Our President by howdyrockerbaby1

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh goody, another discussion!

But there is SO MUCH confusion and misdirected thinking!

First of all, I'm sorry to say this but George "dubya" Bush doesn't have the smarts to be "in charge". Apparently Cheney is George's Svengali. George is a man of convictions, but I'm not sure that he's capable of independent thought. (I know what I'm talking about. Since my daughter is borderline retarded I know what that looks like.)

The proof of the rightness of one's opinions is the ability to predict what's going to happen in the future.

EVERY YEAR for five years before 9/11 I would sigh and think- "Well, we squeaked by another one." After the embassy bombings and the Cole, and the TERROR ALERT that was broadcast ONE MONTH b4 9/11. did anyone really think that an ocean and unguarded borders were going to keep us safe???? Now. if I can see that with no special access, why couldn't Cheney?

I predicted (on-line, on another website) that we would invade Afghanistan, that we would bomb, that we would set up an oil guy, that biological warfare would start. Apparently my predictions were just a little TOO timely, so I was followed by the FBI for a couple of days.

I predicted that we would invade Iraq MONTHS before it happened, that it had NOTHING to do with WMD because the weapons never existed, and that it would be like Vietnam.

How did could I predict all of this??? BY following the money, and following the ideology. I expect the worst from the gang of thugs and hypocrites in the Aministraiton, and they haven't disappointed me yet!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, nobody responded.

OK, I'm going to have a "Mal" moment here- when I believe in nothing and reveal my true inner bitterness.

You might wonder why I'm telling YOU. It's because I believe that I undertsand Mal, and so some of you might understand me too.

Mal is the ultimate realist. His beliefs- in God, in the concern of the authorities, in the might of justice, the providence of Nature, the essential goodness human beings - were burned away in the crucible of experience.

While I can't claim to have Mal's battlefield experience, I've had many "Mal" moments- in my touch with insanity when I had to make a conscious choice to believe in my senses, when my daughter was born with a brain bleed so severe the doctors thought she would die or be profoundly retarded and when they threw up their hands six years later and said "We're up a creek without a paddle", when my MIL died on my watch and I was there for her agonal breaths, and then the same thing happened with my dad- who saw more as a Pole in WWII than you would ever want to be burdened with, when I had to pick up a gun and sit on a friend's porch waiting for the stalker to come by, when I saw "Hearts and Minds" and finally connected with the pain of our victims.

Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought. I believe you are different.

Having lived nearly 50 years, I have the benefit of remembering Vietnam... and Grenada, and Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all strangely similar. First, the Administration would announce that they "suddenly" found a problem: Grenada had a stockpile of Cuban weapons, Noriega was a big "drug runner", Afghanistan was harboring ObL, Saddam had WMD. There would be the drumbeat to war. It was urgent. It was a severe threat to the USA. It had to be taken care of RIGHT AWAY. No delay was allowed! Not a year! Not a month! Not even a week!

The timing was all off because it was all pre-planned. Folks- don't look at the content of the headlines, look at the timing if you want to see what's going on.

So here we are: the threat of Grenada has been neutralized, the tide of drugs had been stemmed, ObL has been captured, and those WMD have been destroyed. Right?

I'm just going to add a couple more things- for those who have followed me tihs far.

None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his neocon administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA.

The answer to my question- If I could see [9/11] why couldn't Cheney? - is that of course he could see it. He just didn't give a damn, and he still doesn't. Other administration folks have written extensively about how getting rid of Saddam would make the world safe- for Israel. I could give you links to the papers if you want- it's all published.

One of them- Wurmser- even postulated years before the fact that Chalabi would make a good puppet government. (also published). And of course Wurmser and Feith set up that "Office of Special Plans" that funneled "special" intelligence (from Chalabi and probably from Mossad) to Cheney outside of the normal CIA and military intelligence channels. The point of this is:

Please, disabuse yourselves of the notion that these people lay awake and worry about the USA. I do- they don't.

One other point- some of you folks are in the military, some are died-in-the-wool libertarians, some are leftover Confederate rebels. The one thing you all have in common is that you identify strongly with the underdog, which is why you like FF in the first place.

And then you take your helicopter gunships and daisy cutter bombs and the threat of nuclear weapons, your megacorporations and banks, your God-fearing religion and democracy, and smack Central and South America, Africa, central Asia and the Mid-East with rapacious dictators, torture (either by proxy or directly), a blood-sucking economy, and more guns than food.

It's all well and good to identify with the underdog, but just make sure you know who the underdog really is.

Edited to add: There are pretty slim pickings in the Democractic Party, too. While they're (mostly) not out to overtly screw the USA like the Republicans are, they weasel around the facts too. All they want is to keep their jobs and not piss off too many people. So here we are: a democracy led by meglomaniacs and fools, informed by a supine media, believing in belief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 7:44 AM

STEVE580

Quote:
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought.

What the fuck? Just where in the hell did that statistic come from?

Bastard.
-Steve

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 7:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I watch the polls.

But, all I need to do is check out how many people think they want to buy SUVs, and how many really believe that god has spoken to them!

Friend, I'm ahead of the curve most of the way in figuring out what's going to happen. I take the notion to test my assumptions against reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 10:41 AM

DARKJESTER

SignyM

I'm not saying you are wrong, because I have no experience in much of what your first post said. But the way your post was written won't make you any friends or converts, in my opinion. It seems that you were saying that your experiences and perceptions of reality are the only things of importance, and the opinions of the others, the "not-you", are purposefully ignorant and pitifully niave. It also seems to me that you don't care if you change anyone's thoughts or opinions. And that seems to be a common theme throughout this thread.

It seems to me that this whole thread is a long string of inaccuracy. Opinions masquerading as informed comprehension. Facts presented as Truths, and vice-versa. It seems that we cannot even agree on what a "fact" consists of.

I once read an article in a newsletter on different forms of lying (I AM NOT implying that ANYONE on this thread has knowing told an untruth!!). Lies of omission, of mis-direction, etc. One example given by the author was of a friend telling how she was forced off a porch at a party, and told to leave. She and the host were argueing, and according to the woman it happened to, the host said "Get out of here!". While telling this story, the woman made pushing gestures with her hands, IMPLYING non-verbally that she had been pushed. The author of the article, however, had witnessed the whole scene, and could report that at no time did the host touch this woman. He had pointed to the stairs, and told the woman to leave.
Did the woman lie? Yes, by implying something that did not physically happen.
Did the woman tell the truth? Yes, by expressing how she felt at the time.

This is how I see a number of the "sweeping statements" made in this thread. Perhaps not "FACT" in the strictest sense, but certainly not lies, either.

But may I propose that simply because you cannot be proven WRONG does not mean your arguements and/or beliefs are RIGHT in shiny big letters. And as long as we keep insisting that other people recognize and acknowledge OUR truths, there will be less dialogue and more people spouting "facts" and saying to each other "No, you're wrong, moron".

As Browncoats, I think we can do better....
(but I could be wrong...

)

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 10:51 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
-------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
---------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.

Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.

It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.

Quote:
Liar.

You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?

Awful defensive aren't ya? ;) As for your list of "FACTS" There is a difference between "Opinion" and "Fact". Everything you have posted up to now has been pure conjecture and 100% poorly worded opinion with zero fact.

I posted a number of facts, along with the sources.

Quote:
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.

I don't believe I've really disagreed with anyone who has posted a rational (emphasis on rational) thought on this topic. I may correct or add my own 2 cents, but not disagree. Everyone is entitled. If you'll notice, I haven't attacked any politician or nationality or political affiliation (Except for Islamafascism, which I find abhorrent). I don't mock our leaders, even if I find them amusing.

Quote:
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.

I'm not sure I follow you on this one? Too much rambling. This is actually entertaining. As for the Elitist part..I still believe it fits the bill. The republican administration doesn't have the corner on the market for the use of that word. It has been around for ages.

Quote:
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!

Hehe..good one. What rhetoric did I steal from him again? Since I don't listen to him. Maybe I should start listening to him.

Quote:
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.

One minute I don't use facts, next minute they are loose? LOL. What issue(s) have I sidestepped? Again, I have offerred a multitude of facts and their sources.

Saying Bill Clinton sucks, or George W. Bush is ignorant are opinions not facts(though in some cases I suppose a good argument could be made, with the use of various evidence)

Quote:
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that?

WOW..

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

And that's just one source. How many ya want?

Quote:
We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION!

Once again pure conjecture with no basis in reality. Give me "FACTS", not opinion, rumor, or propaganda with no foundation.

Quote:
Then Connerflynn states he's very close to these victems because he is in New York. Well, if he's so close why did he say this?

Wild guess - He's not in New York. He's not close to anyone related to the 9/11 Attacks. He is a liar.

Sorry Ghoulman, I do indeed live in NY.

Oh..and its Connorflynn, with an "o" not an "e" ;)

"Humility is only humility, if you are good enough at something to be humble about it"

Still the spelling Nazi I see. You really don't know the rules to debate or even basic manners online do ya?

You'll say ANYTHING.

Quote:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
And that's just one source. How many ya want?

Huh? Yea... that's it. That's the document the families of 9/11 are mad about because it's censored (a lot!). And hey, did ya read about the families taking the Bush White House to court over it? No? I'm making it up???? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON??? Yet, you hand this link up like the 10 commandments to brush me off? Up your arse. Misdirection and lies are your bread and butter.

If you're dumping on me about this you are dumping on the families. Shame. SHAME!

Since you refuse to quote any of my 'facts', which you disput, in favour of just calling me names and offering links to nothing that was the point of what I'd said I can only say that debating with you is like watching Crossfire on CNN... it's liars and hawks ignoring the death and destruction in favour of rhetoric.

Since you never quoted my 'facts' and just made post after post saying "you're wrong" I can't but hate your cowardly lilly livered refusal to dispute me head on. If you just quoted one thing (JUST ONE!) in my simple, little, tiny, easy to read even for a child, list of points I'd happily offer up more info. Just like I did for three other posters on this thread who seemed to like what I said... rather like the majority of the posters on this thread except for the three who seem to have no jobs or brains and far, far, too much time on thier hands.

So all I can do is read your other posts - which seem to boil down to you being in favour of a War against Islam. That's just sick.

Now, a War against Islam is the one thing that's really the point to Connorflynn. And it demonstrates his agenda. Let's move into more rational thought shall we? Ok... here we go...

In the search for truth... always follow the money.

There is no War against Islam. Or at least I hope so, if the White House has this in mind I gotta wonder who the conspiracy nuts are! If the WH did commit to this War, the US would be condeming the world to a war that will make WWII look like a pick-nic. Guess what America... you will lose that kind of War.

Again.

Obvious reasons.

If the White House was serious about getting terrorists, as the rest of the world is and has been for decades, they would have stayed in Afganistan where the terrorists are based. After that it's a police/intellegence operation. That's how it's always been done successfully. Having a War against Terrorism is like killing a cockrouch with a hammer. All you do is spread the 'children' around. That is, you fuel the fire against America in fundamentalist Islamic propoganda. Now, if you were conspiracy minded you might think the USA is desperate to have another Cold War and hey, controling the Oil market a little more is good too. Especially if it's Dick Cheneys' Oil company *chuckle*.

Or you might say America is just stupid and automatically sends troops to War whenever America is threatened. Either way... America comes out looking bad.

Note: America did have legal precedent to attack Afgansitan. Ya just don't go after the Pentegon. Ever. That's War immediately, and rightfully so. But you just can't go on attacking other countries... call me crazy.

Now, going after Iraq has just proved to the rest of the world that the USA is not interested in getting terrorists AT ALL. That is, not serious about getting the criminals quilty of 9/11, but only interested in Iraq (for whatever reason and $$$). What is the result? All the White House claims for War in Iraq were proven to be untrue and now the USA is stuck in another Vietnam with no end in sight while Islamic Fundamentalists now have far, far, more evidence of American aggression against Islam and the East. Great... juuust great. Brill plan there Dick Cheney... Nixens' ghost help ya out with that one?

Keep it up Connorflynn... and you will get the America you deserve.

And getting right back to the actual topic... is the George "Dubya" Bush White House responsible for this mess and should they be held accountable? Hell ya! That's what democracy and America are SUPOSSED to be about! Not jingoistic excuses for illegal invasion and jailing dissenters as traitors. So yea, impeach George "Dubya" Bush!!! Take Dick Cheney to jail for Enron! Retire Rumsfeld (he's a tired old hawk *chuckle*) and would someone bitch slap Powell? Rice... oh just put her back into some University where she belongs. Tom Ridge and the entire Homeland Security Gestapo should be ripped down. I'm in favour of reinstating Clarke to Anti-terrorism work as a reward for his tireless and patriotic guard of America. A real hero in the White House... oops, they fired him!

Anyho... I gotta wish that someone with a little netiquette would MODERATE this thread so it doesn't get out of control or controled by a few posters who want to 'win' the thread. After all, one cannot call this crap a real debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 11:06 AM

STEVE580

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I watch the polls.

But, all I need to do is check out how many people think they want to buy SUVs, and how many really believe that god has spoken to them!

Friend, I'm ahead of the curve most of the way in figuring out what's going to happen. I take the notion to test my assumptions against reality.

Yeah yeah, nice. I asked where you got that statistic from. A survey, or scientific study; was it given in a news article somewhere?

Don't just make shit up. Especially if what you are saying slanders my entire family and all of my friends. That tends to upset me.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 12:51 PM

RUXTON

SignyM, well said. Those of us who think we are capable of independent thought most likely agreed so much with what you said there was little need for response, other than to note that some of the rest of us also knew what would happen post-invasions. For those with sufficient interest to have looked into things, the situations today in Iraq or Afgh. are not big surprises.

After reading your second post above, I must say I agree with most if not all you said. You didn't mention that Chalabi is a convicted (for fraud, as I recall, without looking anything up) criminal.

No, the Dem's don't have anything to offer. I personally like Kucinich.

Concerning "thinking": I once took a long drive of about 12 hours, in a car with no radio. When I arrived, my friend asked me how I could stand being in the car that long without a radio. I told her I enjoy thinking, and a radio interferes with that, in my case. I regretted the journey's end because I hadn't thought enough things through. Thinking seems to be a dying art, commonly among the younger set. (I'm a bit older than you.)

I'm pleased to see you have much the same attitude as I do, in that you find it unnecessary to violently defend your well-informed position against the blindness some posters here exhibit. Those with fixed opinions won't be swayed by the truth, even if it hits them smack in the face. Those who have taken great steps to illustrate the reasoning behind their posts, as I have (far above), are shunned by those who think they have all the facts, when actually they don't have a clue. One poster here seemed to think the US went to Iraq to prevent Iraqis from coming here -- as if they could actually get here. (Of course, they might load their one and only model airplane with firecrackers and hope it lands somewhere near the White House.) Others cry foul at thoroughly researched facts but bring nothing to the forum that supports their beliefs, and express outrage that anyone could think differently from them.

I went to great pains above to give an example of how I arrive at ALL my conclusions, but the dummies here are incapable of making a simple connection, and still seem to think I subscribe to one or another conspiracy theories. One fellow thought I was insulting him or his beliefs, because I have taken very considerable steps and vast amounts of time to learn what's going on, and he has not.
------------------------
Ghoulman, your grasp of facts is mostly irreproachable. Most of the posters here seem agree with you. I'd suggest you ignore all three major dummies, as I have, and not waste your valuable time and energy responding to them.
------------------------
Steve580, you said:
"Yeah yeah, nice. I asked where you got that statistic from. A survey, or scientific study; was it given in a news article somewhere?"

Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?

.......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 1:26 PM

Quote:
"Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?

.......Ruxton"

OMFG! Somebody thinking for themselves? Making judgments based on their own experience? Assessing the political scene using their own god-given powers of discernment? Pretty radical claims there, Rux, don't want to scare the children!!! LOL

What's most troubling to me about our situation in this country is that "rational discourse" seems to be entirely out of favor, which is extremely perilous for us since Democracy cannot exist without it. If simple reason cannot be respected (as for instance: X says he never said Q. A transcript of X saying Q is produced. Ergo, X lied), how can anyone be held accountable? Without a reality check, reality doesn't matter. Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Make the pie higher! Put food on your family!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 4:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Steve, just out of curiosity, why do you think I'm putting you in with the 70%?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 7:33 PM

Whew.... I feel better now... I had to barf all of that conspiracy bullcrap out of my system. Thanks....

Don't bother, I know next you will be talking about how Jews all moved out of Europe before WWII ever happened and they are all happily scurried away in the US; or maybe how The Illuminati rules over the U.S. and will be dominating the entire Universe (oh, my bad, it's just the Earth after all) with the New World Order; or maybe how the Federal Income Tax is a big fraud and is completely illegal; or maybe the Federal gov is a big cooperation back when Lincoln signed our country away into debt; or each baby's footprint taken at the hospital (before their feet touch anything else) is a bondage to the Corporate US, or maybe how the Federal gov's powers are supposed to be restricted to just the D.C. are and has never been extended any further; or maybe how NASA faked the entire Apollo moon landing (Was it in Nevada or in New Mexico?).

oh wait, you've had your kidney/bladder/liver removed and is right now sitting in a bathtub full of ice and trying to dial the hotel operator to get help. Oh, what?!? That's a hoax?! Damn...

Yeah, other people get to read the same crap on the internet that you do - except other folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap when there are plenty of other shit out there in the world that needs people to think about. If the world's conspiracy theorist toss out their paranoia collectively and put their little hamsters to work - maybe we can solve world hunger. Or maybe not, since world hunger was also invented and dreamed up by those sickos in the government trying to enslave your mind. Oh, the horror!!! Xenu has arrived!

No, keep feeding me that stuff. Really, it's quite entertaining. I just can't believe that rational and reasonable folks actually believe these horse pucky - wait, rational and reasonable folks *DON'T* belive in that horse pucky...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2004 8:08 PM

Anybody know what the heck Jasonzzz is on about?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 1:38 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Ghoulman,

ROFLMAO..."Netiquette".

I do believe there was a post by you that used the words F**k Off! LOL. So much for the "netiquette" LOL.

I am not for a war on Islam. I'm for the complete annihilation of all militant Islamafascists. There's a difference. It's unfortunate that many good muslims have had their religion hijacked.

/laughs at Ghoulman

In the Proverbial words of Conan hehe " Crush the enemy, drive them before us, and hear the lamentation of their women"

Moving on to some real political MB's where constructive debate takes place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 2:19 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ See? TROLL. You're not nearly as bright as you think are ya?

Islamifascists? Fascism doesn't mean that. Buy a dictionary genius.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 4:07 AM

Can anyone from either side of the fence here tell me why political discussions like this inspire such contempt in y'all? Can anyone tell me what kind of thrill or satisfaction you get out of calling someone a moron over and over again online? Do you really believe that you're contributing to the forum in any way? Or do you consider this thread to be your own private cyber-spittoon? Seriously, there have been some interesting things discussed on this thread and there have been some interesting posts that have been drowned out by the constant bickering. What have you got to say for yourselves? Anything?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 4:23 AM

"Anybody know what the heck Jasonzzz is on about? "

You actually have to try to read the whole thread to understand what he's talking about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 4:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:
Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought.

What the f##k? Just where in the hell did that statistic come from?

I think he should tell us where it comes from.

We can't think for ourselves.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 4:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Steve580, Jasonzz is a perfect example of why I think that most Americans are incapable of independent thought. (Or, in Jasonzz case, any thought at all.)

With no facts on his side, Jasonzz spews. What he's doing here... "I know next you'll be talking about...Jews... Illuminati... NASA...kidney..." is called the straw man argument- putting words into my mouth because he can't rebut what I REALLY said. This part ... "folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap..." is called "begging the question". In other words, he uses his ASSUMPTION as the proof of his assumption. They're pretty easy rhetorical dodges to spot, once you know what you're looking for you'll see them all the time in right-wing opinion-pieces and papers like The Federalist.

Unlike Jasonzz, I at least TRY to discern reality. So, as proof of my other post, here is information about Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Wolfowitz et al with references to their actual works in such radical, conspiracy-minded publications as The Wall Street Journal. Just so you don't have to, I DID look up these references, they're bona fide. And to provide context, here is the chain of command:

Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Feith
Wurmser

------------------------------
"Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office (OSP)... While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. For years... [Feith] had been... beating the drums for war against Iraq. Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to 'contain, destabilize and roll back' various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a 'prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.'

"In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called 'Iraq Needs a Revolution' and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq.

At AEI, Wurmser wrote 'Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein', essentially a book-length version of 'A Clean Break' that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC (Chalabi) to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith."
------------------------------------

I know I didn't directly answer your question about that 70%. It's a composite of various poll and study results that demonstrate sheer brainlessness. Here are some stats:

65% of the average American would torture an unknown study subject with 450 V shocks, despite screams and pleas, on the sheer say-so of the "investigator".

70% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

At one point, 90% thought that invading Iraq was a great idea.

Given those stats, I think my composite is pretty accurate, possibly even generous. There's only one reason that I can think of why people would act this way: sheer, unadulterated cowardice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 5:05 AM

Believe me, Doran, I have. All the heavy conspiracy theory posts are from two days ago (three days ago now). Jasonzzz's extreme reaction seemed to have some kind of immediate inspiration. I thought maybe Jasonzzz had a broader definition of conspiracy than I do, wide enough to encompass something that had been said in the last two days (I'd have asked Jasonzzz but he seemed to be too busy cyber-puking for reasonable discussion). Also his remark about rechannelling conspiracy theorists' energy to illuminate small midwestern towns (I think that's what he said, can't check while I'm posting, sorry) seemed to suggest that conspiracy theorists were far more numerous and influencial than I ever thought they were. Also I felt that it was the height of redundancy to tell a conspiracy theorist that he's full of crap, not because they are, mind you, but because conspriracy theorists get told they're full of crap about as often as someone makes a typo on the internet.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 5:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

At this point, I'm going to bow out of discussion because I might post something really offensive.

If you have any questions, or you want some POLITICAL, MILITARY, or MACROECONOMIC predictions, I'll be happy to answer them if I feel I have something to say. (Unfortuantely, I don't spend as much time trying to predict the stock market, my stock picks make only about 10-50% so I won't post them!)

Happy discussion, happy FF watching!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 5:35 AM

Simulpost.

So, SignyM, it was you that inspired all the green effluvium? Why, because you suggested that a President of the United States could be a cynical, self-interested politician? OMFG! Is that all it takes to be considered a conspiracy theorist these days??? What is this, the court of Louis xiv?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 5:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, it was I (sigh). However, note that I left Bush off the chain of command. The poor fellow really thinks he's bringing God's democracy to Iraq. Bush doesn't make a decision until after speaking with Cheney, and it was Cheney who brought Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith into the Pentagon, Bolton into the State Department (Undersecretary) and Abrams into the NSC. This is what got him so hot and bothered.
---------------------------------------

Well, nobody responded.

OK, I'm going to have a "Mal" moment here- when I believe in nothing and reveal my true inner bitterness.

You might wonder why I'm telling YOU. It's because I believe that I undertsand Mal, and so some of you might understand me too.

Mal is the ultimate realist. His beliefs- in God, in the concern of the authorities, in the might of justice, the providence of Nature, the essential goodness human beings - were burned away in the crucible of experience.

While I can't claim to have Mal's battlefield experience, I've had many "Mal" moments- in my touch with insanity when I had to make a conscious choice to believe in my senses, when my daughter was born with a brain bleed so severe the doctors thought she would die or be profoundly retarded and when they threw up their hands six years later and said "We're up a creek without a paddle", when my MIL died on my watch and I was there for her agonal breaths, and then the same thing happened with my dad- who saw more as a Pole in WWII than you would ever want to be burdened with, when I had to pick up a gun and sit on a friend's porch waiting for the stalker to come by, when I saw "Hearts and Minds" and finally connected with the pain of our victims.

Most Americans (70%) are incapable of independent thought. I believe you are different.

Having lived nearly 50 years, I have the benefit of remembering Vietnam... and Grenada, and Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all strangely similar. First, the Administration would announce that they "suddenly" found a problem: Grenada had a stockpile of Cuban weapons, Noriega was a big "drug runner", Afghanistan was harboring ObL, Saddam had WMD. There would be the drumbeat to war. It was urgent. It was a severe threat to the USA. It had to be taken care of RIGHT AWAY. No delay was allowed! Not a year! Not a month! Not even a week!

The timing was all off because it was all pre-planned. Folks- don't look at the content of the headlines, look at the timing if you want to see what's going on.

So here we are: the threat of Grenada has been neutralized, the tide of drugs had been stemmed, ObL has been captured, and those WMD have been destroyed. Right?

I'm just going to add a couple more things- for those who have followed me tihs far.

None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his neocon administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA.

The answer to my question- If I could see [9/11] why couldn't Cheney? - is that of course he could see it. He just didn't give a damn, and he still doesn't. Other administration folks have written extensively about how getting rid of Saddam would make the world safe- for Israel. I could give you links to the papers if you want- it's all published.

One of them- Wurmser- even postulated years before the fact that Chalabi would make a good puppet government. (also published). And of course Wurmser and Feith set up that "Office of Special Plans" that funneled "special" intelligence (from Chalabi and probably from Mossad) to Cheney outside of the normal CIA and military intelligence channels. The point of this is:

Please, disabuse yourselves of the notion that these people lay awake and worry about the USA. I do- they don't.

One other point- some of you folks are in the military, some are died-in-the-wool libertarians, some are leftover Confederate rebels. The one thing you all have in common is that you identify strongly with the underdog, which is why you like FF in the first place.

And then you take your helicopter gunships and daisy cutter bombs and the threat of nuclear weapons, your megacorporations and banks, your God-fearing religion and democracy, and smack Central and South America, Africa, central Asia and the Mid-East with rapacious dictators, torture (either by proxy or directly), a blood-sucking economy, and more guns than food.

It's all well and good to identify with the underdog, but just make sure you know who the underdog really is.

Edited to add: There are pretty slim pickings in the Democractic Party, too. While they're (mostly) not out to overtly screw the USA like the Republicans are, they weasel around the facts too. All they want is to keep their jobs and not piss off too many people. So here we are: a democracy led by meglomaniacs and fools, informed by a supine media, believing in belief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 6:02 AM

MAUGWAI

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Seems to me SignyM was able to make predictions based on his (her?) personal research. It matters not where he got the facts, as long as they showed him the path to be able to make such accurate predictions. Can you not do the same?

.......Ruxton

It always matters where someone got the facts. That's how you know whether or not they're really facts. If I say I got a fact from Mad Magazine, Seventeen, Time or The Nation, which one do you think is going to be more reliable? Jason Blair and Stephen Glass made their information up. Sources always matter.

And please, people, cut the egos. I echo Jasonzzz's barfing, although I barf for different reasons. Anyone who disagrees with you is "incapable of independent thought"? Everyone here is capable of independent thought. That's why we post. Some people on this thread seem to believe that "because you're stupid and I'm smart" is a great argument.

People's spelling, educational background, age and location doesn't make them smarter or dumber than anyone else. Up the maturity level a little and talk like grownups.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Steve580, Jasonzz is a perfect example of why I think that most Americans are incapable of independent thought. (Or, in Jasonzz case, any thought at all.)

SignyM, here's an independent though straight from me and direct to you

Don't bother, yours was "Ad Hominem" and so was mine.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

With no facts on his side, Jasonzz spews. What he's doing here... "I know next you'll be talking about...Jews... Illuminati... NASA...kidney..." is called the straw man argument- putting words into my mouth because he can't rebut what I REALLY said.

All conspiracy theory crap sounds alike to me and all equally entertainment in a keystone cop sort of way. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the examples offered are similar enough, good enough for me.

BTW, it would have been a "non-sequitur" if you didn't think you believe the similar sort of crap, but since you called it a "Straw Man", you joined the fun and labeled yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

This part ... "folks read it, laugh out loud at the sort of idiot who take this shit for real and waste their little hamster cage cycles rattling on about useless crap..." is called "begging the question".

Oh yeah, I was "begging the question" there alright. I wrongly assumed that you had any hamster cage to begin with.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

In other words, he uses his ASSUMPTION as the proof of his assumption. They're pretty easy rhetorical dodges to spot, once you know what you're looking for you'll see them all the time in right-wing opinion-pieces and papers like The Federalist.

and stop throwing "Red Herrings". Take the argument like a man and following it along. Stop dodging the crap. If you can't deal with it, get on.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Unlike Jasonzz, I at least TRY to discern reality.

Wow, "Hasty Generalization", "post hoc", "False Analogy". Wanna go for four next time?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So, as proof of my other post, here is information about Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Wolfowitz et al with references to their actual works in such radical, conspiracy-minded publications as The Wall Street Journal. Just so you don't have to, I DID look up these references, they're bona fide. And to provide context, here is the chain of command:

Cheney
Rumsfeld
Wolfowitz
Feith
Wurmser

------------------------------
"Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office (OSP)... While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. For years... [Feith] had been... beating the drums for war against Iraq. Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to 'contain, destabilize and roll back' various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a 'prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.'

"In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called 'Iraq Needs a Revolution' and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq.

At AEI, Wurmser wrote 'Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein', essentially a book-length version of 'A Clean Break' that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC (Chalabi) to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith."
------------------------------------

Good grief, the government are filled with people drafting position and strategy papers every day. The entire freaking place is lined with all sorts of strategies ever conceived all shelved into the same place that these same things come from. What the hell does that proof? Think for a second instead of picking out shit that don't make sense and sewing them together.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I know I didn't directly answer your question about that 70%. It's a composite of various poll and study results that demonstrate sheer brainlessness. Here are some stats:

65% of the average American would torture an unknown study subject with 450 V shocks, despite screams and pleas, on the sheer say-so of the "investigator".

non-sequitur and wrong, the study shows that people are sadistic bastards and will sell out the ir fellow man for a buck and two bits. There's about 18 billion ways to interpret the results and you didn't even pick the position the study pushed. Why don't you just randomly pull one out of the toilet and call it crap.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

70% still believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

post-hoc

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

At one point, 90% thought that invading Iraq was a great idea.

Given those stats, I think my composite is pretty accurate, possibly even generous. There's only one reason that I can think of why people would act this way: sheer, unadulterated cowardice.

Hasty generalization.

hmmm... maybe you are right after all. It didn't take much thinking at all to just randomly toss out shit from first year college composition book and to avoid the argument entirely.

I salute your shiny example of a thinking man's example to argument! Thanks! I learned a valuable example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 7:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Umm... Apparently you missed the entire point of my post. You screen your information by WHERE it comes from? That's authority-driven thinking.

So, to make this absolutely, abundantly, inescapably clear:

I look at the information coming in. I form a hypothesis as to what is "really" happening. Now, there are only a few ways to test hypotheses:

1) You perform a lab EXPERIMENT, and others try to reproduce your results.
2) If you are unable to directly experiment you PREDICT what will happen on the basis of your hypothesis
3) If you are unable to predict- or your predictions are too far out in time, or otherwise untestable- you search for CONSISTENCY with all observable facts.

I can't experiment, so I go the prediction route. So far, my predictions have held up remarkably well... have yours? You can check this out for yourself if you care to dig up a long-past thread on Iraq, where I said that Gulf War II had nothing to do with WMD. I caught a lot of flak on that. I ALSO said that the United States IS the Alliance. Shit flew at me from all directions!!!! Since you apparently have difficulty with the concept of fact-driven thought, I'll quote you an authority on that- Joss himself, as originally posted by Bibsy:

---------------------------------
There's a slight problem with your analogy in that the show's creator doesn't see it that way. Here's what Joss Whedon had to say about Mal's politics in the New York Times Magazine in September 2002:

"Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and 'Don't interfere with my life.' And sometimes he's wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no right to control these people. And yet sometimes the Alliance is America in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese."
--------------------------------

Good enough for you?

Do you remember that scene where Mal lunges at Niska and roars something along the lines of "Do you want to see the REAL ME?"

You haven't seen the real me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Speaking of tossing out first-year compostion phrases...

Jasonzz, I've made predictions- years of them, some of them found on this very website. I'd ask my colleagues to corroborate my predictions, and dig up some old discussions (on another website) on Afghanistan and 9/11... except that I know you'd never read them with an open mind.

So tell me- oh fearless leader who knows all (especially first-year composition books)- what's gonna happen next?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 8:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The silence is deafening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 8:53 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The silence is deafening.

LOL... I believe it's called /ignore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 9:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ConnorFlynn, let's say we close down a pub or two! First five rounds are on me!

Anyone else care to join in, feel free. Sometimes I think it'll take an entire brewery (or winery or distillery, your choice!) to reach agreement. I'll donate to the cause- serious!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 9:57 AM

HANS

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:
Does America need its allies any more?

Yes. England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Thailand, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria (glad their President wasn't hurt today), Albania, The Dominican Republic, etc, etc.

No. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Canada, the UN, and any other country that allows its foriegn policy to be dictated by those who were skimming billions from Iraq's Oil for Food Program or selling them weapons in violation of international sanctions, or who President was Saddam's best friend in the '70s and '80s. Really just France. To the liberals the whole world is French.

I am shocked by the nastiness that has been thrown Canada's way since we decided to stay out of the war. I blame Fox News. :)

For decades Canada has been a loyal ally and good friend of the US. We fought together in wars. We supported the US in NATO and were a partner in Norad. After Sept. 11 thousands of american airline passengers were stranded in Canadian cities, and were shown great hospitality. We joined along with the rest of the world in fighting terrorism and increasing security. We sent troops to Afghanistan, who are still there, and didn't complain about the fact that more of our troops have been killed by american friendly-fire than by the enemy. You are our biggest trading partner, and we are yours (bet you didn't know that). Our cultures, while not identical are very similar.

So it pisses me off to no end that when we make a rational, informed decision to stay out of the war in Iraq we become the great satan (or as Pat Buchannan called us, Soviet Canuckistan) to a huge number of people in the States. I don't care whether you supported the war or not - how about a little respect for a fellow democracy, a country that has the right to make its own damn decisions.

I have great respect for the States and many Americans. I have to keep reminding myself that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush... To those of you who are hoping for a change in Presidents this fall, good luck.

Hans

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 10:13 AM

RUXTON

SignyM, O the joy! Someone actually knows how to use the phrase, "begs the question." That is extraordinarily rare, in my experience, and I congratulate you.

Without yet having read the responses to your detailed exposé of the bozos in office, I'd bet a sawbuck none of the dummies bother to verify them, nor will it change their so-called opinions.

Maugwai, It seems to me it matters not if oddball sources like those you named lead someone who is an ardent seeker after knowledge to draw accurate conclusions. The bottom line is the validity of the conclusion reached after filtering bits of information from numerous sources. SignyM WAS able to reach accurate conclusions. Hence my statement the source is immaterial. There are zillions of sources on the internet. Those who seek answers with an open mind, as must be done during serious "brainstorming," will keep that mind open until the information gleaned from (sometimes) years of study point to the clear-cut answers. IMPORTANT: the mind must be kept open after conclusions are reached. There may be other conclusions that can be drawn, given more evidence. A few posters here exhibit drastically shut-and-locked minds, which tend only to cloud issues. They have provided exactly NO evidence to support their conclusions, other than to make repeated and empty claims that those of us who look for alternate answers simply must be wrong.

JasonZZZ, why specifically do you think those who disagree with you are wrong? All I get from your postings is a sort of hope that we're wrong and you're right. Specifically why do you think some of the things discussed here are conspiracies? I don't believe you've made this adequately clear. Rather than wasting space here calling posters names, which is really all you've done, give us some facts that support your position. Real hard facts, backed by links to world-wide news services, preferrably, or with direct quotes from your beloved administration. Something concrete, please.

SignyM, I've gotten rid of a few so-called friends over the past years taking a position similar to yours. I tried hard, the year preceding the Iraq invasion, to try to get folks to take an interest in what was going on. Most said they had enough trouble trying to live their own lives without getting interested in politics, or taking time to learn some basic facts. The murder of Rachel Corrie by an IDF bulldozer hit me particularly hard, and I weeded out a few more supposed friends as a result. To date nothing has been done by our government to prosecute the IDF killer, except to send more money to the IDF.

You asked, What's going to happen next? The Bush and Blair administrations will be kept out of the limelight concerning the ongoing torture investigations, despite the fact that Bush tried to keep the photos of molested Iraqis out of the media, and despite the fact that a general was canned for the supposed transgressions of six people. Yet per Hirsch's lengthy and well-linked article, military intelligence and the CIA were behind the torture mandates, and that implies the current administration was also complicit. Let's see how fast someone here proclaims their ignorance by calling me loco, when all the evidence is easily found today. All they'll be doing is once again showing us how incredibly blind they are to available facts.

Iraqis will continue to kill the terrorists who have invaded their country, though our media will cover little of it. The Iraqi situation will persist for at least five more years. Very possibly, a "terror attack" of some sort will occur in this country just in time to save Bush's arse in the November elections from a very-pissed-off electorate. However, Diebold's machines are still capable of altering the will of some of the voters, so I dunno if we'll see more Bush, or Kerry. Sorry, no prediction there.

Sharon has already stated he will not step down. Big surprise. So US dollars will still go to the IDF whenever that bum demands them. Blackmail, of course.

Enough for now.

......Ruxton

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 10:40 AM

MIKECHANCE

I thought I'd tell you all about something important related to WMDs and Iraq.

For a good while, Military planes would fly in from Iraq to the Atlanta Air Force base in the middle of the night, and then large convoys would leave there, escorted by Army Rangers and Delta Force, to another more secure government facility.

These convoys consisted of large cargo trucks...

Anyone wondering what was in them? :)

That ain't no shepard...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 12:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ahhh... Mike... any chance of you producing evidence for this???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 12:15 PM

COWARD

Whoops, double post...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 12:15 PM

COWARD

To get back to something discussed beforehand:

I googled after the Kyoto protocol, here it is:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf

Hero discussing the Kyoto protocoll:

Quote:
Because the so called protocol only applied to the USA.

I can't claim to have read the protocol, because quite frankly it's too bloody long and complicatedly written, however, I did search through the pdf and found a list of how the emission limits should be set. The US of A scores 93% of "the base year" (Although I can't positively confirm this, I'm guessing 1990 not that it really matters). Note that Germany receives 92%, France 92%, Japan 94%, Russia 100%, Luxembourg 92%, Monaco 92% and about 30 others around the same range, check out Annex B. Point of interest: Iceland got 110% and thereby the highest rating.

The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it). Russia comes in second at 17.4, Japan third at 8.5%, Germany fourth at 7.4%.

Here from the European Union's summary of the Kyoto protocol:

Quote:
The developed countries commit themselves to reducing their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases by at least 5%. This group target will be achieved through cuts of 8% by Switzerland, most Central and East European states, and the European Union (the EU will meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states); 7% by the US; and 6% by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland. Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions, while Norway may increase emissions by up to 1%, Australia by up to 8%, and Iceland 10%. The six gases are to be combined in a "basket", with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure.

http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1420

I think this should sufficiently prove that the US was not in any way specifically targetted or singled out in the protocol. Neither did it set unrealistic or impossible goals since some countries have nearly fullfilled the conditions set forth in the protocol. A quote from the website of the reputed public German TV-news program Tagesschau's website:

Quote:
Im europäischen Vergleich liegt Deutschland mit seinen Klimaschutzzielen weit vorne. Mit der Einsparung von rund 240 Millionen Tonnen Treibhausgasen hat die Bundesrepublik etwa doppelt so viel reduziert, wie die gesamte Europäische Union. Im Klimaschutzabkommen von Kyoto hatte sich Deutschland verpflichtet, seinen CO2-Ausstoß bis 2010 um 21 Prozent zu reduzieren. Bis 2002 wurden davon immerhin schon 19,4 Prozent erreicht. Es fehlen also nur noch 1,6 Prozent, die man durch den 2005 beginnenden Emissionshandel zu erreichen hofft.

Problem is you probably don't speak German, basically it says that out of the 21% emissions that Germany was supposed to reduce till 2010 they have already reduced emissions by 19,4%.

Now I don't claim the Kyoto protocol was perfect (I haven't read it), but from all the evidence I could find it seems to me it was at least a step in the right direction: to counter the very real threat of global warming (maybe we should have a "War on Global Warming" to make it more sellable, eh?). If you do not believe in global warming I suggest you read chwyatt's post on an imbd message board, because he just said it a lot more eloquently than I ever could. Find it at:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/board/nest/8116319

Or you could just look it up in science journals, on the Internet, or ask just about any reputable scientist anywhere.

Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along. Global warming is not a conspiracy theory, it is not speculation, it is happening everywhere around us.

(P.S. The movie "the day after tomorrow" from what I've seen seems to grossly exaggerate the problem)

Coward

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 1:05 PM

"None of the above makes sense if you think that Republicans Presidents, and THIS President and his... administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Abrams) lay awake at night worrying about us and the future of the USA."

I just want to stand and be counted here; I happen to believe that most of the current administration, including the president, do lay awake at night worrying about the United States and about her citizens. I firmly believe they are good people doing a hard job. Perhaps that's why I have such a problem with some of the above. :O)

I find it offensive to have anyone suggest that I'm am not capable of independant thought. I am not a conservative because it is the easy road or because Rush Limbaugh told me to be one. I do think about things and and form my own opinions. I am not a moderate, independant, undecided, wishy washy, person.

If for instance, someone wanted to convince me of a conspiracy where Bush was responsible for flying airliners with missles attached to them into US buildings killing 1000's of people - First,they would have to have a recorded confession of someone involved in the alegied conspiracy that confirmed this is what happened. Second, there would have to be physical evidence on par with court admissable evidence to show the event occured.. (note: the very blury pictures I've already seen will not work) Third, there would have to be a very good motive for such an action laid out.. and a pattern of behavior shown that would explain why someone like Bush would choose such a strange action. Fourth, there would have to be someone who could place the president at a meeting or location where he overheard Bush as he planned or ordered such an action.

If these elements were available I would revisit this issue and form a new, perhaps different, perhaps the same, opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 2:19 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Just like to chime in here.

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/04/04232000/cancuts_12173.asp

"Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada can be curbed by 50 percent by 2030 using current technology, according to a report issued this week by The David Suzuki Foundation."

So, if Canada can do this, why can't other nations (Yes I know, some are

). I truly think that people don't see that while some industries will fall others will be created. Sure there will be a period of economic flux, but, IMHO, it's damn well worth it.

Oh my, why won't somebody think of the children

EDIT FOR CLARITY:
Currently Canada isn't really implementing this. I'm just stating that it is possible, so, why deny it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 2:49 PM

SUCCATASH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 3:38 PM

PEACE

OMG-- you would hope the next thing he said was, "Wait a minute-- ooops...". You hope that it was just a momentary mistake that anybody could make, but you have to wonder...and if Bush didn't say anything, would the officers have had the guts to point out his little mistake?

Oh, bugger! Now I have to wait for someone to wake up!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 4:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The whole idea of "them" worrying about "us" fell away in a sad epiphany after years... and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could, and everything that was skewed fell into place.

My conjecture is that they (everyone except the President that is) DID know something was going to take place. There was a terror warning issued about one month before, the first ever, for Americans and American interests abroad. Interestingly, Ashcroft actually stopped flying commercial airplanes at about that time. Whether they knew specifically or just generally, my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:

--------------------------------
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------

The early and/or founding memebers of PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. I don't think that these people created 9/11, I think they just didn't have a strong motive to stop it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 6:57 PM

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2004 7:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ROTFLMAO

"Once again, words failed him."

At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 4:18 AM

" and I mean years... of throwing observations against the concept and just not having it stick. I kept asking myself "But WHY can't they just see..? WHY can't they just do..? WHY can't they just let..?" It finally came to me that they could,"

This information is very non-specific but it appears you are condeming the Bush administration as unfeeling and caring because of a gut feeling of your own. I don't have that gut feeling.

"my feeling is that they didn't do anything to stop it, and the reason why they didn't was because, as the Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:"

What authors? what project? Or is this their 'secret plan'?

"PNAC include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle."

Where did you find out that these individuals had anything to do with the "PNAC", the defunct non-profit organization. And I don't see George Bushes name there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 4:35 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:

The US emits 36.1% of the CO2 emissions emitted by the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol (remember the US did actually sign it).

Now thanks to George W. Bush the Kyoto protocol is worth basically zilch because the World's biggest (or should that be ... greatest?) polluter is not playing along.

Thank you for correcting me. The US was not the only country to be bound by the treaty. Yet it is the countries not so bound which concern me.

I would humbly suggest that the US has fully complied with its treaty obligations. The loss in jobs in our manufacturing industry also represent the shut down or reduction in production of the plants employing those workers.

However this reduction in US emissions has not helped the situation. The reason is that those industries relocated to nations where there are few if any enviromental controls.

Now enviromentalists seek further expensive restrictions on emissions in PA and OH, two states devestated by the loss of domestic manufacturing. Their objective may be sound, but few if any of the soon to be unemployed workers would trade their job for a tiny percentage reduction in CO2 emissions.

If we pollute the enviroment without control then we are destined to live in misery. If we preserve the enviroment at the expense of all domestic manufacturing then we are destined to live in misery.

Maybe we should seek a happy medium.

How about new factories must meet clean air standards. Make clean air credits a commodity they can sell to older factories who can't meet the standards. This allows new factories to run and old factories to run, and produces a net reduction in emissions. Then a program of grants and tax incentives make conversion of the old factories to new ones or at least updated ones an easier prospect over the long term rather then impossible in the short term. People work, birds chirp, and we can all focus on hating France, killing terrorists, and watching American Idol.

I just wish an American President would have the guts to take on the Big Greenies and adjust Air Emissions standards to allow for such a plan. Wait, President Bush did that. Good job, George.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 5:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Project for the New American Century authors wrote in their 2000 report:

--------------------------------
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
------------------------------------

Which report are you talking about? There are a bunch from 2000 regarding global foriegn policy issues, a militarty review, etc.

Also, how do you connect the names you mentioned to the Group?

Also, who cares? Its just a thinktank. Everybody uses thinktanks to keep their players warmed up during seasons they are out of power.

Come on. Is Bill Kristol the head of the conspiracy? Quick, everybody read 'The New Republic' if you want in.

Next you'll be telling us how the contrails are killing you.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 9:41 AM

?que? wtf are you mumbling about now?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ROTFLMAO

"Once again, words failed him."

At least Jasonzz always good for a hoot!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 12:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OMG. Look, I know that you're all smarter than this. You want ME to tell you what the PNAC is and where I got the roster from? It's all published. Look it up!

You need ME to tell you why I should care? Show some independent thought! Sheesh!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 4:43 AM