Adam Corolla's view on waterboarding

[bbb]

T had a tough choice. ACE Broadcasting wasn't a sure thing two yrs ago and she needed a better paying gig. Was she married at the time? She probably wishes she had stayed as the podcast seems to have a paying future for Carolla & cast, but it wasn't a certainty when she jumped.

 

True, but she was and is married - it seems like her husband has a decent paying career - and then she ended up quitting that radio job anyway, so she proved she could do without the money.........Did you listen to that one with just Adam and her from last summer or so, where she talks about how suicidal she was? It was pretty riveting.

[DC Tom]

True, but she was and is married - it seems like her husband has a decent paying career - and then she ended up quitting that radio job anyway, so she proved she could do without the money.........Did you listen to that one with just Adam and her from last summer or so, where she talks about how suicidal she was? It was pretty riveting.

 

She probably wouldn't have needed to quit if she had the same cradle-to-grave support that Julia has...

[GG]

True, but she was and is married - it seems like her husband has a decent paying career - and then she ended up quitting that radio job anyway, so she proved she could do without the money.........Did you listen to that one with just Adam and her from last summer or so, where she talks about how suicidal she was? It was pretty riveting.

 

I think that show was on when I was on vacation so missed it. Will go back to listen.

 

To your original question, podcasts or variations of, are here to stay.

[birdog1960]

Yeah....who wants American based companies to profit and be wildly successful? Thats just "evil, selfish" thinking on our part!!!

exxon's revenues are larger than a great many country's budgets. it's more like country in it's own right than an american company separate from the govt.

[WorldTraveller]

exxon's revenues are larger than a great many country's budgets. it's more like country in it's own right than an american company separate from the govt.

I'm not following where you are going with this. If you don't mind, could you clarify your point?

[B-Man]

exxon's revenues are larger than a great many country's budgets. it's more like country in it's own right than an american company separate from the govt.

 

 

So..........whats the cutoff ?

 

Where is the arbitrary "too much" revenues line, to be considered an American Company?

 

.

[bbb]

I think that show was on when I was on vacation so missed it. Will go back to listen.

 

To your original question, podcasts or variations of, are here to stay.

 

It's 8/24/11. I just looked in my itunes. It's one that I saved and didn't delete.........I hope you're right about podcasting. I know they're here to stay, but I want to make sure one as good and big as Adam's can stay. I know all these rinky dink one person podcasts are here to stay. Most of them I don't have the time for.

[birdog1960]

I'm not following where you are going with this. If you don't mind, could you clarify your point?

that america and the world in general are closer to being a corporatocracy now than anytime since the gilded age (and citizens united threw a bunch of oil co gas on the already ragin fire). i've linked the boardroom scene with ned beatty from "network" in a couple different contexts on this board but this is where it's most applicable (unfortunately, i don't seem to be able to supply links on my work computer). if able to, i'd also link to a new book about exxon and their world powers. if you're the dictator in a small oil producing country in africa and exxon give you $400 mil per year while the us gives 25 (i believe the example given by the author was chad) who you gonna take your orders from? who ya gonna go to when you need help? and this is not an isolated example.

 

"i'm not a us company and i don't make decisions based on what's best for america" exxon former ceo, raymond from the above mentioned book excerpted from Time, "inside the death star, aka exxon", may 1, 2012.

Edited May 7, 2012 by birdog1960

[RkFast]

So..........whats the cutoff ?

 

Where is the arbitrary "too much" revenues line, to be considered an American Company?

 

.

 

 

Where Obama and his OWS pals say it is. Duh.

[GG]

It's 8/24/11. I just looked in my itunes. It's one that I saved and didn't delete.........I hope you're right about podcasting. I know theiy're here to stay, but I want to make sure one as good and big as Adam's can stay. I know all these rinky dink one person podcasts are here to stay. Most of them I don't have the time for.

 

I think that the business model for a successful podcast/direct to user distribution is working and should be here to stay. It's not just Carolla but Louis CK, Glenn Beck etc. You can make a good living off a loyal fanbase. The only question will be the star's own ego and desire. Will he be content in reaching his core or will he try to move back to TV?

[C.Biscuit97]

Love that there are some fellow Carolla fans on this board. I've been a daily listener for basically his entire podcast reign. Great show. Kind of sad when Teresa comes back on though b/c it reminds me how much better than Alison she is. Alison sucks.

 

I love Carolla's podcast but I know why you don't like Alison. Because she doesn't agree with your point of view. That's why it's hilarious to me to hear people yell left or right. I don't agree with Carolla's views all of the time (I can't stand his rich guy problems) but I can still listen and enjoy the show.

 

And much like Ted Nugent, Carolla is hardly a person to point tomake a point. The guy barely graduated high school. I admit his success and find him very funny, but he's probably the last guy in the world I'd listen to about anything. People need to think for themselves.

[IDBillzFan]

The guy barely graduated high school.

Why does that matter?

[DC Tom]

I love Carolla's podcast but I know why you don't like Alison. Because she doesn't agree with your point of view. That's why it's hilarious to me to hear people yell left or right. I don't agree with Carolla's views all of the time (I can't stand his rich guy problems) but I can still listen and enjoy the show.

 

And much like Ted Nugent, Carolla is hardly a person to point tomake a point. The guy barely graduated high school. I admit his success and find him very funny, but he's probably the last guy in the world I'd listen to about anything. People need to think for themselves.

 

If he barely graduated high school, he probably does think for himself.

[Jauronimo]

I love Carolla's podcast but I know why you don't like Alison. Because she doesn't agree with your point of view. That's why it's hilarious to me to hear people yell left or right. I don't agree with Carolla's views all of the time (I can't stand his rich guy problems) but I can still listen and enjoy the show.

 

And much like Ted Nugent, Carolla is hardly a person to point tomake a point. The guy barely graduated high school. I admit his success and find him very funny, but he's probably the last guy in the world I'd listen to about anything. People need to think for themselves.

So you won't judge the Taliban for poisoning young girls but you will judge the Nuge for barely graduating highschool?

[bbb]

I love Carolla's podcast but I know why you don't like Alison. Because she doesn't agree with your point of view. That's why it's hilarious to me to hear people yell left or right. I don't agree with Carolla's views all of the time (I can't stand his rich guy problems) but I can still listen and enjoy the show.

 

And much like Ted Nugent, Carolla is hardly a person to point tomake a point. The guy barely graduated high school. I admit his success and find him very funny, but he's probably the last guy in the world I'd listen to about anything. People need to think for themselves.

 

What are you talking about? Teresa is just as liberal as Alison and has a stronger personality in which she voices that opinion than Alison does. So, how does this make any sense?

 

I personally like them both, but think T is a better fit with Adam. Partly because she'll stand up to his views stronger.

[Wacka]

So you won't judge the Taliban for poisoning young girls but you will judge the Nuge for barely graduating highschool?

 

 

He's jealous of both of them.

[GG]

I love Carolla's podcast but I know why you don't like Alison. Because she doesn't agree with your point of view. That's why it's hilarious to me to hear people yell left or right. I don't agree with Carolla's views all of the time (I can't stand his rich guy problems) but I can still listen and enjoy the show.

 

And much like Ted Nugent, Carolla is hardly a person to point tomake a point. The guy barely graduated high school. I admit his success and find him very funny, but he's probably the last guy in the world I'd listen to about anything. People need to think for themselves.

 

Now there's a leap of logic. Do yourself a favor and stay on the safe side of the wall.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

small segment of an interview with noam chomsky on this whole issue of 911 and war on terror...

Q: The media have been noticeably lacking in providing a context and a background for the attacks on New York and Washington. What might be some useful information that you could provide?

 

A: "There are two categories of information that are particularly useful because there are two distinct, though related, sources for the attack. Let’s assume that the attack was rooted somehow in the bin Laden network. That sounds plausible, at least, so letsay it’s right. If that’s right, there are two categories of information and of populations that we should be concerned with, linked but not identical. One is the bin Laden network. That’s a category by itself. Another is the population of the region. They’re not the same thing, although there are links. What ought to be in the forefront is discussion of both of those. The bin Laden network, I doubt if anybody knows it better than the CIA, since they were instrumental in helping construct it. This is a network whose development started in 1979, if you can believe President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he was just bragging, that in mid–1979 he had instigated secret support for Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an “Afghan trap,” a phrase worth remembering. He’s very proud of the fact that they did fall into the Afghan trap by sending military forces to support the government six months later, with consequences that we know. The U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They’re called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from elsewhere.

 

Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians. And they did. They fought a holy war against the Russians. They carried terror into Russian territory. They may have delayed the Russian withdrawal, a number of analysts believe, but they did win the war and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, groups based in that same network assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been instrumental in setting it up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe with connections to the same networks, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued.

 

By 1989, they had succeeded in their holy war in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That’s what they want to overthrow, what they call the un–Islamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East and North Africa. And it continued.

 

In 1997, they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist industry. And they’ve been carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East Africa, the Middle East, for years. That’s one group. And that is an outgrowth of the U.S. wars of the 1980s and, if you can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the “Afghan trap.” There’s a lot more to say about them, but that’s one part.

 

Another is the people of the region. They’re connected, of course. The bin Laden network and others like them draw a lot of their support from the desperation and anger and resentment of the people of the region, which ranges from rich to poor, secular to radical Islamist. The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, has run a couple of articles on attitudes of wealthy Muslims, the people who most interest them: businessmen, bankers, professionals, and others through the Middle East region who are very frank about their grievances. They put it more politely than the poor people in the slums and the streets, but it’s clear. Everybody knows what they are. For one thing, they’re very angry about U.S. support for undemocratic, repressive regimes in the region and U.S. insistence on blocking any efforts towards democratic openings. You just heard on the news, it sounded like the BBC, a report that the Algerian government is now interested in getting involved in this war. The announcer said that there had been plenty of Islamic terrorism in Algeria, which is true, but he didn’t tell the other part of the story, which is that a lot of the terrorism is apparently state terrorism. There’s pretty strong evidence for that. The government of course is interested in enhancing its repression, and will welcome U.S. assistance in this.

 

In fact, that government is in office because it blocked the democratic election in which it would have lost to mainly Islamic–based groups. That set off the current fighting. Similar things go on throughout the region.

 

The “moneyed Muslims” interviewed by the Journal also complained that the U.S. has blocked independent economic development by “propping up oppressive regimes,” that’s the phrase they used. But the prime concern stressed in the Wall Street Journal articles and by everybody who knows anything about the region, the prime concern of the “moneyed Muslims”—basically pro–American, incidentally—is the dual U.S. policies, which contrast very sharply in their eyes, towards Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, for the last ten years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it’s a high price but we’re willing to pay it, doesn’t sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if a half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile they’re strengthening Saddam Hussein. So that’s one aspect of the dual policy. The other aspect is that the U.S. is the prime supporter of the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territory, now in its thirty–fifth year. It’s been harsh and brutal from the beginning, extremely repressive. Most of this hasn’t been discussed here, and the U.S. role has been virtually suppressed. It goes back twenty–five years of blocking diplomatic initiatives.

 

Even simple facts are not reported. For example, as soon as the current fighting began last September 30, Israel immediately, the next day, began using U.S. helicopters (they can’t produce helicopters) to attack civilian targets. In the next couple of days they killed several dozen people in apartment complexes and elsewhere. The fighting was all in the occupied territories, and there was no Palestinian fire. The Palestinians were using stones. So this is people throwing stones against occupiers in a military occupation, legitimate resistance by world standards, insofar as the targets are military.

 

On October 3, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters to Israel. That continued the next couple of months. That wasn’t even reported, still isn’t reported, as far as I’m aware. But the people there know it, even if they don’t read the Israeli press (where it was immediately reported). They look in the sky and see attack helicopters coming and they know they’re U.S. attack helicopters sent with the understanding that that is how they will be used. From the very start U.S. officials made it clear that there were no conditions on their use, which was by then already well known. A couple of weeks later Israel started using them for assassinations. The U.S. issued some reprimands but sent more helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Meanwhile the settlement policies, which have taken over substantial parts of the territories and are designed to make it virtually impossible for a viable independent state to develop, are supported by the U.S. The U.S. provides the funding, the diplomatic support. It’s the only country that’s blocked the overwhelming international consensus on condemning all this under the Geneva conventions. The victims, and others in the region, know all of this. All along this has been an extremely harsh military occupation.

 

Q: Is there anything else you want to add?

 

A: There’s a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive, authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.

 

Let’s take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didn’t ask for U.S. support, just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden. New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the “strikingly unanimous view” of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those who have suffered his repression.” Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an “iron–fisted Iraqi junta” that would hold Iraq together just as Saddam’s “iron fist” had done was preferable to a popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the U.S. bombing. Maybe people here don’t want to look, but that was all over the front pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. That’s just one example. These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic development."

Edited May 8, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Alaska Darin]

Waterboarding isn't torture. At least not physical. Mental yes, and that's what it's purpose is.

You've obviously never been waterboarded.

[Alaska Darin]

Why does that matter?

Because you can't be smart or successful in America unless you're an indoctrinated drone who can regurgitate with aplomb.