LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 11:55 PM) Simpsons will be around until ratings plummit. I doubt Groening will cut loose this show to preserve the integrity of his creation. It's been violated far too many times. Possibly the best indications of this are the "Armen Tazarian" spinoff, or the clipshow where "Have no fear, we have stories for years...." is melodied from Billy Joe's tune.. FOX will continue shoving money down his throat while the cow is still producing. Honestly, you have to wonder how many original episodes can there be. Where's the incentive for viewers to continue watching new episodes? Simpsons strong viweing base lies on its 18+ demographic; ideally viewers which grew up alongside the series. Writers need to build off such classic episodes as "Who Shot Mr. Burns;" where buzz was circulating and viewership reached its high point. Problem is there are few, if any, mysteries remaining on the show. Writers need to heed their own advice (poochie episode) and create a new character. For all the crap recycled on FOX, watching mediocre Simpsons episodes isn't really that bad. Still can't believe Futurama was shipped to Cartoon Network, or Family Guy's return took nearly 4 years. IIRC, FOX actually owns the rights to the Simpsons, not Groening. And I also believe that Groening's refusal to sell the rights to Futurama was a huge deciding factor in the reason it got booted to CN.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 11:20 PM) go for what? I think it's either all or none. Selectively choosing one cause over another is what's wrong with our culture, or rather, yours. Sideshowapu chooses to ignore the rampant belittlement of such groups as catholic priests or evangelical Christians. This website is a microcosm for the outside world. It makes me sad that ANYONE has to be berated, discriminated, or prejudiced against. I just ask a simple question of what makes one person's rights more "worthy" of a cause? Rampant belittlement -- here's an idea, kinda novel...If a priest keeps his cock out of an 8 year old boy's asshole then there is nothing to belittle. But when the Catholic Church actively helps move priests accused of f***ING CHILDREN to new parishes where they can keep doing it, they lose all credibility to talk about how good, pious and moral of a group that the institution is. The Catholic church loses all claims to moral legitimacy in that they knew about and assisted in facilitating the rape of children by moving priests to new parishes where they would not be suspected. And evangelical Christians -- would those be the ones who want to put 10 Commandments statues up everywhere? Here's crazy me thinking that Christianity is really about doing acts of kindness without asking for public recognition and being an attention whore of "Look at me and the good I'm doing! I'm so pious!" You see, PA, people can be religious without throwing their fundamentalism in peoples' faces and trying to be more pious than thou. And the choice to be gay CK? Oh man, that's hilarious! "Lets see -- I can lose rights, be harassed, beaten, attacked, hated for no rational reason..." yeah, a lot of people are making that "choice".

In memoriam... His last ESPN Page 2 column... Ladies and gentlemen...I give you HST's "Shotgun Golf with Bill Murray" http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1992213

I don't care that he tried it. Good for him. Its less harmful than the booze and coke he was usin' and abusin'. What I do care about is that he tried it and then feels that since he got away with it, he can promote Draconian drug law policies that are absolutely insane *cough Operation Pipe Dreams cough*. For good stuff about the war on drugs, check out "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed & What We Can Do About Them: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs" by Judge James P. Gray.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 11:08 PM) Just as he makes an appearence in Apu's sig... I loved reading Thompson. But he was one crazy cat, and this isn't completely unexpected. Holy s***...that's just...wow. He was such a great writer and such a badass. I wonder why he did this.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) Very nice. Nick Smith is a hack, who made a nice shot. Nick Smith is the shortest 7' 2" player on the planet. He plays like he's 5 feet tall with mittens on his hands.

QUOTE(T R U @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 07:43 PM) dfjbaskjlfyhbasljfasgdabgfgashhgdlk YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Again I contend that if Paris Hilton turned sideways for a profile shot, she'd be invisible.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 07:40 PM) Yeah, I tuned in to expect Ned Flanders. Complete ripoff. The entire episode was terrible. Simpsons needs to continue creating outrageous adventures, and stay away from political topics. He is the only man that can save the Simpsons /wasformerwriter

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 01:32 PM) I dunno, but if that was my girlfriend, I'd probably be in a jail cell come Saturday morning. You can't just look the other way when some dude grabs your girlfriend's ass. You're not the better man when you allow someone to get away with that. I was at a frat party in Crawfordsville, Indiana back in 1998 when some clown grabbed some girl's ass out of nowhere. What ensued was perhaps the most vicious beatdown that I have ever witnessed. I couldn't believe my eyes. Her boyfriend didn't see what happened and I had a few choice, creative things I said to the guy (granted this guy had at least 30 lbs. on me) but she wasn't too pissed off about it and when the boyfriend came back, we just shut up about it since the guy was on his way out the door when he did it and was long gone by the time he got back with our drinks. But it did generate some good outrage humor between me and my friend.

Seeing how girls and being drunk was brought up in this thread, I have a(n) observational question(s) to ask. On Friday, I was at a bar in downtown Champaign with a friend and her boyfriend drinking and as we're standing around, her boyfriend goes up to get a round of drinks for us. This random guy passes by my friend and grabs her ass. Now, here's me thinking "In thousands of years of evolution, how come guys haven't moved past something like that to try to approach a girl?" And really, who would meet a girl like that? I mean standing around at the wedding reception: "Well Bob, how'd you meet Stephanie?" "Well, I was drunk, she had some tight pants on..."

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 02:57 AM) it's efficient. with all the different styles of pics, couldn't get anything to look good consistently throughout... Thanks a lot Gold...

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 02:59 AM) Who are all those peeps, I only know Toshiro Mifune. The guy on the left and the guy on the swing I recognize, and the guy on the right looks like Lawrence Harvey. It's Bill Hicks, Hunter S. Thompson, Spider Jerusalem from Warren Ellis' "Transmetropolitan", Kanji Watanabe from "Ikiru", Toshiro Mifune and Lenny Bruce. The quote is from "Ikiru".

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 19, 2005 -> 02:16 PM) I'm not. I'm blaming him for doing next to nothing after the attack that occurred only a month into his first term. After the Oklahoma City and Centennial Park bombings, Clinton allowed Janet Reno to stifle the FBI in their attempts to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists (something that they could already do with domestic organized crime members) under the guise of "protecting civil liberties." Airport security was also allowed to remain woefully inadequate. Clinton's "sanctions" against countries who did petroleum-related business with terrorist-aider Iran were a complete joke. Billy Boy put a "loophole" in that deal where he could executively decide to forego these sanctions when in it was in the country's "national interest" (a decision he made on his own). The result was that these sanctions were never implemented and countries like Russia, France, and Germany continued to do business with Iran. Clinton didn't even bother pressuring the Saudis into allowing the FBI to question the suspects in the Khobar Towers bombing (where over a hundred of our troops were murdered). Apparently the Saudis had something to hide... one of their own citizens (some guy named Osama bin Laden) was behind it. The Saudis simply asassinated the culprits so that the FBI couldn't get any damning information out of them. Clinton's actions towards fighting terrorism in the '90s were woefully inadequate. One can argue that other Presidents also ignored the issue but, by the mid-90s, all the signs pointing towards 9/11 were there. More should've been done. I actually agree with you on this one. The Israelis are certainly not without significant blame. As I've told you before, I have a Palestinian friend from Ramallah and know all-too-well the injustices committed by the Israeli army. Our government needs to take a more "fair and balanced" approach to dealing with both sides. I for one support our government of lying and murdering overlords. With Bush invading random countries that have nothing to do with our national security, call me cynical but I really believe that administrations like having that "enemy" out there so they can justify an agenda and don't really need to do anything about it -- just make it appear that they are doing something. And that cuts both ways, during the election I was fairly certain that a lot of the Democrats (Read: Liberal Hawks) were only wanting a guy with a D around his name in power to take credit for the dead tan people. It just irked me when Condie went on TV and said that she had no idea about a 9/11 style attack when the Bojinka documents were found in 1995 and the attack style was just smaller scale on 9/11.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 19, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) Yeah, no kidding! Clinton did nothing after al Qaeda blew a five-story hole in the bottom of WTC Tower 1 in early '93 (he didn't even visit the site afterwards), so giving him "credit" for addressing terrorism is nothing short of laughable. And let's not forget how he allowed North Korea to run an underground (literally) nuke program under cover of the fake "agreement" bartered by Jimmy Carter, of all people. Clinton did a good job of balancing the budget and was instrumental in welfare reform, but he was more or less illiterate in the field of foreign policy. Agreed that Reagan and Bush probably should've done more, yet both had to deal with the Soviets. However, Reagan did bomb terrorist-enabler Ghadaffi into submission. Dec. 15, 1993 Chicago Tribune & Oct. 28, 1993 New York Times both ran stories regarding the WTC bombing that never really got picked up by the mainstream media. This is an excerpt from the NYT article on it. "Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said. The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers." So don't blame Clinton for it when it was FBI bureaucracy that decided they wouldn't stop the attack. And for all the Clinton bashing, nobody has brought up Executive Order W199I that was informally used by Clinton but signed and enforced hard by GWB. This is a scan of the document and an explanation of it -- http://www.propagandamatrix.com/W199I.gif Plus, to Clinton's credit, he did help stop Project Bojinka in 1995 [http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/dia-bojinka.htm] Bojinka was the plot by radical Islamists—led by WTC-bomber Ramzi Yousef—to 1) blow up a dozen US passenger jets in mid-flight, 2) assassinate President Clinton and the Pope, and 3) ram hijacked passenger planes into US landmarks, including the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA Headquarters, and the Sears Tower.) The plot was discovered in 1995 when authorities in the Philippines raided Yousef's apartment. And the funding of Palestinian militant organizations -- if that is wrong then is it not also wrong that the US uses billions in aid for Israeli militants after they've been linked to killing children, forced removals from homes and keeping the day to day operations of a militarist occupation in place? Hell, even members of their elite commando squad are speaking out against the occupation -- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1221-06.htm From their letter: We will no longer corrupt the stamp of humanity in us through carrying out the missions of an occupation army... in the past, we fought for a justified cause (but today), we have reached the boundary of oppressing another people." And when you add in that Sharon is a bloodsoaked butcher (read: slaughters at Sabra and Shatila -- The United Nations Security Council condemned the massacre with Resolution 521 [19 September 1982]. This condemnation was followed by a 16 December 1982 General Assembly resolution qualifying the massacre as an act of genocide.) then turning the "Don't fund militants who kill innocent people!" should also be reflected at the US as well if we are to expect every other country to follow the same dictates. And I've been doing a lot of research for psych classes that I'm in about the mental responses to occupation/being a refugee specifically in the case of Palestine. Its interesting stuff because there are no real coping mechanisms for them -- since many cannot get to school with the checkpoints [friend of mine was in Israel and got held at a checkpoint for 12 hours...found out later that he got clearance about an hour into his wait, but the soldiers just wanted to make him wait], can't get to their farms, can't use the roads, are constantly harassed by the settlers & IDF, have their buildings destroyed in "collateral damage" -- they see militarism as the only coping mechanism to deal with their problems. Their agrarian based economy is in shambles from the militarism (i.e. the Draconian policies enumerated above like the 12 hour waits to get through a checkpoint for no reason for Joe. Q. Farmer who has nothing to do with Hamas, etc.) Add in the fact that new "security fence" (which is 98% concrete so its a "wall" -- lets use the vocab that we've all come to agree upon) cuts deeply into Gaza and is not being built upon the established Green Line after the 1967 war. A lot of the tests done on Palestinians, especially children, have high rates of depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, affective psychosis, feeling alienated and intense emotional instability – believing that they are seen as a threat. Due to the consistent victimization and stress, the refugees have developed, what research calls, a learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a condition precipitated by numerous distressing and devastating events like being expelled from your previous life and becoming a refugee. As a reaction to the consistent depressing events, the afflicted person sees no way to better the situation they are in. The afflicted person takes on a defeatist attitude and sees no reason in trying to succeed. The person(s) become helpless and refuses to do anything to try to better their life because there is no way to cope with the problems being faced. So while not enthralled by the idea of being militant back -- its a sense of pride, nationalism and a much needed coping mechanism to deal with the s***ty hand that they are getting. Its interesting reading some of the testimonials. And oh yeah, if anybody thinks cutting funding for Israel would cause them harm and yadda yadda -- economists have figured out that a 3% tax increase on everybody in Israel would more than pay for the necessary security measures that they would need to defend themselves.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 18, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) What the hell is an "ex-felon"? Either you have been convicted of a felony or you haven't. Felons who have served their time and been released. Certain states allow some people who have served their time and convicted of certain felonies to get rights back like voting while other states (I know of Florida is one that doesn't allow voting -- because Jeb Bush has been slapped around by courts for trying to deny people who were felons, got their voting rights back from the government and then moved to Florida) don't allow voting rights to be returned after serving time.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:46 PM) He is a talented guy, but I don't see him bringing back rap as has been stated in this thread. He is nowhere near the talent of Tupac, a guy who is still making records fly off of shelves after being dead now almost nine years. And yes, his speech did nothing to get him new fans because he came off like a conceited jackass who is full of himself. His CD is great, I enjoy it, he is talented, but he is some of the things he has been described as in this thread and he's not going to save the rap world. I have a theory that Tupac is alive. No dead man has that much unreleased music.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:44 PM) Hey lowercaserepublican... when I got banned because the leftists on this website didn't like what I had to say, would that fall under my pariah or right wing conspiracy theories? By your admission, that there's no absolute truth, why would anyone's comments on this website be deemed as offensive or in violation of secular-humanist code? Seriously guy, you don't make sense... let the dialogue happen, otherwise you can go hold hands with the other "little eichman's" at the book burning later this week. don't you get it? You and left have significantly misalligned views. That would fall under your pariah theory. As BigHurt35 said, there is no escaping freedom of responsibility after opening one's piehole. The creators of this site and the admins have coded terminology in a certain way & the way they react to them in order to create a place where people do not feel threatened. The reason you were banned for that time was that there was a reaction to the words used and their internal reaction to those words brought about the punishment since it was in violation of rules that have been established. And my point about absolute truths -- there are absolute truths: Treat people with respect. The sig of "devastate my backside" was not something that a self-proclaimed (and self-advertising) Christian would have done, in my interpretation of the Bible.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:32 PM) Oh, really? That sounds more like a theory than reality. I can give you at least one source that cites mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX being used at Halabja. And guess who received that chemical weapons technology from the US in the early '80s? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Iran. And it sounds like your boy Pelletiere went back on his word: So, are Saddam's torture chambers and his part in the Oil-For-Food Scandal all lies from the "neo-cons" as well? :rolly No, Saddam was an evil guy. I don't dispute that -- its just that there has been uses of propaganda before [see Gulf War I and the Kuwaiti government hiring a PR firm to declare that Iraqis were dumping babies out of incubators when it never happened] to justify a war. I'm still waiting for the evidence to show itself that Saddam was going to attack us or that there was any working connection between him and Al Qaeda or any of the other bulls*** reasons (like uranium from Niger etc.) we were fed by both parties to get us involved in Iraq.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:27 PM) Zero The number of attacks on US Soil for 3+ years. Yup, sounds like they're doing their job to me. The last attack on US soil by Al Qaeda was 1993. It took them 8 years to plan out and execute 9/11 from just a logistical standpoint.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:11 PM) that's funny, I was just wondering why you didn't comment on what I had to say. I think it's a great idea for documentation and identification to be checked when setting up a financial account. I wonder how that will affect anyone planning attacks? that's right...it's an illusion of security :headshake Yeah and those searches without warrants, etc. Its sure worth it. Let's play a fun game called "Justice Department Statistics Regarding Terrorism", eh PA? 1) Of the more than 5,000 foreign nationals detained in anti-terrorism measures, not a single one stands convicted of any terrorist offense. 2) Nor did he find a single terrorist among the 80,000 Arabs and Muslims called in for registration, or the 8,000 sought out for FBI interviews. 3) He also claims that his terrorism investigations led to 368 criminal indictments and 194 convictions. What he doesn't say is that all but a handful of the convictions were for petty offenses, not terrorism charges. 4) A Syracuse University study found that the median sentence actually handed down in cases labeled 'terrorist' by the Justice Department in the first two years after 9/11 was 14 days – not the kind of sentence you'd expect for a terrorist. 5) And where are the al-Qaeda sleeper cells that prompted the aggressive sweeps in the first place? The closest thing Ashcroft can point to are six young men from Lackawanna, N.Y., who followed a charismatic religious leader to an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, but returned to the United States showing no interest in terrorism and undertook no activity whatsoever in furtherance of even a petty crime, much less a terrorist plot. 6) The only criminal conviction involving an actual terrorist incident that Ashcroft can cite is that of shoe bomber Richard Reid, and he was captured not by anything the government did but simply because an alert flight attendant noticed a strange-looking man trying to light his shoe. Yep. Government infringement on civil liberties and their wiping of their asses with the Bill of Rights has gotten them 0 (ZERO) terrorist arrests but Bush and the whores in Congress are lauding the efforts as worth the total destruction of civil liberties. As Ron Paul (R-TX) stated: "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will [prevent terror attacks] makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties." And if a contemporary isn't enough for you then here's the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to attain temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." The illusion of safety because these are the same idiots putting Senator Ted Kennedy on the no-fly list. What do they want him to do -- Drive?...sleep tight. But I'm sure that's all worth the sweeping eviscerations of the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments, right?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:07 PM) Who's to decide what is offensive? or disparaging towards another? The whims of the PC crowd never ceases to amaze me. Christians are mocked and berated every day. Anyone standing up for decencies sake is spat upon all in the name of "free speech", yet that free speech is only actually "free" when it is acceptable to the mantra of that group. truly unbelievable hipocrisy. Most Christians end up being accepting of others and not standing in judgment of them trying to use religion as a political tool either. And PA, get off the pariah complex for being a Christian... As Dave (aka CrimsonWeltall) once stated: It seems both major political parties are filled with anti-Christians (one president even said they shouldn't be citizens), Christians have an extremely hard time getting a day off work for their sacred holidays, they're expected to swear on a copy of the Necronomicon in court and even our money says "We hate Jesus" on it. Meanwhile, Hindus are putting their Origin Myths in science classrooms and Buddhists are erecting monuments at courthouses. And although initially atheists seemed content to just remove an educator's fundamental right to have students engage in forced attention or mandatory prayer, they have put forth laws preventing all prayer in school, making the millions of students who are silently praying, bowing their heads, saying grace at lunch, gathering at flagpoles and joining Bible clubs every day all criminals. Oops. My mistake. Maybe this "double standard" is a little exaggerated.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:04 PM) I just thought I'd fix the obvious omission. OWNED. Nice one Flaax. People do realize that this Act has done absolutely nothing to capture terrorists, right? Right? Its the illusion of safety. It's the Patriot Act -- Preparing Americans To Readily Ignore Overt Totalitarianism Act.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 03:11 PM) Funny, I don't recall Americans hijacking planes in Saudi Arabia and intentionally killing 3,000 civilians. So, no, your comparison is way off-base. At least that's how my naturalized friend from Ramallah sees it. He lived through this crap for years (including unwarranted arrests and torture at the hands of the Israeli police), and even he doesn't buy into your "America is evil" crap. He'd laugh at you and call you a "wannabe." I think that a closer comparison to 9/11 would be Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the late '80s. You could talk of any state sponsored terrorism -- from the suppression of regimes in Central and South America, the coups/overthrows, participation in mass murder. If we're to believe that "the ends justifies the means" as the President and the neo-cons discuss with the "democracy" in Iraq, then there is no inherent difference between explosions caused by bombs from US war planes and explosions caused by people accessorizing with dynamite because the ends justify the cause that they want to get through -- intimidation and militarism. And supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague) And just because he does not buy it, it does not make it less valid. Sticking our noses in other nations' business to make things beneficial for US business interests (read Smedley Butler's retirement speech fom the United States Marine Corps for more information or the movie "Romero" or the film "Missing") does not make us more safe. Its frightening that small government conservatives are ready to wave the banner of Bush's "spread democracy all over the world [and government growth domestically]".

According to Pentagon logic, they were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name. That's the whole point of what he was saying in his article and I think its a solid point in what he was trying to get across & one that greatly needs to be considered. I think so many people are pissed off because there is just the whole "OMG HE SAYED EICHMANN!!!1111!1!" knee jerk reactionism -- and cherry picking of his speech by the media, saying that was the main thrust of it with the one analogy does a disservice to what he wrote and does a disservice to the media who is too damn lazy (or incompetent) to even question the idea that Churchill has that if his discussion of dehumanizing 9/11 victims is bad then isn't it just as bad that we dehumanize other targets in the name of "collateral damage" in our military endeavors?

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 02:34 PM) Saying something that could be construed as insulting and flat-out spitting in the faces of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are two different things. What he said is beyond controversial... it's nothing short of hateful. There's no room for preaching hate on publically-funded college campuses, where taxpayers are supporting faculty salaries. And whether or not Churchill said what he said on campus or not is a moot point. Professors (even tenured ones) can easily be fired for off-campus behavior that is deemed detrimental to the college/university. I know of a biochemistry professor at a Big Ten school that was fired immediately after he was arrested (off campus) for cocaine possession a couple years ago. They didn't even wait until he had a chance to defend himself in court. Churchill will be dumped from Colorado soon, and rightfully so. He can take his hate speeches to a private school. Then our economics professor at the UIUC should be fired as well for calling Muslims "heathens" in a speech given about economics. As you said that's "insulting" and "flat out spitting in the faces" of Muslims. There's a difference between cocaine and semantics so its a moot point that he should be removed for his points of view. And as Churchill stated: And in that he does have a wider point that we cannot say we are "innocent" when our government has engaged in numerous acts of state sponsored terrorism because "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich."