- Two big deaths in the last 24 hours: Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH), as Specter noted here 
, and the great tenor Luciano Pavarotti 
, of pancreatic cancer.
- Manuel Noriega's extradition to France has been stayed 
. Talk about a bonkers world: Noriega's lawyers argued that France can't be trusted to abide by Geneva Conventions in treating him as a prisoner, so he should remain in the United States!
- Some washed-up actor 
finally announced his candidacy for president. Republicans, take heart: you have an excellent track record with washed-up actors!
- One step closer to human-animal hybrids! 
I for one welcome our mutant overlords. (nifty link 
, on that)
*UPDATE*: hat tip to Freedom Democrats for an article about a new book, "Everything I Want to Do is Illegal", on the plight of local farmers entangled in a web of stifling regulations. See link.
Happy Thursday!
Comments :
I watched the Republican debate
for a while last night... Not too bad. I did enjoy the Ron Paul parts. Not that I agree with his foreign policy ideas. I am not in favor of a purely defensive stance. But still it was entertaining.
Here is the entire exchange starting with Paul's answer about the Iraq policy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I, too enjoyed watching the video and listening to Ron Paul.
I, too enjoyed watching the video and listening to Ron Paul speak on our foreign policy. He's spot on, except for one thing: I disagree with his take on the Second Amendment. Having passengers and attendents and airplanes who're armed with guns might well have increased the chance of something as bad as 9/11 or worse happening.
How I wish the Democrats would grow a strong backbone and speak out as forcefully as Ron Paul did on our foreign policy.
You misunderstand Paul's position
Ron Paul's position is simple:
It's a property rights issue. The airlines (private property) should be responsible (liability!!) for their own security measures to make sure their passengers are safe and their investment protected. The government's rules hamper their ability to do this...it also makes them dependent on govt. for security measures when it should be their undertaking.
He points out that money transport companies handle their own security with armored cars and armed drivers.
When it's your butt, you take the right precautions.
It's a solid position, it's the best policy and was the most telling and sound answer of the night.
With all the subsidies
the airlines get, I'd say 'private property' may sound a bit dubious, but I understand his overall point.
I'm just not a fan of the wild west.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Just let it in....
The principle and logic are sound. It's so obviously the correct position.
You can't obscure what is real by dwelling on artificial problems created government....like the dubious gray area created by subsidies.
At the core, airlines are private businesses. It's simply nonsensical to think that they wouldn't handle their own security measures to satisfy customers and make them feel safe....all within the bounds of constitutionality. And telling airlines that cannot take sensible measures to protect their customers because...just because govt. says so....is a recipe for disaster.
It's not "wild west", it's basic constitutional common sense. Private Property entails benefits and responsibilities. They go together.
It's boggles the mind how people refuse to process this basic mechanism of sound commerce by dwelling peripheral matters like subsidies and how they muck up these ideas....as if they should take precedence over the basic laws privacy and property when looking for solutions.
Overly simplistic vision.
If this were true, there would never be a case of criminal wrongdoing against a corporation, right? Let's look at Vioxx, for example. According to this report in The New York Times
:
Companies balance risk-rewards all the time, especially when they know that taking the correct action that would be in the best interests of its customers could seriously harm revenue and profits.
So your suggestion here, while interesting the abstract, requires a "perfect world" to be viable. You make far too broad a statement because it doesn't take much to cite numerous exceptions to the very "rule" you state in your premise.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sorry, CLC but this is a very long and elaborate non-answer
with lots of detail and loosely unrelated material...but a non-answer nonetheless. Actually, a needed backdrop for the Vioxx matter should include that fact that FDA had to give its approval. WITHOUT this veneer of fake safety and shifted liability and greater responsibility for its property (Vioxx), Merck would behave differently. But this all besides the point that this matter is different from the airline issue. The airline issue is precisely about CONSTRAINTS put on the airlines. Please don't make this more complex than it needs to be.
Not to sound glib, but I'm discussing this in the context of airline security and in the framework of they can and canNOT do. Within that framework, Paul's sound argument is that government rules prevent actions that would lead to better results while encouraging action (or non action) that leads to worse results.
Also, to say that this would result in never having cases of criminal wrong-doing is totally the OPPOSITE of the obvious conclusion to be drawn. Privacy and property entail benefits and responsibility. Read again. It's there in the other post. By making airline security measures less constrained, we allow (force them to assume) airlines to take better measures suited to their individual needs and put greater responsibility on them to meet those needs.
It doesn't require a perfect world. Indeed, because it's not a perfect, laws about property, privacy and respoonsibility with liability need to be fully enforced to provide clarity for all players.
It's not about perfect worlds and perfect results, it's about better alternatives for better results in an imperfect world.
So you're saying there should be no FDA.
Got it.
And you're suggesting that in the case of faulty Firestone tires that helped cause SUV rollovers, the fault was... um, let me guess, the National Transportation Highway Administration? Right? They caused Firestone to make defective tires at its Decatur, Illinois plant.
There are thousands of examples where "private companies" have not acted in the best interests of their customers, and where, in fact, some of their customers have died as a result.
You seem to discount the influence of short-term greed over long term benefit. And given the pressure on company executives to deliver results quarterly to shareholders (and with much of current exec compensation tied to delivering profit), it is easy to see how management in some cases may be inclined to cut corners, government regulation or no government regulation.
As Brendan points out below,airlines are still liable, regardless of government intervention, and are being sued over 9-11.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No.
I'm saying what I wrote. If you can't answer that points directly, maybe you just shouldn't answer.
You gave another long distracting non-answer that rebuts points I'm not making and answers questions that weren't asked.
You need to do a little better than that to say my argument doesn't hold water.
No, John, it's the absolutism of your argument
... that I am disputing. If you are applying this argument only to airlines, then, yes, airlines are limited in what they can and can't do in terms of security.
But as for the Vioxx example, I think your absolutist theory that implies that Vioxx would not have been marketed if not for FDA approval is complete nonsense. The very reason the FDA regulates drugs today is that unscrupulous companies and individuals sold poison as medicine. These criminals had greed as their primary motive, not some long-term, free-market dream. The FDA saved lives and still saves lives today.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
But you still missed the point.
again. My little sidebar note on FDA (and yes that's all it was) was to say how "FDA approval" and presence can affect a company's decisions in unsafe ways. This is a not a call for the abolition of the FDA. It's just to make so ever-so-vague comparison to the real matter at hand:
Yes I am and yes they are and that brings us back to Paul's point.
Okay.
Still, my point on the FDA stands. You state:
And how do you prove such an assertion?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
FDA
from the FDA Site itself
:
Here's another article
Do read them. I'm not damning the FDA or saying anthing other than what I'm asserting. And that is that companies will feel more encouraged to release some drugs with questionable data because the FDA said it's OK. IOW, Well, the FDA said it's OK, so.....
Mind you, I'm not so sure I would change the system. I'm just making an observation.
Now. if you changed the word "will" to "may"
... in this sentence:
... you may be right. But you still haven't presented any evidence to back up your claim that FDA approval makes companies do things they wouldn't do without that seal of approval.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I said "can" the first time
sorry...I didn't realize we were going to split hairs on modal choices.
I didn't present any evidence. I think the incentive mechanism is pretty easy to see in this process. I doesn't take any imagination...just a willing eye.
I'm kind of a stickler for evidence.
Especially when what one is asserting serves as a bedrock principle for a philosophy one is espousing.
After all, libertarianism isn't religion where truths are taken as a matter of faith, are they?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well, if that's your real agenda
then I'm not going to make much headway.
It's simple to understand the human nature factor at play in the examples I gave. If you can't appreciate the dynamic of increased boldness and promiscuity when an authority says something is tentatively OK even you know it might not be because your really arguing steadfastly against an entire philosophy, then we won't get any further.
The irony is that you probably use this dynamic at various times to back up your own views when its convenient. Whether or not the dynamic is warranted depends on the details. Here, I assert that it is.
Airlines are liable
if they were negligent. Those victims' families who opted not to accept the (highly unusual) 9/11 government payouts are suing, and the airlines are concerned enough to sue the FBI and CIA
for information that could clear them.
Airlines don't necessarily balance security costs against risks in a way that maximizes passenger safety, with the exception of El Al. For example
:
I take his general point but it appears to be a bit more complicated than some version of "the feds should get out."
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
we must keep in mind, Brendan, that
federal interference, IOW: Feds telling airlines that they cannot otherwise constitutional and legal measures because they feel it might pose a safety risk (note the irony here!), causes behavior in airlines that leaves them and passengers less secure.
Obviously, some extreme measures are unconstitutional and would be moot points here. But constitutionally acceptable measures, like allowing airlines to arm their planes as they see fit for maximum safety and freedom from internal threats, are currently forbidden. Paul's point is that if we respect the 2nd amendment and allow airlines to secure their planes to their liking with full respect for the law and privacy and safety of passengers, we'll get BETTER results and prevent problems of weakened security and convoluted liability.
Is that a GOP audience?
Sure looks like GOP voters want to leave Iraq too?
Washed up actor....
You forgot the geezer part. The pic's of Thompson lately haven't been good. Maybe they should just put a picture of his trophy wife up instead.
Who has seen Madelin Albright's Op-Ed
in today's WaPo?
It's a good read. Take a look.
I love it
Wait, there's more:
Seems quintessentially American somehow.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: I love it
I was having a pretty bad day that day because OSU games are on the Big Ten Network. I tend to think watching OSU on broadcast TV is a birthright, but alas, it wasn't to be.
When I heard the team up north lost, I couldn't have been any happier.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Let's make Noriega president of Iraq
Iraq needs a dictator to ride herd over the militias and bring law and order to the country.
Noreiga needs a job.
They're made for each other.
qui tacet consentire
Why don't we just let Putin take it? (n/t)
Washed up actors.
That's true!
It only took ONE washed up Republican actor to end the Cold War, something that your guys couldn't end after roughly 50 years of trying.
Yep, even our washed up actors outshine your finest "leaders".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4huh?
Even if you want to give Ronald Reagan sole credit for ending the Cold War (a dubious claim).....
.... you are rewriting history when you call his predecessors "your guys"... considering that 16 of the 36 years of Cold War that preceeded Mr. Reagan's term were presided by a Republican.
Or do you disown Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford?
I survived the Bush Administration
Pfft.
I knew you guys would point that out but it doesn't matter. Whether you were in office or not you still had the time to figure out what you planned to do.
Our other guys kept getting messed up by the missteps of the intervening Democrats! :)
It took a washed up actor to one up the profession politicians.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ending the Cold War was a long term effort
that combined many variables.
the #1 factor was the USSR itself. Their system was doomed to fail and it did. No other factor was more crucial. They simply could not sustain the veneer of being on firm ground forever.
Other factors included a sustained and firm position by all presidents, the Pope and the diffusing of western culture and wealth.
A very good point
Containment worked pretty well on the USSR, keeping them from wreaking too much damage while their flawed system collapsed.
But you don't understand...
We must bomb Iran. Richard Perle, Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Dick Cheney (to name a few neocons) insist on it.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The stickler for the evidence
speaks, but somehow forgot the evidence he is a stickler for.
We all can be forgetfuul, even you young ones, so I won't hold it against you. But I am interested in the evidence.
Of course, it woun't be hearsay, some opinion columnist's ramblings, or the like. Nor will it be a conditional, such as, "we should bomb Iran if...." Obviously you have memos, writings, or maybe transcripts (even better, recordings) of phone calls where the people on your list say, perhaps, "I don't care what you say, we must bomb iran now, no matter what."
Since you are a stickler for the evidence, i know i can thank you in advance.
How many neocons will suffice?
Have you read much from the neocon/PNAC clan over the years? They have been arguing for the overthrow of regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria since the early `90s.
But, okay, let's get started...
(For the uninformed, Norman Podhoretz is one of the founding fathers of the neocon movement.)
And from American Conservative magazine, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought:
It has been known that Cheney has wanted to bomb Iran for some time. Condoleeza Rice has held him at bay for several years on this. You can use Google to read more about it.
And what about our old pal, Richard Perle?
Ol' Dick Perle has been arguing for attacks on Iraq, Iran and Syria for years, as have his neocon brethren.
Yep, the same dumbass neocons who brought us the bottomless pit that is Iraq want to bomb Iran. They have made no secret of that "dream" for many years, and if you do a little reading about the neocons and their Project for a New American Century (PNAC), you'd know that.
Google is your friend. The stuff I posted here is just the tip of the iceberg on these clowns.
And, once again, your preemptive, condescending tone ensures that you come out looking like a jackass.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Back to the topic
Yeah, read 'em for years, ever since i was tpold that a letter on PNAC so scared Clinton that he signed a law against his will! But this was about present calls for bombing, not overthrowing Iran and Iraq.
How many?
Poheretz actually says, in the article stated:
On the first page of this four page article (even i could google it, and didn't need to put up a hearsay source), he sets the conditions for his argument. obviously, he thinks that iran's nuclear program must be stopped, and he argues at length that no other method will work. So his argument is not, "we should bomb Iran now no matter what," but, "IF we want to stop Iran's nuclear program, we have no choice but to do it with military force, which means bombing." For Podheretz, who actually believes (see article) that iran's nuclear program must be stopped, this amounts to saying, "we will have to bomb Iran sometime before their nuclear program comes on line." Why? Diplomacy and sanctions, nor any other method will not work. One might properly see this as analysis.
His analysis is pretty tight (he actually discusses alternate views. My counter would be that not only don't we have to stop their nuclear program, we should have offered to build it for them.
Overall, not something i am worried about. And Podheretz wasn't on your list.
So, the general principle is, I don't really much care what magazine writers say. Back when Clinton was in, I didn't cite democratically poriented magazines and then dance around crying, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, Democratic magazine writers are calling for this crazy idea, so it's gpoing to happen." Like I said, I'm kind of calm.
NBext: Kr5istol says there have to be results. heck, demanding results of the administration makes him sound like a Democrat! Is your point in bolding that that saying the adminitration should get results is somehow wrong?
And you provide the absolutely shocking, SHOCKING news that the NSC considers contingency plans. I'll bet they have a plan to invade Turkey as well. Nothing here. This does not amount to a recommendation that we bomb Iran now, no matter what. (This is the bar, because we all, even you, think that we should bomb Iran under some circumstances.)
And we even have to gue3ss at that, because the actual by now third hand quote is NOT from a member of the NSC, but a former member talking on her own. SHE outlined.......
American Conservative: every conservative I know personally opposed the war. But this article is two years old (not now) and reports that STRATCOM has been tasked with drawing up contingency plans for an attack on Iran in case of a 9/11 style atack. Nothing here.
Last is Richard Perle, who guesses at what Bush will do. I suppose we can take that as evidence that he wwould also suggest it. Is he suggesting that we bomb iran now?
See, CLC, as you rightly suggest, I can google and get these results myself. But these aren't evidence. "Jack told me that Jill said that Sam Smith might tell George Bush that he should bomb iran if Iran gets the bomb is not that George Bush is going to drop the bomb now, nor that anyone is suggesting to him that we should drop the bomb now.
Yeah, I know about the PNAC. Read there stuff almost in real time. Never thought that "Bill Kristol and a fax machine" was as important as the politics of fear people liked to make it. And having a good knowledge of what led up to the war, I can guarantee you that PNAC did not "bring you" the war.
btw, see, i try to be nice, not condescending, showing you my trust that you will provide the evidence, as you indicated in you "stickler for evidence" post, and you find a way to interpret even that as condescending. Look, CLC, just because you are always condescending, it doesn't mean that i am.
Now, please, can you actually find any evidence for the proposition, "Bush is being advised to bomb iran now." And yes, I do think it is important to also note those who are NOW advising him to bomb Iran if they get a nuclear weapon, or a nuclear capability. That is, actually say it that way, not suggest that we have a contingency plan ready so that is on the table.
Remember, evidence. Not some reporter's hearsay.
Remember when we discussed the PDB? We put up an actual copy and read it. That's what I'm looking for. I asked for your help because i haven't found such evidence, and i know I am not the best googler in the world.
Also consider that during the Cuban missle crisis, Kennedy received counsel to bomb Cuba. As you can see, we can naturally expect that the brainstorming of counsel will be wider than the paths that can actually be chosen, and that those which are seen as possible will be more numerous than those actually followed. In the end, Kennedy didn't bomb Cuba. but i suppose that if that counsel had leaked, there would have been some henny pennys, probably Republicans at the time, who would go around shouting that we were about to bomb Cuba.
One more thing: about titles to articles....if i wrote an article which was entitled, "the case for creatiung a market in Irish babies for consumption as a deolicacdy," would you necessarily take from that that I was counseling that we immediately start eating Irish babies?
So, once again, lookihng forward to your coming up with some actual evidence to back up the point. For an old isolationist like me, such a prospect is worrisome.
Hey, feller...
... (to use your Appalachian twang that you like to lapse into from time to time), note that in my original post I included the parenthetical "to name a few neocons."
Now you can claim that I "didn't include" old Normie on my list, but old Normie is the godfather of the neocon movement.
So mebbe yer ol' eyes jes ain't what they used ta be, pops.
See, you can play around with definitions of who is and isn't a neocon, and you can play around with the notion that some folks don't really want to bomb Iran, they're jes' sittin' there talkin' `bout it, but the fact is, my old friend, that the neocons have been drooling over the possibility of knocking out Iraq, Iran and Syria for years. And years. And years.
And, yes, Dick Cheney would love nothing more than to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. He has been in an epic power struggle with Condoleeza Rice on Iran (bombing versus diplomacy) for the last two years. And, yes, I have read articles about it, in magazines, newspapers and on the web.
Now, obviously, nothing I would present would be good enough for you because you'll nitpick around the edges as is your wont ("a reporter's hearsay" "I don't much care what magazine writers say"). Oh no. You want transcripts of Cheney's telephone conversations and only then will you be convinced.
Well, golly gee whiz, feller, that just ain't gunna' happen now, is it? (Especially not with one of the most secretive administrations in American history.)
No, what we get from you here on a regular basis is masturbatory hijinks.
"Them ain't facts!"
Got ya'. Well when the White House releases telephone and meeting transcripts, you'll have your proof. Or maybe when Iran gets bombed. But I doubt even that would be enough for you. You'd pull out yer tired ol' "Aw, shucks" routine and play the backcountry poor old man again.
No, you don't really want to have a rational discussion, and, frankly, that's just fine. Read up some more on the neocons. They've never made a secret of their yearnings. In fact, they've loudly advocated their positions for years. Only most of the foreign policy establishment -- from both parties -- viewed them as an extremist fringe movement. The neocons and their loony plans were laughed at. But they got their guy in the White House in the person of Dick Cheney. And he staffed up with neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley and Bolton.
So you can pretend that they really don't have any power, but, sh*t-howdy, feller, you'd jes be pretendin' agin'.
It's a silly game you play. Silly, shallow and pointless.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sorry, s...oops
It was you had laid yourself out as the sultan of evidence, not me.
I just said that i believe that Cheney thinks we will have to bomb Iran sooner or later over the nuclear stuff. Whjat am I denying in saying that?
And I have read a lot myself and I haven't seen any evidence that CVheney or any other neocon want so bomb Iran back to the stone age. Overthrow the government? On that i will agree. Do it by military force? Under certain conditions.
Power: I know this: even if George Bush had wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, with a deep desire akin to an addict's desire for his fix, he could not have done it, because, quite frankly, he did not have the power. And since he didn't have the power, no magazine writer anywhere has the power, even if Bush reads them.
I don't buy the partisan politics of fear on this. I don't think that Bill Kristol is dangerous. It's just yur sky that is dangerous.
I also don't care what Cheney "wants." Old Gen. LeMay wanted to use nuclear weapons, and advised presidents to do so. So what?
And like all the rest, it leaks from the top. In fact, one of the most telling arguments against 911 conspiracy theories is, "for that to be true, it would require the government to keep a secret."
So, when i asked for eveidence that there was advice to bomb Iran now, I really wasn't expecting the nuclear program linked stuff (unless someonme was saying, "now's the time" or the "neocons had saspoirations" crap. I was looking for an advisor NOW in the White house or Pentagon who is advising NOW that we should bomb iran NOW. If they had the power you suggest, then one can take it as gospel truth from what you say that they would have invaded iran ands Syria years ago. If that is what they wanted to do. And had the power.
Remember, some say that the plane with nukes was really headed to Iran...NOW.
But then, some people will believe anything if it fits their dogma. You obviously have one concerning the PNAC and its influence.
So, besides Cheney, which neocons now are close to power? We are talking about NOW.
And lastly, let's say, for the sake of argument, that in November, Abduladinijadadawhatever announces that he has a nuke, it is mounted on a missle, and that all the jews and Americans have 48 hours to get out of the middle east or he will aim it at Israel, and the second at US bases in Iraq.
And, seriously now, what did you make of his remark that there will be a power gap in Iraq and Iran will fill it? I couldn't believe that he would say something that stupid. What's he going to say next, that the holocaust didn't happen?
btw, here is what is wrong with your approach:
You see, seeing them as looney is the mistake. their plans are reasoned, that is, follow from the facts and their pre-conceptions. Seeing them as looney means that one will never be able to counteract them rationally. And that is done by looking at the facts and the preconception, as well as the logic. Dismissing others as looney is the way of faith, not the way of rationality.
Nope. They're loony.
That's how they long have been viewed by a broad consensus of foreign policy experts from every point on the political spectrum.
Loony.
Nuts.
Off their rockers.
No, they did not finally convince people they were right. They moved into the White House. They were invading Iraq long before 9-11. Paul O'Neill talks about it in his book. Richard Clarke talks about it in his book. ("But there are no phone records!") They were plotting an invasion of Iraq from before Bush even set foot in the White House.
Nope. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's the truth. All 9-11 gave them was the jumping off point for what they were planning on doing during Bush's tenure, anyway.
I understand your preoccupation with source documents. But there are also experts. I wonder how a guy like you can go to the doctor and accept any kind of diagnosis at all. After all, the doctor is not inside your body.
In your world, there must be no one who qualifies as an expert. People knowledgeable about Cheney's actions vis a vis Iran have consistently reported that he is pushing hard for a strike against Iran and only Rice's influence with Bush has held him back.
But, hell, those are just experts.
More power to you, friend. We shall see about Iran. Cheney is pushing and pushing.
Oh, if only we had his phone transcripts and secret meetings notes!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You once again
did not read what i wrote about Cheney, which is largely what you said.
As for O'Neill, I don't believe everything he wrote. In fact, I lack your faith, it is true.
Was Iraq on the menu with the neocons in the white house. of course. And it was the policy of the US to overthrow Saddam before they got there. But i could get you dozens of quotes from Clinton white house people and slip them into documents by neocons, and you would not notice the addition.
Anyway, keep the faith. Chanting certainly dispells free thought. And we all know that free thought may bring doubts. I know. I doubt everything, especially disgruntled former employees with an axe to grind. And you would too, depending on dogmatic considerations.
My antiwar hero here is Sen. Byrd, who told the Senate Democrats that the war asuthorization was unconstitutional, and that they could stop it. And he was right. I remember watching as he thrust his shaking hand into the air, and bellowed, "It's not right!" over and over.
Alas, the Senate Democrats refused to stop the war, and, likely as not, one of the refusers will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, just as in 2004.
btw, you didn't give me an answer on the scenario. Do you thnk that iraq then, despite everything that Clinton said about it, and iran now,if it gets a nuclear bomb, are of no concern to the world? Do you think that Sec. Rice's diplomacy has worked to stop Iran from getting a nuclear capability? And what did you think of Abdulanijennihhaddwhatever saying that iran would step into the power vacuum in Iraq?
It's one thing to be against Cheney and his policy, as i am, but what do you offer instead? Me, I would be happy with shutting down all the bases in the world, bring all the troops home, stopping all aid everywhere of any nature, and ignoring the rest of the world. You?
You throw out so many strawmen in every post...
... that responding to your incessant crap would be a full-time job.
Your make assumptions about what writers here intend, you twist and distort and you do it all in your bizarre, passive-aggressive manner where you get to play the victim... over and over.
It's sad and pathetic, frankly, and correcting your many errors is not worth the effort.
Your inanity knows no bounds. I will no longer respond to it. A complete and utter waste of time, primarily because you have no intention of having a serious or rational discussion. (I'm not sure if you even realize this, frankly.)
You remind me a bit of Anthony Perkins' character in "Psycho" where, at the end of the movie as he is sitting in the police station dressed in his mother's clothes, he spots a fly on his leg. His little internal monologue goes, "They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, 'Why, she wouldn't hurt a fly.'"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Keep the faith
reverend. And keep up the abuse. It seems your only defense.
I donh't know which is worse, your mindless chanting ofr doctrrine, or your continuaol resort to abuse instead of argument.
Please cease answering anything I write, and I will avoid interruptiong your self-love party.
Bye-bye.
Damn, Brendan, where is that plonk file button?
You know, you can just ignore him.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mr. Pot, please stop calling Mr. Kettle black.
Your record on this dimension isn't exactly spotless from what I can see (over-all not just this thread).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Spoken by the King of the Goal Post Movers.
Thanks for inserting your two cents. Now do what you always do once you've lost an argument and change horses.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The Knights in Shining Armor
came to the rescue ...... only they killed the wrong windmill.
I'm only half stupid
You know, CLC, I'm actually concerned about you.
You just don't seem to be yourself. Ever since you came back to SC you seem to have this really huge chip on your shoulder, why is that? Didn't the kossacks show you enough love or something?
Speaking of changing horses, what does moving goal posts and changing horses have to do with "Your make assumptions about what writers here intend"?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you can't see where you do that very thing...
.... then you have a sharp stick in your eye.
What's wrong, GoRight? Does it bother you that I am posting my opinions here?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Not at all. Post away.
If it bothered me I would have taken sides to gang up against you. Instead I am posting messages about not holding grudges so that we can keep all of the posters around which includes you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your record is
hardly spotless either. So this comment is unnecessary and unproductive as is my response to your comment.
I'm only half stupid
As is my repsonse to your response which was a response
... to the comment that was initially responding to a comment of mine.
Note to Ender: Could you delete this string of comments?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Perhaps.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There lies the rub, Madscientist.
President G. W. Bush, who's clearly not very bright, has surrounded himself with people who are clearly brighter than he is....and extremely dangerous to boot.
More of the rub, I-Minded
Running down the various scores on tests, it is obvious that Bush was smarter than Kerry, although Gore was smarter than both of them. Note also that Woodward described Cheney's relationship to Bush as "obsequious." Although Rove has been said to be a "genius," I don't think so. Those who have had a look inside the White House say that Bush is clearly in charge.
In fact, the last thing we want as a president is a genius. And I'm not running.
Bush smarter than Kerry??!?
Um.....no, Madscientist, I don't think so. When I watched the Bush-Kerry debates back in 2004 prior to the election, Kerry managed to shoot everything Bush said full of holes. Bush could not and would not accept that, and acted like a spoiled brat who was unwilling to accept the fact that there are people smarter than him.
Kerry, unlike Bush, had military experience (he served in Viet Nam), and, unlike Bush, he knows how to read and write.
Keith Olbermann exposed the lies, deceit and dirt that're presently coming from the White House, and it's clear that Bush wants us to stay in Iraq.....indefinitely!! Disgusting.
Sorry,
when one considers the scores they got on standardized test, Bush scores higher. Kerry is in some ways more articulate, although he has his own problems communicating, tending to put people to sleep. While Bush can be said to be inarticulate, Kerry can be said to be dull.
It takes a little guess work because Kerry has refused to release his SATs, but other tests can be calibrated. Go here
for a famous discussion of their (and Gore's) scores and IQs from before the 2004 election. What you will find is that Bush and Kerry aren't that much different in native intelligence, but Bush probably has a slight upper hand. Gore is easily beyond both of them.
Note also that native intelligence is not the most important factor in picking a president.
This "Bush is dumb" bullcrap is simply stupid. Especially when the same people often treat him as some cunning evil genius who can concoct vast governmental conspiracies to nefarious purposes.
As for Olbermann, a very talented guy, and I used to watch his show regularly. But when it became little more than lies and nasty vitriol, it wasn't worth it anymore. I'm sure he gets off on having a national venue for venting his blind hatred, but to me it is neither informative nor entertaining. It's rather sad.
[Added in edit: I realize that this source can be misused, and it would be unfair to cite it with a headline like "Bush smarter than Kerry." It is what it is. But it is also intellectually dishonest simply to dismiss what it does say because one doesn't want to believe it for reasons of hatred.]
Bush is not dumb.
I've had this discussion with my friends.
I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing.
Personally, I find his folksy mannerisms to be part personality and part contrived and calculated based efforts to portray himself in a way that makes average people feel like he's one of them.
Bottom line line though is that one's raw intelligence cannot be measured by one's chosen or natural speech. Furthermore, one can be reasonably intelligent and still hold to flawed views. It happens all the time.
Bush is not dumb
I agree.
I'm only half stupid
Want more?
See, Google is a really powerful tool. And an even more powerful tool is reading. Since you love to give "reading lessons," your attempt at calling me out here provides you with a wonderful opportunity to educate yourself on the history of the neocon movement and their long-held obsession with overthrowing regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
And, yes, they have been busy ramping up the rhetoric for an attack on Iran.
So here is a bit more reading since you seem to want to know more. (A good sign! You're inquisitive!)
U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?
Project for a New American Century (PNAC) Google search
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
See above
but: WaPo article:
Kind of like letting the Russkies know that we have nuclear missles and plans to use them should they do such and such.
Cheney article:
Well, by gosh, training camps in Iraq.
And the article also refers to a debate in the White house, something the religious antiBushites said was lacking. So that should make you happy. Now, do you want some views censored?
So far, we have that Dick Cheney may, if the hearsay is right, counsel that we should use military force in Iran if they get a nuclear capability (or maybe to prevent it), and that he also thinks it is likely that nothing else will stop them from getting it.
RE: Ending the Cold War was a long term effort
I absolutely agree that their economy was doomed from the start and that their ultimate lack of productivity is what did them in. We are in complete agreement as to the manner of their demise.
But it took a washed up Republican actor to have the guts to actually recognize their precarious position and actually up the stakes as a means of pushing them into the abyss. SDI and Reagan's refusal to take it off the table is what precipitated their demise.
Were it not for Reagan and his bold leadership the U.S.S.R. might STILL conceivably be around as a major source of oppression in the world. No single factor other than Reagan's leadership triggered and thus lead to the Soviet collapse.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um, Russia under Putin has made a bit of a comeback
... during the Bush "Axis-of-evil" years, in case you haven't been paying attention.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Russia not equal U.S.S.R.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Goodness! Really?
Uh, I knew that. Russia was vulnerable and down after the split-up of the Soviet Union. But it has made a comeback (at least in terms of throwing its weight around internationally) under the authoritarian regime of Putin.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Well, obviously I am aware of this.
What is your point then?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you want to claim the demise of the USSR for Reagan
... then you should accept the resurgence of Russia under Putin to be partially as a result of the Bush administration's bungled foreign policy.
Remember when ol' Georgie said
:
Good ol' Georgie... As bad a judge of character as he is a Commander-in-Chief.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Pfft. LOL. ROFL.
Putin is a joke and the whole world knows it. He's a dictator wannabe that's about 20 some years too late.
Any success that he enjoys has nothing to do with Bush's foreign policy. What kind of a whacked out theory do you have to justify THAT statement?
The US is doing exactly what they should be doing with respect to Russia, basically ignoring them as irrelevant on the current world stage. Putin may get headlines but in terms of actual world power? He's got nothin'.
I think your logic is off here today, perhaps you should call it a day and try again another time?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You sure Putin's got nothing?
Seems to me Russia is pretty important if we want to effectively contain Iran, for starters. And there are less obvious
ways Russia competes on the world stage.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair enough.
Russia has connections and resources that others pay attention to. That would be true with or without Putin, though.
That comment was probably 50% talking smack. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Whoops!
Here! Have another serving of crow!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Here you go then ...
Russia has those same connections and resources regardless of Bush foreign policy as well. Like I said, I agree/know that Russia has been in the news. You are the one giving the credit to Putin, I do not. My comment hasn't changed that.
See, logic seems to be escaping your grasp these days.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More crow? You're back for seconds?
Here ya' go!
Enjoy!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yep
Like oil, gas, and nukes.
Plus they have a hyge amount of great, post global warming land for growing crops.
And we cannot ignore that they have a lock on the heavyweight boxing division.
what comeback?
You mean they are enjoying the high prices of oil while their pathetic inefficient economy is in the iron grip of criminal corruption with a totalitarian center?
Their pathetic little upswing is almost entirely due to their sell off of natural resources and nothing to do with any serious accomplishments or reforms. That country is moving backwards and closer to the Arab states with no serious independent or productive economy.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Oh, I never said it was based on anything positive.
But there is no doubt that Putin's ruthlessness has amped up their military and their influence in a number of regions. How long he can sustain it is another question.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
true
but then again if Soviet Union had a Putin like leader in the 80s, they could've probably lasted another 20-30 years on ruthlessness alone. Not sure if I'd count it as an achievement.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ha! Agreed.
Ruthlessness can only take you so far.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Possibly, GR
But the bottom line I think is that nobody really knew how shambolic the communist economies really were until the light shone down on them after the walls crumbled.
Yes, you can say that Reagan cajoled them into an arms race that they couldn't sustain and certainly is a reason but I wouldn't say it was the major factor.
Personally, after the flawed and doomed system, i give the greatest credit to Pope JP 2. He ignited the movement on a social level and the crumbling governments could do little to stop the wave. When the walls came crashing down, the people were already against the governments....they weren't really sad about it.
Shambolic?
Reaching into British slang! Hutzah!
btw, the argument belies the fact that years hence, if the education system ever gets back to the halcion days of yore, teachers will be asking questions like, "Discuss the seven chief causes for the fall of the Soviet system. Remember, I want your thoughts on these causes, and remember, there is no one right answer."
One approach might be to remove each of the putative "most important causes" and ask if the others would have been sufficient without it. If Carter had been re-elected in 1980, and had unilaterally destroyed all our nukes and other military capability, and we had closed all our bases in Europe, would the USSR have really collapsed? (No, folks, I am not asserting that Carter would have done this. I feel I must write this.)
My question: if Yuri Andropov had lived another decade and a half and stayed in office, would the USSR have fallen?
hahaha
I'm sorry, I have to wipe the tears from my eyes. High comedy, GoRight!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Umm, uhh, aahhh, stammer ...
As expected, nothing from you to use in reply, so try to deflect. That IS high comedy, pico.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's something meatier:
Factors that had more to do with the Soviet collapse than Reagan:
- glasnost' (easily the #1 factor)
- Afghanistan (a close second)
- Sąjūdis
- Lech Wałęsa
- perestroika
- Charter 77
- Chernobyl
Frankly Reagenolatry is insulting to the people who actually fought for and achieved the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.
(as it turns out, I was adding that to the previous comment in an edit, but you beat me to it by replying. So here you go!)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It's CAUSE and THEN effect, not the other way around.
glasnost? perestroika? These are actions which are part of the breakup, NOT causes for the breakup.
Lech Wałęsa, Sąjūdis, and Charter 77? Same thing. These are examples of people and factions within the Soviet Bloc capitalizing on the effects that Reagan was creating by putting pressure on the system. They ARE the breakup, NOT the cause of the breakup.
That's funny. You list some of the major people and activities that make up the breakup and call them the causes.
Afganistan had nothing to do with it other than maybe to highlight how weak they had become.
Chernobyl had nothing to do with it other than to highlight how incompetent they were.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What I'm really amazed by
is that you somehow imagine Reagan had the foresight to prompt Walesa to organize labor in the 70s, or organize networks of Czech dissidents behind 77 since the late 60s. That's impressive, coming so long before his presidential runs.
That you consider these people effects of a cause that came a decade or more later is really telling. The Reagan theory of the Soviet Collapse is mythology masquerading as history, and you've just show us exactly why.
Decades of steadily building dissident networks, combined with massive losses in Afghanistan, a string of half-dead leaders, and a visionary (though misguided) leader who decides that transparency is their only hope to sustain the system - a transparency that only speeds up its collapse once news of Chernobyl leaks and the government restructuring that lead to total economic collapse... Reagan's contribution wasn't nonexistent, but minimal. This is all basic history.
(edited to remove a gratuitous potshot)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well.......
President George Herbert Walker Bush Sr. stuck the last nails into the U. S. S. R's coffin, so to speak.
Credit where credit is due....
Why is it that nobody ever gives Gorbachev any credit? The 'collapse' of the USSR wasn't a bunch of dominios falling over just because Ronald Reagan increased defense spending and talked about a shining city on a hill, you know.
Gorby was the one who loosened the lug nuts.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
And don't forget
another washed-up actor who's responsible for our atrocious current laws on copyright and intellectual property, and another washed-up actor who's currently making everyone unhappy in California. The hits just keep on coming!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Oh no he didn't
Talking smack about Ahnold is not cool.
His approval ratings are quite high
for a Republican these days and have increased significantly over the past two years.
Edit: oh, and he's not washed up
either!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fine, I'll give Arnold a pass,
but not a strong one. And only his governatorship, not his acting career. ;)
Sonny Bono, though, gets an F. Although at least he made one excellent film
.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
More Clinton ties to Fraud and Corruption?
As we all know Bill Clinton's presidency was constantly linked nefarious persons or activities: the Chi-Coms were allowed to steal national secrets and Bill helped them to develop missile technology which could threaten the US, Bill was embroiled in charges of fund raising fraud, Bill was shamelessly selling pardons to his buddies and associates of Hillary's brother, and many people associated with the Clintons ended up dead under reportedly questionable circumstances.
Now with Hillary's campaign in full gear we again see how things are lining up to be just more of the same:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow, thanks
I did not realize how tainted the Clintons are. Mysterious deaths? Donors not showing up to court?
That's it. I'm switching parties to the morally pure GO... Oh, wait a second.
You forgot to mention Hillary gave Hsu's contribution to charity
. Smear denied.
Do they sell tinfoil hats at some underground store or do you make them yourself? :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Only after her connection was discovered and pointed out.
How many other undiscovered discrepancies are there? Also this seems to be a pattern with the Clintons, engage in questionable fund raising practices and then, if they are exposed, claim total ignorance and give the money to charity or some other dodge. Yea, right.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I can never keep it straight if you guys WANT her
... to be the Democratic candidate, or if you're trying to get rid of her BEFORE she gets that far.
What is the current thinking in that regard?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Personally, the sooner the better (to get rid of her).
Anyone but her in my book.
I only console myself that if she gets the democratic nomination that she will hopefully be so polarizing that the Republicans retain the White House.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Take heart, GR
As Will Wilkinson at Cato said at Blogging Heads, he not as cynical about Hillary as he is about others because, unlike the other front runners in both parties, she doesn't seem to have any clear cut agenda...which may be a good thing since she isn't really promising anything if you watch closely.
Just a thought.
Then one would think you'd be cheering her to the
... nomination.
Logic gap in your post.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Logic gap in your reading, maybe.
Let me highlight the important word for you:
Hopefully. As in not a sure thing. As in she might still pull it off if she gets that far. Hence what I said, the sooner the better.
How is it logical, if I want her to lose, to not only pass up an opportunity to put her behind us but instead to actually cheer her on?
Don't quit your day job ... unless it involves the use of logic in any way, of course.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey, speaking of "day jobs"...
... what are you doing these days?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Was she supposed to
donate it back before this was known? Wow, now you expect ESP from democratic candidates.
Speaking of claiming total ignorance, the new GOP motto should be "I don't recall
."
Just for fun:
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
This presupposes that you believe that she didn't know
about it BEFORE it came out. I am not that naive.
I'm not sure, but when someone raises $1 Million for you I suspect that you know who they are and what they are up to.
I think that this picture says it all ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So she knew what exactly?
That he donated money? Since when is fund raising a crime?
Are you suggesting that every donor be subject to a background check?
I don't know where you are going with this. But I do know one thing, your party's hands are not clean in this matter either:
This picture proves guilt!
The photo posted to the Web site of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reportedly shows President Bush with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff at a fundraiser in 2003.
WHY DIDN'T BUSH KNOW?
(Parodies are fun.)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No, I'm suggesting that she was probably involved.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Involved in what?
And where is your evidence besides a photo taken at a fund raiser?
Weak.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I predict his comeback:
"That why I used 'probably.'"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Close
It will be that he was only 50% serious about this topic (which I think is about 45% more than other topics).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No, I am 100% sure that she is a criminal ...
it's just that people with the evidence have a habit of dying under suspicious circumstances.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am 100% sure that Dick Cheney is a cyborg
... and that the human Dick Cheney died sometime during Bush's first term, but was replaced by a Halliburton created cyborg that had been in the works ever since the Dickmeister had his last heart attack.
And I have as much evidence to support my contention that the current version of Cheney is a cyborg that you have that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.
And I'm 100% certain of that.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Of course ...
because the witnesses close to the Clintons are conveniently dead.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But again
you are only 80% joking
about the death thing, right?
Maybe you and statusquobuster
can share conspiracies together over your kool-aid. Let me know when you return to Earth.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
What part of ..
"No, I am 100% sure that she is a criminal ..."
confused you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Unless you are referring
to some traffic tickets, the part that says she has never been convicted of a crime.
Bush on the other hand, now there is someone we can all agree to call a criminal with 100% certainty
.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
There are lots of criminals that haven't been convicted.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And with that
you took the last bit of credibility you had, wiped it with a Tucks Medicated Pad® and flushed it down the toilet. A move out of the GoRight playbook:
You are using it as a noun, so #6 is the only corresponding definition. Nope, sorry. She's not a criminal. We liberals like for words to have meanings.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I guess the dictionary needs to highlight important words
for you. Let me highlight the important work in that definition for you:
Take a minute to stop and ponder why they may have chosen the word "or" there as opposed to the word "and". Go on, we'll wait for you ... done?
To be a criminal you have to be EITHER guilty OR convicted of a crime, not necessarily both. You see, the thing that makes you a criminal is the act of committing a crime, not the act of being convicted of it. My point above is that she can be guilty of crimes that she has not been convicted of. There are, presumably, lots of people to whom this would apply not just the Clintons.
Now the FACT that the very people who most likely would have incriminating evidence against the Clintons in a number of their questionable dealings are now, in fact, dead and at least some under suspicious circumstances is just a coincidence, I am sure. Pure coincidence.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You keep saying this, but it still isn't true...
Putting the word "FACT" in uppercase does not make it more true, GR.
Please provide a list of people with incriminating evidence into crimes committed by Hillary Clinton that are deceased under "suspicious circumstances".
Just providing a list of dead people that the Clintons knew or once met is not sufficient. The list must provide people who can reasonably be thought to have had evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Your "Clinton Death List" from a couple months ago doesn't suffice by itself... there must be
A) Some reasonable explanation as to evidence of wrongdoing they might have had
B) Some suspicion around the circumstances of their death.
"Death Lists" associated with famous and well-connected people are one of the biggest scams in the age of the internet. Anyone who's ever played the "Six Degrees of separation game" can connect almost every famous person with every other famous person in less than six connections.
If someone were so inclined, a "Bush Death List" or "Reagan Death List" would be just as long (and just as meaningless) as the "Clinton Death List" is.
...and I can't believe you've got me defending Hillary Clinton, a person I loathe. Damn you, GR.
But I can't let this "Death List" farce go on any further. It's crap. It's intellectually dishonest. It's like the "Bible Code". Complete bull and able to be applied to any famous person.
The worst part, is that you're intelligent enough to know that the Death List stuff is bogus.
But it serves your agenda, so you keep tossing it out there.
I survived the Bush Administration
RE: You keep saying this, but it still isn't true...
Let us review my position:
For the fundamental portions of this statement to be true, the people in question have to:
(A) Have had actual dealings with the Clintons of some sort which would given them intimate knowledge of the details of those dealings, and
(B) Some of those people must have died in a manner that could be considered suspicious.
Note that there are subtle differences between my constraints and yours, and that in my opinion mine more precisely match the burden of proof regarding the validity of my actual statement.
I will note at this point, that I have never referenced the so called Death List once throughout this entire thread. I never brought it up nor have I relied on it at all in any of my statements on this thread.
But since you and Specter want to keep rehashing it let me say this, it should be obvious to any thinking person that such a list can be easily constructed for anyone with a wide sphere of influence and connections (as you point out above), and therefore most (and possibly even all) of the people that would appear in such a list are probably totally coincidental to anything the subject in question might or might not have done.
This fact is NOT, however, proof that ALL such people ARE coincidental. It is completely possible for the subject in question to have actually killed some of the people on the list despite the fact that constructing such a list is easily accomplished.
So, just to be clear relative to the Death List, I am in no way claiming that every person that appears on that list was killed by (or on the orders of) the Clintons. I am not even claiming that ANYONE on that list was killed by (or on the orders of) the Clintons.
I AM (now in response to your bringing up the Death List) claiming that there are a number of people on that list who meet my criteria (A) and (B) above, and it is left as a exercise for the reader to sort them out.
Please note that there may also be people who meet my criteria (A) and (B) above who are NOT on that list as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4She's guilty?
Where is your evidence?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I don't have any, like I already said.
That doesn't mean that I am not 100% confident that she has committed crimes and is therefore a criminal. That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
The only thing I will add is that a lot of the people who had dealings with her and her husband that would be in a position to shed any light on those dealings happen to be dead now, and some of them died under suspicious circumstances.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4100% certain on zero evidence
We usually call such people crackpots. We certainly don't feel the need to actually discuss facts with them because facts are apparently optional.
BTW, how can you be 100% sure? For all you know the universe was changed 6 minutes ago by some omnipotent power. After all, if scientists shouldn't be close minded about spontaneous creation of the fossil record when they have actual evidence, how can you do so with none?
Ah, someone else who knows how to play the game!
What makes me so sure? Human nature. An understanding of their background. Watching how they operate for more than 15 years. Body language. Voice inflections. It all adds up, at least in my opinion. :)
As for whether the universe was created 6 minutes ago or not, I never claimed that I subscribed to that theory I was only exploring the implications of it. One thing I DO know is that even if it was created 6 minutes ago there would be no way for us to even tell.
EDIT:
It occurs to me that I can turn your own question back around at you, how are you so confident of zero evidence? Just because it hasn't surfaced yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? Or is your statement more a vote of confidence in the thoroughness of the Clintons in "tying up loose ends"? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Game playing indeed
I'm not claiming zero evidence. I'm going on your own acknowledgement that you have none. You are 100% sure, not mostly sure, but 100% sure that they are guilty while acknowledging that you have zero evidence to support this 100% certainty.
And despite you having no way to know if this happened, you remain 100% sure of something that happened before hand. If you are 100% sure of the criminal acts, then there must be a 0% probability of the ridiculous omnipotent intervention. I'm good with that 0% number, but I'm surprised you are willing to commit to it.
You mean like David Vitter?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Boy, there's a gutsy statement!
"... suggesting that she probably was involved."
Based on what? Your woman's intuition, perhaps?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Based on observing her shading dealings for 15 years.
Well, hers and her husband's.
Actually, I only used probably because I don't want to end up on their dead body list.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm suggesting that you probably aren't wearing any pants
... when seated at your keyboard, based upon observing your writings here over the last year.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Gee... thanks....
...for that mental image.
So much for going to bed early tonight. I'll be awake for a while now.
I survived the Bush Administration
My humblest apologies.
I just hope GoRight doesn't post using a "wide stance."
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh great, more fanatasies from admirers!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, feel free to fantasize about me however you want.
I am secure in my manhood.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Both hands on the keyboard when you say that, mister.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
LOL :)
I gotta admit, that was funny.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Which I'm sure
you are only 80% joking
about, right?
Does that tinfoil hat get cable signals or just radio?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Nope, 100% serious.
I am 100% confident that she is a criminal, and I am 100% confident that people who likely had evidence against her and her husband have shown up dead under suspicious circumstances.
The latter is a well known fact.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sure
Cuckoo.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
It is a well known fact that people close to them
and their dealings end up dead under suspicious circumstances.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Did you read your own diary on the topic?
You have nothing but tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. No evidence. Just garbage. Even you admit it.
I don't know why Ender
has not told you to "peddle this crap elsewhere."
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
GoRight's next diary:
World Trade Center - an inside job! PROOF!!!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Of course 9/11 was an inside job!
GoRight just won't know for sure who is responsible until AFTER the Democratic National Convention.
You people are so easy to bait.
For an educated person with supposedly good reading skills you are so easy to bait it is sad.
(1) "Nope, 100% serious."
This means that I am not joking and that what I am about to say I truly mean. This means you better read carefully because my statement is likely to have been carefully chosen.
(2) "I am 100% confident that she is a criminal."
This means that "I" (as in me, myself, and I alone) am personally 100% confident that she is a criminal. This is my opinion not a statement of fact. To make a statement of fact one requires evidence and I have provided none nor have I purported to.
This does not preclude you or anyone else from being 0% confident that she is a criminal. We are all entitled to our opinions, are we not?
(3) "I am 100% confident that people who likely had evidence against her and her husband have shown up dead under suspicious circumstances."
This, on the other hand, IS a statement of fact but nothing more.
The evidence for this is widely available in the media reports of people the Clinton's actually knew and actually had business dealings with (i.e. people likely to have had evidence against them) who are, in fact, confirmed to be 100% dead AND in at least some of those cases reportedly under suspicious circumstances. These are widely reported FACTS as a Google search will confirm.
Note what I did NOT say above. I did NOT offer any accusations as to whether the Clinton's were involved in those deaths as you apparently feel I did. I made no such claim nor did I provide any evidence thereof. The fact that YOU made this (possibly faulty) inference says more about what you believe the Clintons are capable of than it does about me.
This serves as a prime example of how the whole Bush Lied meme operates on the left. People make clear and accurate statements and then the left seeks to impart meaning into those statements which are not justified based on the actual statements. They make faulty inferences based on their own desired political posturing and then seek to put that view forth as the only possible meaning even though it is a complete and total fabrication of their own making.
But hey, thanks for playing along.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If by bait
you mean enticement through trickery or to tease, then no. I called you on your 'joke' or attempt at deception many posts ago. So, my reading skills are just fine.
If it is a fact that this is your opinion, that is fine (CLC calls Ender on this thing all the time). But subjective truths don't carry much weight unless they can be buttressed by objective facts (evidence), something you lack entirely.
Also, your claim is so loaded with disclaimers (likely) and unprovable terminology (suspicious) that it is basically meaningless.
It its the equivalent of saying, "I am 100% confident that it is a fact that it is likely that there are doubts about our moon landing."
So what. Meanningless. Implications, ungrounded assumptions, and conspiracy theory is what your opinion is.
Those don't hold much weight with me, nor with the majority of people who think rationally about your whole thread here. This coming from a guy who fought tooth and nail against implications between the rights' rheotric connecting 9/11 and Iraq. Ridiculous in your double-standards.
If they were guilty of something and tried to cover up the crimes by killing people (100% doubtful), why is there no evidence to try them of murder, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation (all of which are worse crimes than profiting from a silly land deal anyway)? Do you think they could really cover all that up? OK, I am going to kill 40+ people so I don't receive probation and a fine or a few years in jail.
Makes so much sense, doesn't it.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
RE: If by bait
Funny you should bring that up, actually. This thread is a fine illustration of exactly what you all are doing with the "Bush said Iraq Attacked us on 9/11" meme and exactly why you are wrong there as well.
I have been making nothing but factually correct statements throughout this entire thread, but you are so eager to find something nefarious or wrong in what I said that you infer things that are not there; that I never actually said. You start hearing what you want to hear me say (as opposed to what I actually said).
For example, show me where in this thread that I have ever claimed that the Clintons killed anyone? That seems to be what you are arguing against and I am happily leading you on in that but where did I ever say that? In fact, in the text of my comments in this thread where did I even imply that in a way that would constitute a legitimate logical inference?
In this thread I have consistently come back to 2 simple statements:
(1) I am 100% confident that Hillary is a criminal.
(2) A number of people who could have had evidence against the Clintons are dead, and some of them died under suspicious circumstances.
They are both true but from this you have weaved this whole conspiracy theory mental picture of what I am trying to say and you no doubt believe that mental picture is accurate. You have me believing that the Clintons have been killing their associates to cover up criminal misconduct in spite of the fact that I never once said that, and in spite of the fact that the factually correct statements I have strung together don't even logically imply that.
Why is that, Specter? How has that come to pass do you think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Logic again
...the factually correct statements I have strung together don't even logically imply that.
Correct, they do not logically imply anything, but they most certainly do imply something. The most obvious implication is that you think the Clintons are guilty of having people killed to cover up their crimes. (And you knew that this was the most obvious implication, because the whole point of putting the statements together was to get a rise out of other people.)
So, what have you proven? That people can and do come to conclusions based on things other than pure logic. And that if you are aware of that fact, you can craft your message to capitalize on it, making people come to specific conclusions that you know are false, without ever actually making a false statement yourself.
Now that you have proven that, you can no longer argue that the Bush Administration did not mislead the American people about the connections between Iraq and 9/11, purely because they never actually came out and said those words.
Thank you for your proof.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Here is a good book
for you explaining how all this garbage is manufactured for consumption by the gullible: Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative
, from someone who helped make up these conspiracies.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Yer tin foil hat must be getting a little snug.
You might want to loosen it some.
Or were you talking about Mitt Romney and his campaign's scammers?
Go after her...
Just make sure you kill her candidacy before she gets the nomination.
On matters related to Hillary, you and I are of a like mind.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Are you ready for some football?!
Saints-Colts kickoff to start the season.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan, Ender, a question
Is there a plonk file on this board for the trolls?
Is blantant ageism allowed here? ('pops' is a bit like the "N word.")
Were you called 'pops' by someone you called 'child'?
Just curious
Um, you repeatedly called me "son" so it is
... completely appropriate. If you want to play the father figure, accept your role, pops!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Maybe you two can work out a deal
trade pops for son... could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
"pops"
Point taken. 'Dad' would be appropriate. Even, depending on your ethnicity, 'pop.' Or, 'papa.'
'Pops' is not.
And talking about old folks like me eating cat food is as funny as
A rubber crutch on a polio ward.
A cigarette machine on a cancer ward.
A typhoid Mary on an isolation ward.
Your shouting "fire" on the traction ward.
Or, Chinese-made cat food in the old folks home.
I bet you find all these hilarious.
I'll bet you like kicking the homeless, too. It's a laugh riot for someone like you.
"Pops" is not appropriate, eh?
Sez you.
That's what I call my own father. Jeez...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
alright well
if it is not very pleasant to him, then why not just drop the term...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
And maybe ditto on son
if it's perceived (however intended) as slighting or condescending.
Like I said, start of a beautiful friendship!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Good idea
But i thought 'son' was less offensive than 'dumbass.'
Ask him the same question, Ender.
His condescending bullsh** has worn thin.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
to be fair
both of you are condescending at times (well you are much more imo) so it is a bit hypocritical to complain about.
That said, I'd make the same suggestion to MS if you are really offended.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
OK
And I had a friend I called "ni**er." It all started when he listend to me play one day, and noted, "You may be white, but you play like a ni**er." this is a high compliment in the jazz world. Since I didn't lke the word, I responded, "thanks, ni**ah." And he said, if I didn;'t consider you one of us, I'd have to kill you. (We were laughing through this.)
After that, whenever we met, we would usual say, "hey, ni**ah."
Now, believe me, i don't think that because i had this one odd relationship with a Black person where he even encouraged the use of the word that I can there fore go out and just use the word willy nilly. In fact, this is the first time I've used the word in years. In fact, the events related are 35 years old.
But your results no doubt vary.
OK, "abusive one?"
Re: Plonk file
Unfortunately it looks like Drupal doesn't offer the option to selectively ignore users. My cursory google didn't find anybody's implementation that we could steal either.
I think we could do it ourselves by providing an interface to select users to ignore that writes their user ids to a specified location (e.g., yourusername/plonklist) and then inserting a "where comments.uid not in yourlistofignoredusers" when displaying comments. Maybe Ender can look into it for future if there's enough interest.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hey, what's up with all the bickering the past couple days?
I have tried to stay away from those threads as they seemed like they were heated enough already and I have a tendency to heat things up even more! I'm lucky like that. He he.
Seriously though, I can understand having heated exchanges but the goal is to stay civil at the end, correct? I mean with each day the slate gets wiped clean rather than letting the grudges build up.
I have spared with all of the most recent players, except for Ender I guess, because he has his head on (mostly) straight (he he, it's a joke). Ender, CLC, MS, to a lesser extent MissL just seem like they are bickering just for bickering's sake sometimes. If that's what you want to do, then fine I guess but try to not let the bad feelings carry over from one day to the next. I know I don't, or at least I try not to.
It's time for a little forgive and forget, IMHO, which is something that I (a) recognize that I have little right to suggest since I am in many similar arguments, but (b) think is important so we can keep all of the posters around.
Thoughts?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4F--k you!
JUST KIDDING!
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Yea, well f--k you and the horse you rode in on too!
Likewise kidding. :)
See folks, that's how it's done. Good natured jabs.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Forgive who and forget what?
It is difficult to forgive the original sin, that Bush lied to get us into Iraq and insist that the whole nation join in this charade. :)
Some believe him, and some don't. They bicker. Considering the cost and the unbearable lies on Fox News supporting the lies, you can't be surprised that some bicker.
(See extra long threads taking up days and days featuring Talioc vs GoRight.)
I personally am wondering if Bush is pushing the meme that Iraqi WMD are now hidden in Iran, and that Osa bin Laden is in fact a descedent of Iranian heritage, in which case for the first time Bush would admit a mistake and correct it by taking us to war with Iran.
Also I could say that you are just jealous that someone else is the center of attention, but that would be a round about passive agressive style personal attack, which has been the heat that has spurred much of this endless bickering. Especially when straw castles are built around the definition of what a personal attack even is.
I'm only half stupid
I acknowledged my role ...
(See extra long threads taking up days and days featuring Talioc vs GoRight.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Center of attention?
I niether want nor consider myself to be the center of attention. There are lots of threads that I don't contribute to.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Your claim doesn't hold
I said 'could say' that you are
I use this illustration as an answer to your question about all the bickering, re what is and is not a personal attack.
The last sentence in my post was unnecessary, but spark a reaction didn't it.
I'm only half stupid
To be honest ...
I don't have any idea what you mean by this. Seriously. I don't have any idea what you are trying to say with this sentence so it was hardly something that sparked a reaction.
I was merely reponding to your comment that I would be jealous about not being the center of attention.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My two cents
These pissing contests are getting very boring to read and they're jacking every thread that gets put up. It's an interesting case study of male machismo but not much else. Such displays don't turn me on, but it seems that maybe I'm in the minority of the ladies here on this ;}
I hear only crickets from the rest of the regulars. Maybe they're too busy munching their Chex Mix.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Can anyone get a move on
putting up an open thread for Friday?
I want to post a couple of articles from the Chronicle. Net neutrality & chipping away at the Patriot Act. Good stuff Maynard!
I'll put it up
on condition that someone else add news, etc if they want.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson