Metal Reviews

You can't say he's less intelligent merely because he holds some opinions that you disagree with, but that are very defensible.

And yeah, they did, but still... dang.

I meant intelligent in my view. After all, millions think that Bill O'Reilly is intelligent... it's all in perception. It might just be his posh British ways.

Issues like the state of post-war Iraq are debatable, as is the validity of torture, and as long as you can argue your point intelligently, I'll respect you as a debater. Bill O'Reilly, however, is a moron who has bad opinions and bad arguments, along with bad rhetoric.

Ha!

Ever since the Iraq War started Hitchens has been squirming trying to justify his support for it. If he was actually intellectually honest, he wouldn't have written the most transparently flawed attempt to make the "Iraq =/= Vietnam" argument I've ever seen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... mment.usa1

Yeah good one, Chris.

And seriously, FS, an "iconoclast"? Why isn't Ann Coulter an iconoclast, and if she is, why isn't that something to admire as well?

Hitchens is a fake iconoclast who gets his monthly column and god knows how many tv appearances and book sales out of saying controversial things. Just like someone like Ann, come to think of it.

All these tv political pundits are performing seals and Hitchens is no different. Sure him talking about Falwell on FOX is good to watch but it's just stupid, pointless theatre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMa ... re=related

It's not pure iconoclasm that's appealing, it's his ability to back up unorthodox points of view. I'm sure he knows that he's putting on a "arrogant fat jerk" kind of persona and image, but he's smart enough to back his claims up, and at least his arguments are (mostly) coherent. I'm not saying he's always right (no one is).

Watched the Fox video, fuck. I want to shoot Hannity and Colmes. But you're right, Hitchens does come across as more of an actor than an intellectual, but at least he's on the right side, and we need people like him to get as dirty as Republicans do on the media. Liberals can't afford to distance themselves from people like Moore and Hitchens because they're not intellectual enough or capitalize in some way, they're the ones who can actually reach the retarded fox-drunk mass population.

Well, Hitchens is on the right side if you're a militant atheist who is pro-Iraq War. Some of us may be the former but certainly not the latter, and in which case he's emphatically on the wrong side.

Michael Moore is on the right side... I have a lot of time for him as a propagandist for a good cause.

hehe and watch who you're calling a Liberal, mind

Meh, the Iraq War is a complex issue, but it's not ideological, nor will diverging opinions cause for the same amount of strife as other issues (like religion).

Suicide bombings, militia violence and military occupation could be considered a result of divergent opinions on the Iraq War, though, surely?

It is a deeply ideological issue; it is the collision between neoconservatism, realpolitik, liberal interventionism, anti-imperialism, pacifism.... all thos different ideologies are fighting over the Iraq War.

How so? They affect whether or not the war was going to happen or not, but how do they affect what then goes on during the war?

Well, clearly they will affect how and how long it continues.... but what I really meant was that a lot of different ideological positions depend on specific interpretations of the Iraq War.

Which aspect of it? The validity of the reasons for starting it? The necessity of staying there or not? While the first is a no-brainer, the second is so vague, ambiguous and open to debate that it's really only founded in possibilities and speculations, and doesn't really have anything to do with ideology.

Ewww!! Micheal Moore. Propaganda is never good.

but all they're doing is perpetuating the retardation =\

But all debates over policy that are framed in practical terms are about ideology in some way.

Take the economy; everyone who has an opinion on it frames their viewpoint as "what works best", or "what is most practical", but most of the time they are rationalising a position they were predisposed towards by their belief systems. That goes double for the War, IMO.

Well sure, but when you're debating whether or not to take the troops out I'm pretty sure the only factor to consider is to what extent are the troops still necessary there? The people who wanted a war for ideological reasons got it, it's not like pulling out would be "unpatriotic" or anything. Economics, sure (although I don't see how people can still refute the keynesian theory in favour of some bs like "trickle down" despite having its success been proven time and time again).

How would Ann Coulter be an iconoclast? She's intensely religious in the way that many right-wing ideologues are.

Or pretends to be, the poser.

Some people hold to the idea that the American New Deal prolonged our Depression and that as the state grows, wealth declines. When it comes to the new deal, it could be said that the free market needed time to work itself out and it wasn't given enough time. The state supposedly puts money into the wrong outlets when given the chance to Keynesianly jolt the market. Keynes did simply jack some socialist theory though and shrouded it behind some liberalism.

Rio will most likely have proof of how this is wrong; I simply state that it is wrong.

That guy that died during the London protests? Turns out it might have been the riot police that killed him. THE BASTARDS.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... ce-assault
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... ce-assault