A natural disaster is an objective problem. Everyone agrees that it's a problem. A government that criticizes the US, like Iraq was, is a subjective problem. It depends upon your point of view as to whether it's a problem. Most of the world interprets our invasions as forcing our power upon countries which won't accept subordination to the mighty imperial superpower. For domestic purposes, the story spread here is that the other country is oppressed. Yet the people there fight us for many years, showing that they think the oppressor is us, not their own government. And I think it's terrible that Shirley was fired. I don't believe in firing people just because I disagree with them. That's like invading a country just because I disagree with their system. But the US government disagrees with Shirley's position, so in this case, the conservative gets the same treatment that leftists usually get. Beware of disagreeing with the foreign policy of the big bad US government.
Did Haiti help me out when I got layed off from my job? Nope. Did the US government? Nope. Fuck it, I'm movin to Monaco.
ok "ehizzy3". You don't have to post again to jerk off to your avatar, you can just look at your last pizzy, homeboy. Keep it gangsta yo!
Why is it always the people who bring up the 1st amendment in these issues don't know what the fuck they are talking about? The 1st amendment prevents government censorship of individual speech. There is no government censorship here. The government is not preventing Paul Shirley from saying whatever the hell he wants. ESPN is not a government agency. Being employed by ESPN is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Paul Shirley can say what he wants. That's his right. ESPN can decide whether or not they want to employ him. That's their right. No one's civil rights have been violated here. Both party's are simply exercising their rights. BNM
Did you not collect unemployment? If you were laid off or fired from your job, you should have been eligible. BNM
Haha! Honestly I didn't even notice that! Guess it's better than "little league all star" right? But back on topic, how did two unseeded Chinese women make the semis at the Aussie Open? PED's I'm tellin you!
the govt doesnt provide that, no, its a magical fund provided by the benevolent industrialists in the teabagger movement.
I do. Amazingly enough, I'm not sure you do. While the history is fascinating, it's a bit much to distill into a couple lines. I'll recommend this, however. Read more. Save the spewing for someone you'll actually get a rise out of. There's a pretty large body of historical scholarship on 20th century military matters--I'd recommend reading some of the pure history (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Churchill's The Second World War; Biographies on Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek, Churchill, Roosevelt are good starts to WWII) and then look back on some of the outcomes of our isolationist movements (Jones' "Crucible of Power" is decent, if not pretty long). To answer a bit: Hitler was democratically "elected" and all of his powers were "voted for". Why the hell did those WWII clowns keep marching to invade Germany and take Berlin? They should've just stopped at the borders of Germany and not "invaded" a "democratically elected" fascist...even if he's corrupt/insane--is that right? And in Korea, we should've stopped at the 38th parallel in 1950 after the recapture of Seoul and said "Eff this...we can't invade a sovereign nation, even if their dictator is insane and going on orders from another "corrupt, insane" dictator. Do you have the same opinion of the invasion of Panama in 1989? That leader wasn't democratically elected, though he was a dictator who the US had paid off in the past. If you try to divorce military might from moral right, you get the UN. Who passed no fewer than 60 resolutions against Iraq after their surrender in 1991 that they didn't heed. Each of which was a violation of their surrender (especially of sections 8 and 12) and the question you have to ask yourself is: why didn't the UN (who had the unquestioned right and willing backing of multiple countries) enforce the surrender treaty? (Much like, say, asking the question why France and Britain didn't enforce the Treaty of Versailles in 1934-39?).
Strike another blow for FREEDOM. Paul Shirley has the FREEDOM to say and write whatever he wants. ESPN has the FREEDOM to employ, or not employ whoever they want. Long live the American way! BNM
