Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200410 … mp;ak=null

Noam Chomsky talks about Hamas policies, the US foreign policy, and terrorism.
What do you think?

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-06-28 02:04:06)

JahManRed
wank
+646|6857|IRELAND

I just finished Hegemony or survival. A great book, a great thinker. I wish ppl in power would listen to him instead of simply labeling him an Israel hater. He is a reformed Zionist who has been on both sides of the fence. The 2nd 9/11 was well said and hopefully it will make ppl on this board think about the good old USA's not so squeaky clean past and maybe realize they are up to the same shit now in Iraqi. Although I imagine this topic will be largly ignored because its hard to argue facts.
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6931|New York
And ireland  has a clean past? Your countryman's hands are just as or even more bloody than some terrorists. The kicker her is that the murders(yes i call them murders) are mostly over religion. So please lets not compare apples to oranges. Noone is inocent.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver
I don't think the conflicts are actually about religion, in either case.  It's just a convenient marker.

Video won't play for me, btw.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6857|IRELAND

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

And ireland  has a clean past? Your countryman's hands are just as or even more bloody than some terrorists. The kicker her is that the murders(yes i call them murders) are mostly over religion. So please lets not compare apples to oranges. Noone is inocent.
I don't know how you are drawing parallels to your government going into OTHER countries and over throwing elected governments and installing US friendly dictators to my countries struggle for freedom.

Last edited by JahManRed (2006-06-28 06:30:17)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6784

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

And ireland  has a clean past? Your countryman's hands are just as or even more bloody than some terrorists. The kicker her is that the murders(yes i call them murders) are mostly over religion. So please lets not compare apples to oranges. Noone is inocent.
Point of order: these acts of war were not over religion but over sovereignty and resistance to colonial rule.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
I think he's stupid in calling the Holocaust uniquely grotesque.  Europeans were just as bad in other places (Africa, North & South America, Asia, Australia if you consider us a seperate country, etc.)
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver
The Holocaust was specifically carried out to wipe out the Jews.  Not enslave them, or subjugate them -- which would be bad enough -- but actually to wipe them off the face of the planet.  That's pretty grotesque.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
Because death is so much worse than slavery?  Besides which, the colonial powers would have happily killed them all if they didn't need the labour.  Imperial Redcoats were awfully good at killing unarmed civilians, I hear.  Besides, where do you think the term "ghetto" comes from?
bruisehound
Member
+14|7009
I think we should recognize that all states have brutal histories. Humans are greedy and stupid and cruel, and states make sure that the worst of us come to power.
The difference between countries is that some have been more or less brutal than others in certian periods of their history.

JahManRed, Headstone? Do you agree with this?

Props to Spumantii for posting that link.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
I can agree with that in broad terms, but believe that Tuvalu, for one, should be exempt.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA

April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:

...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...

- Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics.  Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff.  The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations."  The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
-The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million.  The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law.  The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History  of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
-Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality.  And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam."  When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."

..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem.  Namely, he is a hypocrite.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-28 08:51:15)

spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver

whittsend wrote:

April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:

...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...

1. Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics.  Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff.  The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations."  The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
2. The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million.  The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law.  The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History  of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
3. Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality.  And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam."  When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."

..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem.  Namely, he is a hypocrite.
In summary:

1. Your paycheck is hush money
2. You must either (a) extol the virtues of the system, or (b) renounce property
3. I have no idea what this refers to, who he is supposed to have condemned or for what, or why it speaks to his credibility on matters which are many orders of magnitude greater

It's pretty ironic that a magazine actually called "Reason" chooses this avenue of attack, though.  Made me curious, so I went to wikipedia and who should I see on the sample cover pic...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Ayn_Rand_Reason.jpg

OMFG, it's the fearless leader herself!  None shall usurp Her Objectivity!  There is only one monosyllabic Russian immigrant icon, for She is the true Ayn and there shall be no other!

At least now I understand why they approach [sic] Chomsky's ideas as if they somehow are based around a cult of personality...
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA
Responding by the numbers:

1) For someone as critical of the military industrial complex as Mr. Chomsky to benefit from it in this way is troubling to anyone who accepts what he has to say about it at face value.  This would be akin to the Surgeon General taking a position on the board of Phillip Morris.
2)  It is inconsistent for a socialist who regularly condemns the wealthy to live in the type of opulence Mr. Chomsky does.  To have such opulence in the middle of a state park adds insult to injury.
3)  If you don't realise that Mr. Chomsky is vocal about the evils of perpetuating the role of the wealthy in society, especially through the types of trusts spoken of here, you don't know much about Mr. Chomsky.  This is the clearest example of hypocrisy listed. 

His credibility is suspect because one must wonder about the motives of one with such outspoken views when his actions are in direct opposition to those stated views.  You don't suppose he could be *gasp* politically motivated?

If you had actually read the magazine, rather than just judging the pictures, you would realise that their reviews of Ayn Rand on her 100th birthday was hardly fawning praise.    Ever hear the expression, 'Don't judge a book by it's cover' ?  Why do you suppose people say that?  READ.

Nice try at obfuscation, but the fact remains that Mr. Chomsky's positions are inconsistent at best.  He is an armchair liberal, is a political animal, and his opinions are barely more credible than those of Michael Moore.
Wasder
Resident Emo Hater
+139|6904|Moscow, Russia
I don't know who this man is, but I find the statements he made in this interview quite reasonable.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA
He is an American linguist, well known for his left of center views.  He has no claim to any particular expertise on the subjects of Israel, Palestine, Foreign Policy, or Economics.  As far as I can tell, his attraction on these subjects is only that his views can reliably be predicted to be radical.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-28 10:08:18)

spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver

whittsend wrote:

Responding by the numbers:

1) For someone as critical of the military industrial complex as Mr. Chomsky to benefit from it in this way is troubling to anyone who accepts what he has to say about it at face value.  This would be akin to the Surgeon General taking a position on the board of Phillip Morris.
It's actually more like finding a way to get Phillip Morris to pay for publicizing the dangers of smoking.  I find this analogy lacking.

whittsend wrote:

2)  It is inconsistent for a socialist who regularly condemns the wealthy to live in the type of opulence Mr. Chomsky does.  To have such opulence in the middle of a state park adds insult to injury.
Here in Vancouver, the average home resale for the month of May 2006 was $518,176 CAN, or $461,827 in US dollars.  The key word here is AVERAGE.  If you say that is exorbitant, I will agree.  If you say two or even three times the average is "opulent", I will ask you what word then is suitable to describe living arrangements many hundreds of times in excess of that value.  Chomsky is a noted linguist, and is the author of many books on that subject alone.  Frankly, I am surprised he can't afford to spend more.

whittsend wrote:

3)  If you don't realise that Mr. Chomsky is vocal about the evils of perpetuating the role of the wealthy in society, especially through the types of trusts spoken of here, you don't know much about Mr. Chomsky.  This is the clearest example of hypocrisy listed.
I must confess books of his I have read probably have not represented his views as well as have articles in Reason magazine.  I have not noticed this theme in his work.

From what I have read, he seems to focus more on the abuse of state power, in alignment with very narrow corporate interests, both of which involve such a tiny subset of "the wealthy in society", you might as well say he's against America because he disagrees with Bush.  What was that word again?  "Opulent"?

whittsend wrote:

His credibility is suspect because one must wonder about the motives of one with such outspoken views when his actions are in direct opposition to those stated views.  You don't suppose he could be *gasp* politically motivated?
I would have thought it was obvious he is politically motivated.  I still don't see how his actions are in direct opposition to his stated views?  Which stated views?  Which books of his have you actually read, incidentally?

whittsend wrote:

If you had actually read the magazine, rather than just judging the pictures, you would realise that their reviews of Ayn Rand on her 100th birthday was hardly fawning praise.    Ever hear the expression, 'Don't judge a book by it's cover' ?  Why do you suppose people say that?  READ.
There's a magazine shop a few blocks from here.  It's huge, it's filled wall to wall with magazines, and there's a few crazy guys who seem to spend their whole lives in there.  It's almost as if they think they can actually read them all.  Have I seen you in there, methodically working your way from one end to the other, with little regard for whether Chomsky's face is on this cover or that one?

If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?  IF YOU POST IT, THEY WILL READ.

whittsend wrote:

Nice try at obfuscation, but the fact remains that Mr. Chomsky's positions are inconsistent at best.  He is an armchair liberal, is a political animal, and his opinions are barely more credible than those of Michael Moore.
You should try pointing out some of these inconsistent positions.  It's not easy, which is why so many of his opponents have to resort to obfuscation and not-even-accurate personal attacks.  He's not a liberal, and has never run for political office, and to compare him to Michael Moore only hurts your credibility.

The point is that his political writings barely focus at all on wrongdoings at the individual level, so his personal life -- however actually debauched or depraved -- cannot possibly detract from the seriousness of his work.  It's a question of scale.  And in any case, since I don't worship or idolize the guy, I honestly couldn't give a fuck if he turns out to be a kingpin of the global kitten huffing trade network -- his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA
I don't see the point in a comprehensive response, so I will simply respond to the most egregious statements you made:

spastic bullet wrote:

If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue.  I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.

spastic bullet wrote:

his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable.  His logic is such that he doesn't feel the need to apply to himself.

If you are stating that you aren't aware of Chomsky's very public views on wealth in society being contrary to his lifestyle as noted in Reason, you are either not as well informed about his opinions as you claim, or you are being disingenuous again.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6857|IRELAND

whittsend wrote:

April 2006, REASON Magazine wrote:

...Chomsky's life is strikingly inconsistent with his stated ideals...

- Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics.  Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff.  The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations."  The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.
-The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million.  The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law.  The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History  of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.
-Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality.  And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam."  When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."

..."[Chomsky] offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam."
I'd say Mr. Chomsky has a credibility problem.  Namely, he is a hypocrite.
Thats why I respect his views, he has been on both sides of the fence.
The man has a house and wants to provide for his kids. The $2m for his homes was made from selling books and doing lectures preaching his views against America and Americas brand of capitalism. I personally have 3 of his books, so I gave him some money and im happy to. I don't agree with some of the things he says, but takes people to write on the extremities, for or against, to allow the rest of us to debate, provoke a reaction and be interested in world affairs.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6770|vancouver

whittsend wrote:

I don't see the point in a comprehensive response...
It's okay -- you indicated at no time a preference for comprehensive responses (see my original summary of Reasonmagazine's criticisms, in particular: "1. Your paycheck is hush money"; and "2. You must either (a) extol the virtues of the system, or (b) renounce property"), so there was no precedent to uphold.  Feel free to continue to ignore whatever you feel cannot be effectively refuted.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue.  I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.
So, if I might paraphrase...  "WAAAAAAAA!!!"  You don't want to state your position, or in this case, cite something to support it, because the bad man questioned the credibility of one of your... no, your only quoted source.  I'm saw-wee.

Read the paragraph immediately above the "egregious" one for why it's perfectly acceptable to draw some conclusions from a magazine's cover.  Especially a cover that claims Ayn Rand is "more relevant than ever"!  (But no, there's no "fawning praise" in there!  Far from it, you say.  Well, then that's false advertising.)

Btw, I went to their site, but they've got such a hate-on for Chomsky, he seems to be in every other issue in some way or another.  Be specific about your criticisms, or admit they're just a bunch of fallacious deflections from his actual points.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

...his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable.
Maybe to those who can actually be bothered to "see the point in a comprehensive" debate, they are.   I mean "it is".  I guess we'll just take your word for it.

whittsend wrote:

His logic is such that he doesn't feel the need to apply to himself.
Chomsky talks about the use and abuse of state-level power, as I said.  Show me how this level of analysis can apply to any but the most powerful individuals.  You can't.  The state is phenomenally powerful.  I thought you were a libertarian?

whittsend wrote:

If you are stating that you aren't aware of Chomsky's very public views on wealth in society being contrary to his lifestyle as noted in Reason, you are either not as well informed about his opinions as you claim, or you are being disingenuous again.
Once again, you're "punishing" me for not taking Reasonmagazine seriously.  I now don't get to respond to any specific criticisms because I dared to question their not-at-all "fawning praise" of a deranged old cow who genuinely thought she was the best thing since Aristotle.  AND Homer.  Gimme a break.

I'm pretty sure I've seen you put forward some strong arguments on this board, so I think this shit is beneath you.  As it stands, I'm coming away with the impression you can't refute my summaries of Reasonmagazine's "logic", and you're not used to debating the actual substance of Chomsky's views.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6779|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
I couldn't give a crap about what he's said about the wealthy.  On this subject (sorry, but I would like to stay on topic) he is bang on!

There were no lies in that piece and he makes some extremely good points.  There is nothing wrong with seeing the bad stuff about your country no matter how much Bush tries to brainwash you into thinking doubting him is doubting yourself. 

If you disagree with what Chomsky said in the video then list each of his statements and put a logical, accurate and convicing argument as to why he's wrong.  I bet you can't........
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6997
He is a legend. I thought I was well versed in the ways of the world but his lectures scare me.
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6931|New York
JaManRed, I was commenting on your reply.

hopefully it will make ppl on this board think about the good old USA's not so squeaky clean past and maybe realize they are up to the same shit now in Iraqi. Although I imagine this topic will be largly ignored because its hard to argue facts.

Dont cast stones dude. That was my point. I really should neg ya back, but im above that shit.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA
Spastic Bullet:  The behavior you demand from others in debate you curiously exept yourself from.  Specifically, your demand for specifics on Chomsky vs. your sweeping judgements of a source, based upon the most superficial information.  One can be understood, the other cannot. 

As far as your arguments (and I would have thought this was obvious):

1) The point wasn't that it was 'hush money', the point was that the work he did directly benefited entities of which he was HIGHLY and OPENLY critical, to wit, the Defense Department.  Why, if the defense department is as nasty as Chomsky regularly claims, would he benefit them with the fruit of his intellect for any sum?

2)  Here the point was not that one must renounce property or extol the virtues of the system, but for one with socialist beliefs like Chomsky to live in high style in the midst of a state park does not fit with his vision does not really help others in the way that his rhetoric woud imply is his desire.  Nor do his multi-million dollar trusts.  BTW - you shouldn't compare what a Canadian buck buys in Vancouver to what a greenback buys on Cape Cod.  The exchange rate doesn't have much to do with purchasing power, so you only demonstrate your lack of understanding.

3)  Really no need to type it again, as you didn't say much about this.

spastic bullet wrote:

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

If there's something valuable in that issue of Reason that applies here, why not just post it instead of lecturing me about reading every article ever written in every magazine with Ayn Rand on the cover?
Because you judged the magazine based on the picture on the cover of that issue.  I had never mentioned it before them, so your claiming that I am lecturing you about a plethora of magazines is disingenuous.
So, if I might paraphrase...  "WAAAAAAAA!!!"  You don't want to state your position, or in this case, cite something to support it, because the bad man questioned the credibility of one of your... no, your only quoted source.  I'm saw-wee.
The issue with Rand on the cover is only being discussed at all because you dredged it up in an effort do smear the source; it is only tangential to the discussion, and your insistance on deriving information from the cover of an issue which isn't even tangential to the Chomsky discussion continues to be disingenuous.  I'm no expert on Chomsky, but I have read enough interviews, and heard him rant often enough to have a pretty solid handle on what the guy is about.  If you wish to claim that my understanding is lacking (I disagree, but) that is fair enough.  Your continuing efforts to demean a magazine based on the cover of one issue, however, are truly disappointing....in your words, "it's beneath you."  Perhaps there is more than one story about Rand on an issue featuring her on the cover?  Perhaps differing contributers disagree on her value and contribution?  Never mind, you saw the cover of an issue (not even the one from which the article in contention came!) and that is enough. 

spastic bullet wrote:

Btw, I went to their site, but they've got such a hate-on for Chomsky, he seems to be in every other issue in some way or another.
Strange, I don't recall reading another article featuring criticism of him.  Care to be specific (after all, if you are going to demand specificity, why shouldn't I)?

spastic bullet wrote:

Be specific about your criticisms, or admit they're just a bunch of fallacious deflections from his actual points.
Here I will have to concede that a search for relevant data has been unsuccessful.  I'm unable to find any but the most vague pronouncements that tax havens are bad.  Still, knowing his principles, I continue to believe that it is disengenous of you to state that Chomsky has nothing against those who act in the manner he has found to be acting in himself.  He clearly does not hold himself to the principles to which he holds others.  Or, perhaps he feels he does his part by exposing the evils of our society, and at the same time enriching his own fortunes?  Bad news for Mr. Chomsky is that we already are aware of the evils, and his solutions are worse than useless.  So, in the end, his contribution is....nothing.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

...his ideas are uncommonly sound, and based in a quite consistent logic.
The 'soundness' of his ideas are highly debatable.

spastic bullet wrote:

Maybe to those who can actually be bothered to "see the point in a comprehensive" debate, they are.   I mean "it is".  I guess we'll just take your word for it.
The man refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, and before you give me the, "I thought you were a libertarian..." nonsense again, it is time you understood what that really means.  First of all, Chomsky himself distances himself from libertarianism in the US, which he labels (inaccurately) as 'anarcho-capitalism.'  He believes in a system where government is minimalised (so far so good), and people's inherent concern for one another will provide for the needs of all.  Please.  That is fantasy, and to say his ideas are sound is to agree that, given the choice, will care for our bretheren of our own free will.  Now, if this is your idea of 'sound', we can stop discussing it right now; we have no common ground on which to base a discussion, so continuing this is pointless.

At its core, his philosophy is similar to communism in its vain hope that informed citizens will see to each others needs; except that the libertarian socialist ideal is not exclusive to the proletariat.  Either way, the same problems with it exist:  once several members of the society decline to participate in the 'ideal' it either compels compliance with force, or fails outright.

spastic bullet wrote:

whittsend wrote:

If you are stating that you aren't aware of Chomsky's very public views on wealth in society being contrary to his lifestyle as noted in Reason, you are either not as well informed about his opinions as you claim, or you are being disingenuous again.
Once again, you're "punishing" me for not taking Reasonmagazine seriously.  I now don't get to respond to any specific criticisms because I dared to question their not-at-all "fawning praise" of a deranged old cow who genuinely thought she was the best thing since Aristotle.  AND Homer.  Gimme a break.
You don't need to read Reason to understand what Chomsky is about - he tells it to anyone who will listen with frequency.  And, again, I will say that it is disingenuous to portray him as other than hostile to actions such as he has been shown to take.

There isn't much more to say about this.  I could continue to state the obvious, and you can continue to criticise Reason
magazine because they had a picture of Ayn Rand on the cover once...but what's the point?
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada
I was hoping this would be a discussion of principle rather than credibility.  Whether you believe he's a hypocrite or not is beside the point, which is, is he right?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard