place so everyone's happy.

I think this guy is smart as chips. Could not begin to be as eloquent as he can, so won't try.

[nobody]

http://www.vietnamwar.net/history/history.htm

this site is full of links about the vietnam war and from what i've viewed so far offer a Right Wing (read: fair and balanced ) view of it.

[Voronwë]

Fonda was heavily involved in producing a movie in the mid 70s that was extremely favorable in portraying the plight of Vietnam vets re-integrating into US society.

that doesnt make the artillery battery thing OK, but if you are going to base your opinions on events that predate your existence, you should at least use the whole set of facts.

but that being said, the US involvement in Vietnam was entirely based upon intentionally misleading public propaganda (Gulf of Tonkin) and the other stuff that Teeny clearly pointed out.

To protest that war was not only correct at the time, but pretty fucking ballsy. Giving comfort to the enemy of US soldiers is not such a good thing, but lets be honest, how many people did Jane Fonda draft?

How many people of privelage did Jane Fonda sign into the Alabama Air National Guard, so that another could go and die in their stead?

How many thousands of GIs did Jane Fonda order in to combat with ambiguous rules of engagement?

I really have no reason (save Barbarella) to like her, but I just don't get the venom that people of my generation (ie you werent born in the height of the War) have for her.

Some fat loser on talk radio tells you to believe something, so...OK i guess I do.

[Nick]

Interesting, only just gone to the site, lemme get a good read of it and i'll get back to ya.

[kyoukan]

AQ had nothing to do with Iraq before we wrongly entered there but now are responsible for the insurgency. Iraqi's ARE NOT part of the insurgency more than a small percentage. The AQ insurgents are from various muslim countries thoughout the region including Syria and Iran.

orilly

I had no idea you had such important census data on the insurgents in Iraq. Perhaps you can produce a source for this information from someplace other than your asshole?

[kyoukan]

I really have no reason (save Barbarella) to like her, but I just don't get the venom that people of my generation (ie you werent born in the height of the War) have for her.

Some fat loser on talk radio tells you to believe something, so...OK i guess I do.

because righties have a long history of blaming the left for their fuckups rather than taking anything that remotely resembles personal responsibility.

[Badabidi]

I really have no reason (save Barbarella) to like her, but I just don't get the venom that people of my generation (ie you werent born in the height of the War) have for her.

Some fat loser on talk radio tells you to believe something, so...OK i guess I do.

because righties have a long history of blaming the left for their fuckups rather than taking anything that remotely resembles personal responsibility.

Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat President you stupid fuck. Most likely you'll need a cite for that though, so..

http://www.americanpresident.org/histor ... nbjohnson/

Kennedy and Johnson most likely never existed though, Nixon was the one who drove us into the Vietnam quagmire, that fucking rightie!!

[Chmee]

I really have no reason (save Barbarella) to like her, but I just don't get the venom that people of my generation (ie you werent born in the height of the War) have for her.

Some fat loser on talk radio tells you to believe something, so...OK i guess I do.

because righties have a long history of blaming the left for their fuckups rather than taking anything that remotely resembles personal responsibility.

Blaming the other side has a long history for both political parties, but talking about the the right's fuckups in response to a post talking about Fonda's Vietnam activities is a little strange given the party affiliation of the adminstrations that got us involved in that war.

[kyoukan]

[quot
Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat President you stupid fuck.

so is zel miller. dur?

unlike someone like yourself I can differentiate poltiical affiliation beyond party lines.

nixon was actually great for the rift between the united states and communist asia. probably because he wasn't some pussy armchair warrior like the majority of you faggots that annoy me on this board.

[nobody]

Kyo, who the fuck do you think Zarqawi is!? [sarcasm]He is on your liberal news networks all the time[/sarcasm] and is attributed to the recent death of 50 Iraqis found floating in the river. if you need more proof of AQ involved in Iraq than Zarqawi ask again.

i said earlier AQ had nothing to do with Iraq but i may want to retract that.

here are a few interesting links:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 7uwabl.asp

The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -4738r.htm

most conclusive evidence comes in a highly detailed list of intelligence reports revealed last month in the Weekly Standard. Senior Iraqis were said to have traveled to Sudan in the mid-1990s to teach bin Laden's operatives how to make sophisticated truck bombs.
Terrorists subsequently used such bombs to hit targets in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The new intelligence reports are at odds with a June report by the United Nations' terrorism committee, which said it had found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Iraq was not involved in 9/11 but i've found lots of information clearly showing Iraq and AQ were involved with each other for years before the invasion.

some fat loser makes a movie and tells you to believe something, so...OK i guess i do.

[noel]

He was probably spitting in her face to get her to punch him, so he could lay the wood to her.

(Hi Funkmasterr )

[Badabidi]

[quot
Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat President you stupid fuck.

so is zel miller. dur?

unlike someone like yourself I can differentiate poltiical affiliation beyond party lines.

nixon was actually great for the rift between the united states and communist asia. probably because he wasn't some pussy armchair warrior like the majority of you faggots that annoy me on this board.

You're such a dumbass, it's nice to see you backing down so fast though. Run along now chump

[Nick]

Here is a common misconception, I'll clear it up for you right now, see that whole cute "Republican" and "Democrat" thing, all those fuckers are under the same umbrella.

The distinction between them is next to irrelevant.

Here is the relevance, those with power (read money) and those without.

End of fucking story.

People who actually fall for this whole "Oh well I think the puppet on the left represents my beliefs", "oh well no, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking" are sitting exactly where they want you to be, in ignorance.

Nobody, TV or newspapers are not respectable sources, given that it is run by those in power (read money again) and have been irrefutably proven beyond all belief TIME AND TIME AGAIN (especially the US media) to be a crock of fucking lies and spin from start to fucking finish.

Examples: Israel/Palestine (you guys know you are actually supporting an illegal occupation that violates UN law and many human rights yeah?) And Iraq. The list goes on, take your fucking pick, if you believe the news, you know JACK and SHIT about what is actually happening.

You haven't found information, you have been told it.

Edit: This is not a flame at anyone in particular, apart from Nobody, who I .
Edit 2 - Anyone who thinks Michael Moore represents people with a vague grasp on whats happening is sorely mistaken. Fat fucking useless turd cash monkey that he is.
Edit 3 - I'm getting a bit of a woody waiting for CID to call me out on bandwagon jumping.

[nobody]

pussy armchair warrior

[kyoukan]

see you backing down so fast though. Run along now chump

eh? I countered your stupid point that wasn't even fucking relevant to my discussion and all you do is say I'm backing down? What reality are you living in? wait a second; who the fuck are you?

[kyoukan]

pussy armchair warrior

yes homo that was directed at you too, and your fake ass military career.

[Badabidi]

see you backing down so fast though. Run along now chump

eh? I countered your stupid point that wasn't even fucking relevant to my discussion and all you do is say I'm backing down? What reality are you living in? wait a second; who the fuck are you?

You didn't counter it at all, considering Zell Miller is an extremely piss-poor comparison to Lyndon Johnson. Your insane hate for the "righties" seems to skew your opinion on any disaster America creates as originating from them. Essentially, you are backing down, and the reality I live in is real, not a fabrication of my hate and imagination like yours. Oh yeah, who the fuck are you again anyway? A loud mouthed bitch who can't keep her facts straight? Oh..

[nobody]

Here is a common misconception, I'll clear it up for you right now, see that whole cute "Republican" and "Democrat" thing, all those fuckers are under the same umbrella.

The distinction between them is next to irrelevant.

Here is the relevance, those with power (read money) and those without.

End of fucking story.

People who actually fall for this whole "Oh well I think the puppet on the left represents my beliefs", "oh well no, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking" are sitting exactly where they want you to be, in ignorance.

Nobody, TV or newspapers are not respectable sources, given that it is run by those in power (read money again- and have been irrefutably proven beyond all belief TIME AND TIME AGAIN (especially the US media) to be a crock of fucking lies and spin from start to fucking finish.

Examples: Israel/Palestine (you guys know you are actually supporting an illegal occupation that violates UN law and many human rights yeah?) And Iraq. The list goes on, take your fucking pick, if you believe the news, you know JACK and SHIT about what is actually happening.

You haven't found information, you have been told it.

Edit: This is not a flame at anyone in particular, apart from Nobody, who I

i me too thanks teeny i agree 95% of what you just said. i get my news from MANY sources including from the horses mouth as much as possible. while i've never been to Iraq i have been to Afghanistan (which makes my career "fake" ) and know first hand how things work in that type of enviornment. i have many many friends who have been in the sandbox as well. i also read and get my news from many sources outside the US media to include but not limited to CBC, BBC, Xinhua, Daily Times Pakistan, Al Jazeera, and even the International Herald Tribune from the land of the frogs. i really do try to get the whole story. and i am as open minded as they come.

[kyoukan]

wow, are you actually disputing that johnson wasn't right wing? how are you smart enough to operate a computer? or is your care worker helping you type?

[Badabidi]

Yep.. Because a rightie would push for domestic reforms such as the Great Society / War on Drugs. Glad to see your comebacks have consisted of nothing aside from "I know all and you don't know shit". Oh well, I'm done arguing with your dumbass, I've probably caused you some kind of harm by making you have remote thoughts, bye bye.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Not as disgusting as what she did.

Agreed.

[Sueven]

In a democracy, we (the citizenry) should theoretically have control over the policy of the country.

Because of the logistical difficulties of having the citizenry exercise direct control over policy (such as the vast population of the country and a lack of political expertise), we choose to elect representatives to craft our policy. We accept that this provides us less control over policy than direct democracy because it solves our logistical difficulties.

So we sit somewhere between direct democracy and a sort of authoritarian bureaucracy. When it seems that the citizenry does not have appropriate control over policy, we carry out democratizing reforms, and when citizen control gets too complicated, we carry out bureaucratic reforms.

The difficult issue is to identify where the ideal line is. How much choice should citizens have? How much of this choice can be sacrificed in the name of efficiency? It's a complicated question that many people would answer differently even after contemplating it for a long time.

The mechanism through which the citizenry exercises control over policy is through elections and voting. Look at the choices we have on various important policies:

Israel/Palestine: We can choose the democrats, who support Israel, or the republicans, who support Israel.

Iraq War: We can choose the democrats, who are pro-war, or the republicans, who are pro-war.

Pakistan: We can choose the democrats, who support an allegedly illegitimate military government, or the republicans, who support an allegedly illegitimate military government.

With this in mind, we have to ask ourselves: Where do we stand now? Are citizens being provided a sufficient range of choices on the future of their country? Are they being provided with too many?

Of course, there are certain issues within which we are allowed to make a choice. Abortion is probably the most clear instance, but there are some others. These issues tend to be unimportant throwaway issues from the perspective of the government. The legality or illegality of abortion does not affect the government's power calculations and international activity, and, while many may feel strongly about it, it is not a government priority. At this point in the progression of American democracy, the government would never allow it's citizenry to make a choice about something the government considered to be a priority.

Please note that I'm not making a judgment as to whether this setup is good or bad. Plenty of intelligent people would argue that it the government will better serve the needs of its citizens by removing their ability to make choices on certain issues. Nevertheless, this dynamic is what people mean when they say "there is no difference between the parties," and there is some legitimacy to it.

[kyoukan]

Yeah the war on drugs was a real hot button topic in the early 60's

[Canelek]

This topic has flashed Dead Kennedys into my brain....and that is OK

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor, Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor, Tonight

[Brotha]

Kennedy and LBJ got us into Vietnam, I'd really like to see someone try to argue that either one of them wasn't a liberal (I'm not trying to blame liberals for our involvement in Vietnam, I'm just responding to kyoukan's latest ridiculous theory). Just because today's liberals are pussies doesn't mean that was always a requirement to be classified as one.

And yes, Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliated groups make up a significant part of the resistance in Iraq, along with former Baathists and common thugs for the most part. I'm sorry the facts don't square away with what some of you wish the resistance was made up of (i.e. common, good people revolting against the oppressive Americans). Furthermore, given Teeny's assessment that "at most" the turnout for the Iraqi election would be 10 percent, I'm not too inclinced to believe any numbers he puts forward now (multiply his 5 percent by 5 maybe?).

[Nick]

The point is still that the USA was involved, not just one or two men.
So your whole "liberal" argument is completely fucking irrelevant.

Oh and I love how liberals are seen as pussies because they don't like murdering innocent children.
Nice thinking there, you fucking thug.

And another thing, I didn't even mention the election, at all;

Oh and in case you fail to realise, I happen to be working with human rights organisations and linguists who are actively working in Iraq with Iraqi's who when not in Iraq, are based right here in Ireland, you on the other hand prove time and again that you get your news off the most laughable of sources imaginable.

We prefer to get our info first hand, as opposed to being spoon fed lies which help your own illegal cause.

So disbelieve all you want, you have no fucking clue what your talking about.

[Brotha]

And another thing, I didn't even mention the election, at all;

Oh and in case you fail to realise, I happen to be working with human rights organisations and linguists who are actively working in Iraq with Iraqi's who when not in Iraq, are based right here in Ireland, you on the other hand prove time and again that you get your news off the most laughable of sources imaginable.

We prefer to get our info first hand, as opposed to being spoon fed lies which help your own illegal cause.

But how can anyone of us say with any certainty that this will be a relevant election? When you consider maybe only 1/10 may even vote the usual argument "well if they don't vote fuck them they lost their chance' will not stand for this election for several reasons:

1. Fear of being blown up will keep reasonable otherwise interested voters away.
2. Many people still want no part in an American controlled election (the current Iraqi governing council is a US placeholder btw) and therefore will be exercising their democratic right to say 'fuck you' to the people who have invaded their country and killed their family.
3. Conspiracy theory maybe, but there will be no real way of telling if the election results are even true, given the US zeal in stealing/altering/fixing elections in both their own country and abroad (if you don't believe me look at the history of US interventions and coups).

Yes, your "first hand sources" really served you well there didn't they?

[Skogen]

I am glad kyoukans back! Things are a pickin up!!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Jesus fucking christ are you getting dumber? You think it's okay to physically assault someone for having an opinion? Why do you even bother living in the USA? All of the rights and freedoms that your forefathers fought for are obviously nothing to you. .

Actually, what she did was past having an opinion. It is a little something called "treason". And our forefathers had this little law they enacted that allows for you to be put to death for treason. They should have prosecuted the dumb bitch in the 60's and then we would not be having this discussion now.