Speak Up or Shut Up? (How will you use the voice with which you've been blessed/cursed?) (6629 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 0.03 on 436 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-03-19 13:42:02 EST
Here is your daily dose of truth. I realize that many of you have come to see me as someone who thinks he has a monopoly on it, but this really isn't the time to focus on trivial bickering.
I'd like for each of you to ask yourselves something... If you had a chance to go back to Nazi Germany in the early 1930s and tell the people what their beloved Adolph Hitler was about to do to their country, would you do it? Would you yell out in the street or try to rouse your fellow citizens to break the spell of popular opinion and see what was happening before their very eyes? Or would you sit on your hands and do nothing?
That's a question I find I'm asking myself a lot lately. Would I risk my life for my country? For my fellow man? That is a truly difficult question to answer, and there is no right or wrong one.
A man cannot be blamed for valuing self-preservation. He cannot be blamed for wanting to shy away from trouble and just go about his own business without being abrasive. Yet, a man who sits idly by while women and children suffer in his name, propped up with HIS vote, surely there is no sin greater under heaven.
To slink away from the suffering of one's fellow man in favor of the safety of a crowd is a natural human tendency, but one that must be overcome if our world is ever to overcome the perpetual conflict of war and the suffering it brings.
A day after the third anniversary of the present war in Iraq, I am heartened that so many people decided to stand up and take to the streets in so many places around the world over the weekend http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/19/war.protests.ap/index.html, but am saddened by the knowledge there is another war looming on the horizon, and I come to you humbly and entreat you to open up your hearts and minds and eyes to see the present truth of our situation, not so I can say "i told you so" or some such nonsense, but so that you might ask yourself the question - what will I do now? Will I speak up or will I shut up? Will I cower and shy away from confrontation, or will I stand up for what I know is right?
The following is an article I found that will hopefully explain my concerns better than I am presently able to articulate.
I apologise for the copy/paste, but I wouldn't do it if I didn't think this was important and if I thought I could do better myself. I would like to offer my own thoughts on the subject, but will do so in the reviews.
For now, if you'd just like to read a great article that explains the truth about what the U.S. and its allies are planning to do to Iran, and perhaps join a friendly debate, continue on, if not, kindly leave your -2 Die comment and tell me how much of a loser I am.
.....
.....
Still here? Cool. Thanks for sticking around.
I do suggest you go to the link below to read the article because the format is better and has links, but if you like, the article is reprinted below for you.
http://arevolutionaryact.blogspot.com/2006/02/real-men-want-to-go-to-iran.html
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It's going to happen - and sooner than you think. We'll be watching the news headlines, or maybe there'll be a news flash, and we'll be informed that the RAF, along with the USAF's long-range B2 bombers, and the Israeli Air Force have carried out overnight bombing raids across Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, radar stations, airfields and anti-aircraft bases.
I can't see a land invasion - at least not for a long time - for the simple reason that Iranian civilians are more patriotic than their Iraqi counterparts, that Iran has a much bigger and better equipped army than Iraq had and a lot more fundamentalists, the type that strap bombs to themselves and run towards you. Moreover, the country is much bigger than Iraq, with a lot of mountainous terrain and with a much larger population, which makes it far more difficult for the largely un-resisted kind of invasion the US enjoyed in Iraq.
As in the case of Iraq, there will be the prior attempt at the mass manufacture of consent. Blair and Bush and indeed other European leaders, who think they will have something to gain, pedalling the line that newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Saddam Hussein who, if Iran's nuclear programme is not halted, will be able to lob a nuclear missile at the west in a few minutes and how Iran is supporting international terrorism, financing terrorist cells all over the world, including Al Qaeda. The case will be made that Iran is still very much a part of the axis of evil, first referred to in George W Bush's State of the Union Address in 2002, and its people, secretly harbouring thoughts of Western style democracy, the country crying out for regime change. In his January, 2005, State of the Union Address George W said; "Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."
The White House has in fact been steadily creating an anti-Iran climate in the US for some time. The Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, "in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb."
All of this, of course, is part of the desensitisation process, aimed at calming world public opinion in advance. And if Congress and Parliament and the people on the streets won't buy the cant, then expect the false flags to go up - the state-sanctioned attacks on Western cities, purportedly carried out by Islamic terrorists acting on the instructions of Tehran or on behalf of Al Qaeda, the names by now interchangeable. That'll win over the damned doubters and ditherers. There will be the mandate for another round of butchery!
And you know how it will all start. Indeed, it has already started. The high profile diplomatic efforts to refer Iran to the UN Security Council will be followed by UN Security Council Resolutions condemning Iran's uranium enrichment programme and an insistence on an additional protocol for inspections of its nuclear facilities, and in the knowledge that Iran's Parliament has already moved to reject any further inspections if such a scenario arises. Sanctions could be imposed aimed at isolating Iran and turning it into a pariah state. Iran, feeling it is doing nothing wrong - it has in fact an "inalienable right" as a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty to develop a civilian nuclear technology for generating electricity for its population of 70 million - will, in so many words, tell the UN to fuck off, and this will be the pretext for war, with the US, the UK and Israel, like comic book super-heroes coming to the defence of peace-loving, god-fearing people everywhere. There will be warnings about the consequences from all manner of experts and demonstrations will take place right across the world - as in the case of Iraq - and reference will be made to double standards, to the fact that Israel and India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons and are yet to sign the NPT, but to no avail. The masters of war will have their day.
It's improbable that Russia and China will ever agree on a UN Security Council Resolution against Iran which could justify military action if it is thought to have been breached; for they have strong vested interests in Iran which they are desperate not to jeopardise. Not that this will bother the US in the least, as both Russia and especially China are economic powers that threaten US global ambitions, so any attack on Iran, that consequently leads to the overthrow of the present regime in Tehran, upsets the long term ambitions of China and Russia.
An Iranian response
But, make no mistake; Iran will be no push over. The US will not enjoy a hasty capitulation of the Tehran regime, as was the case with Baghdad, exhausted by over a decade of perpetual bombardment and sanctions. The Iranian army comprises about 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts and you can add to this 120,000 of the elite Revolutionary Guard. The country's navy and air force total 70,000 men. Between them, the armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers, the kind Saddam fired at Israel during the first Gulf War of 1991. Iran also has an unknown number of Shahab missiles with a range of more than 1,500 miles. With this in mind you can begin to appreciate the remarks of Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, in the build up to the invasion of Iraq: "Real men want to go to Iran".
True, a lot of Iran's military hardware is old, thirty years old in some cases, and no match for the state-of-the-art weaponry the US is wont to use. Nevertheless, it is still weaponry and more than capable of delivering untold damage to US forces or any other country within striking distance of its missiles and who are perceived as being pro-US.
With Iran controlling the Strait of Hormutz, oil tankers could easily be bombed as well tankers and platforms elsewhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And Tehran could easily escalate any conflict, giving the nod for Lebanese Hezbollah militant attacks on Israel, sanctioning also assaults on U.S. interests throughout Central Asia.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California, co-authored a piece for the Los Angeles Times on January 19th. They said:
"A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. "Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 'additional protocol.' ' Is the world ready to live with such prospects?"
Both Bush and Blair have already hinted at military intervention and Israel has previously threatened Iran. The New York Times of 13th January 13 reported Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli Mossad declaring that "Israeli policy makers all agree that a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out."
More importantly, The Sunday Times on December 11th last year reported that Ariel Sharon has instructed Israel air force to get ready for a military attack against Iran by the end of March 2006, when Israeli elections are scheduled. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Israel's Likud Party, gave notice last year that if Prime Minister Sharon did not wipe out Iran's nuclear installations, he would see the job was done if he became prime minister in March.
Consider also the statement by ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi, in the August 2005 issue of the American Conservative. According to Giralidi, Vice president Dick Cheney has told the Pentagon to plan for an all-out air attack on 450 sites in Iran if another terrorist incident occurs in the US. Giraldi reports that such a plan would include the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's fortified nuclear installations. Likewise, France's President Chirac caused a furore when he announced France would respond with nuclear strikes against any state believed to be behind terrorist attacks on French soil. With Statements like this and knowing the long-term prize at stake, you just can't help wondering if one of those false flags is being unfurled right now.
A year ago it was reported that Iran was anticipating an attack by the US and that it was ready for an impressionable response within 15 minutes. For over a year, anticipating a US attack, Iran has been mobilising recruits into citizens' militia and has made plans to engage in the kind of "asymmetrical" warfare that has mired U.S. troops in neighbouring Iraq.
Oil Boarse
And the real reason for the coming war with Iran? Forget the nuclear threat. Forget the support for terrorist cells and the other hackneyed charges against this "rogue state". The very simple fact is that next month, in March, Iran intends to launch its Oil Boarse which will facilitate the future trade of oil in the Euro instead of the US petro dollar - the international currency that props up the US economy. (For further info see this blog's entry for May 15th of last year)
John Pilger writes in the latest issue of New Statesman (13th February):
"The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China.
"That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked."
Likewise, Krassimir Petrov, Professor of Economics at the American University of Bulgaria, writing of the establishment of an Oil Bourse in the January edition of Energy Bulletin, said:
"In economic terms, this represents [a great threat] because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euros to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether.
"Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans ....The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar."
The Oil Bourse aside. Iran has also sizeable oil reserves that look quite enticing and which other countries have been eyeing up for some time. The highly regarded Oil and Gas Journal reported last year that 125.8 billion barrels of oil were in Iran just waiting to be pumped out. Iran is also the number 2 producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Most of Iran's crude oil is to be found in an area known as Khuzestan, bordering Iraq and the Persian Gulf and the location of Iran's largest untapped oil fields - Yadavaran and Azadegan. There are serious profits to be had here but, tellingly, the Chinese state oil company China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation has a 50 percent stake in the vast Yadavaran oil field.
So to has Russia a claim in Iranian oil. Three years ago In 2003 Russia decided to expand its oil procure and distribution methods by shipping Russian crude to Iran, to be refined for domestic consumption, with Iran delivering a corresponding amount of oil to Russia, thus decreasing the cost of exports via tankers loaded at Black Sea ports and making Russian oil accessible to buyers at competitive prices.
Addicted to oil?
George Bush, in his January 2006 State of the Union Address made an interesting statement: "The US is addicted to oil". That's perhaps the truest statement Bush has ever said, but he's mistaken if this is meant to signify that the US is going into detox and will be weaning itself of oil. At the moment there is just too much US corporate interest in the Middle East and Central Asia for the US to even think of cutting back on one barrel of oil.
Furthermore, there are dangerous competitors out there, who have an insatiable thirst for oil, so its important that the US has a say in who has access to the world's oil resources. The U.S. is not that dependent upon Middle East oil for its own domestic consumption, but is aware that one way to control its foremost economic rivals is to control just how much oil they can have and at what price. The project for the New American Century is well under way, with the war-mongering neo-cons ready to use any excuse to justify the use of US military power to eradicate any regime deemed an obstacle to its global ambitions. With China a fastly growing economic, political and military power, naked aggression is a strategy they will pursue throughout the oil rich regions of the Middle East and central Asia, regardless of the cost of life and the dent to the US' global image. The petro-dollar needs defending, world's oil resources need to be controlled and military bases built. Iran is just one step towards total global control - the real enemy is yet to be confronted.
But for now, with International Atomic Energy Agency complaining that Iran isn't cooperating fully with IAEA inspectors, Washington will use its man at the UN, Ambassador John "Real Man" Bolton, to help hype a global crisis which will consequently be used to justify attacks on Iran, with or without the blessing of the UNSC. No evidence exists as to Iranian desires to create an atomic bomb, but the fact that the country is enriching uranium - quite legally so, and as a signatory to the NPT, unlike pro-US nuclear states - is all the confirmation the neo-cons need for another war for oil.
User Reviews
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-07-21 15:23:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut up!
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-24 04:19:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
He's not watching right now.
He wanking to low quality webcam shots of FA shooting up.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-24 01:44:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Better mind your P's and Q's
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85734
He is watching!!!!
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-24 01:31:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I still gotta say, that letter he supposedly sent back to the Senator is really grounds for an FBI full cavity search.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-03-23 22:16:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by toucan_sam (user info) at 2006-03-23 14:33:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
complete horseshit
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-03-23 14:13:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i use it to hum when i deepthroat. that way my voice becomes action, and actions speak louder than words.
Submitted by sketch9 (user info) at 2006-03-23 13:23:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you honestly beleive the war in iraq was about oil? is it now about oil? was it at the beginning? if so, why havent our crude prices gone down? iran falling, or even going to war, is not going to honestly affect our relation with the saudi oil wells, and opec will probably use the war as a reason to jack the price of oil. just because we invade a country does not mean we own its natural resources.
you guys never seem to think about jack in the middle east except oil. the iraq was wasnt about oil, and never has been. an iran war will not be about oil. shut the hell up.
Submitted by moray (user info) at 2006-03-23 13:08:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you seem to be a wank.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2006-03-23 09:36:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The Son of God has respawned
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85692
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-23 09:02:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1896731
Jesus man, get a grip
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-23 06:47:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Now THERE is an idea.
ETS=blogger.
Makes sense, most whackjobs have one.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-03-23 06:37:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I got enough new information out of this to justify a +2, even if it is a blog.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 06:07:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bless you and yours, Lyn. You're a Saint among saints.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-23 06:07:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What the fuck is wrong with you
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2006-03-23 04:47:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"You just keep up the 'good' work, Mr. Senator, and sleep well...sleep
well knowing that Hell Hounds are on your trail. We ARE WATCHING YOU."
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Brad's fucking lost it.
Love you like a brother - not MY brother, because he's a crackhead - and watching you go over the edge is making me giggle like a happy medicated child.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-23 04:45:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Julie, you're right.
He sounds... Well... Unstable.
I'm guessing this recent output of his over the last two weeks is because he's off whatever meds he was on.
And I don't doubt at ALL that his message is going to the FBI and SS.
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-23 04:39:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 02:56:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
and my response???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You know what you can do with your little reply, Mr. Lugar....
You can shove it up your pompous, self-serving ASS!
That's what you can do!
You know why???
Because your ways are OVER! That's why.
The youth of America are about to SHOCK your ass with lightning so
powerful you won't know what to do with yourself/
FUCK you, and FUCK your president! He's NOT my president. You are
nothing but a little lapdog. I know you, and everyone here in
Evansville, Indiana that I come into contact with knows what you're up
to. I've looked at your voting record, and I'm passing it onto
everyone I know as we fucking speak.
You just keep up the 'good' work, Mr. Senator, and sleep well...sleep
well knowing that Hell Hounds are on your trail. We ARE WATCHING YOU.
NOW, KINDLY DIE!
You don't fucking fool me, and you don't fool anyone else wiht your
bullshit lies about trying to do ANYTHING for this country.
YOU ARE A JOKE.....AND YOU ARE A DISGRACE.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
Now kindly die, sir.
That's right....DIE.
Your time is over.
-------------------------
Do you not see how fucking insane this makes you sound? At first it just seems like you're one of those little 17 year old punk bitches who is trying to rebel against authority and goes on about anarchy and how the government sucks and your life is so hard because of it(even though you've lead a very easy, sheltered life and have had everything handed to you on a silver platter) and blah blah blah in a pathetic attempt to be different and cool. Then you start getting creepy and threatening. It sounds like you're a goddamn stalker or something. I won't be surprised if he turns you in to the FBI and they start investigating you.
I'm not sure if that made any sense or not because I'm working late, I'm dead tired, and I'm high as a kite because I took Benadryl for my cold with lots of pain meds for my gimp knee and broken head. Fuck you, it made sense to me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 03:52:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.theyrule.net/2004/tr2.php
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 03:47:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83896
http://www.petitiononline.com/godwood1/petition.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
I asked Mr Richard G. Lugar, United States Senator for Indiana to PLEASE not sell our National Forests...
But what does he do???
HE SENDS ME A MOTHERFUCKING CANNED RESPONSE!!!!
There is nothing...NOTHING I hate worse than a canned response.
That sonfoabitch is going down.
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 02:54:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Mr. Luger of Indiana.... Senator.....
Dear Mr. Linzy:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about preserving our public lands and national parks.
President Bush has submitted his fiscal year 2007 budget to Congress and proposed the sale of federal land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. In conjunction with this announcement, on February 28th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service announced the start of a public comment period on the list of forest lands that would be available for sale as a proposal to provide funding to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. You can review this proposal on the Forest Service website at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/>.
Comments on the proposed list must be received by March 30, 2006, and may be sent by e-mail to SRS_Land_Sales.at.fs.fed.us. Written comments may be sent to: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC 20250-0003. Faxed comments should be sent to (202) 205-1604.
I will continue to closely follow the progress of this issue. National parklands are a treasure every American can share. Our breathtaking forests and mountains are world-renowned. As economic prosperity allows citizens and industries to expand in more rural areas, preserving national parks becomes more important than ever. Again, thank you for contacting me.
and my response???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You know what you can do with your little reply, Mr. Lugar....
You can shove it up your pompous, self-serving ASS!
That's what you can do!
You know why???
Because your ways are OVER! That's why.
The youth of America are about to SHOCK your ass with lightning so
powerful you won't know what to do with yourself/
FUCK you, and FUCK your president! He's NOT my president. You are
nothing but a little lapdog. I know you, and everyone here in
Evansville, Indiana that I come into contact with knows what you're up
to. I've looked at your voting record, and I'm passing it onto
everyone I know as we fucking speak.
You just keep up the 'good' work, Mr. Senator, and sleep well...sleep
well knowing that Hell Hounds are on your trail. We ARE WATCHING YOU.
NOW, KINDLY DIE!
You don't fucking fool me, and you don't fool anyone else wiht your
bullshit lies about trying to do ANYTHING for this country.
YOU ARE A JOKE.....AND YOU ARE A DISGRACE.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
Now kindly die, sir.
That's right....DIE.
Your time is over.
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-03-23 03:16:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-22 20:18:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
He thought the point was not yet beaten into the ground, dug out and beaten down again, and so he's started up again.
+*^--^*+
At least he doesn't lay around all day trying to lick his balls or sniff other dog's butts.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 02:56:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 02:54:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Mr. Luger of Indiana.... Senator.....
Dear Mr. Linzy:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about preserving our public lands and national parks.
President Bush has submitted his fiscal year 2007 budget to Congress and proposed the sale of federal land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. In conjunction with this announcement, on February 28th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service announced the start of a public comment period on the list of forest lands that would be available for sale as a proposal to provide funding to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. You can review this proposal on the Forest Service website at: <http://www.fs.fed.us/>.
Comments on the proposed list must be received by March 30, 2006, and may be sent by e-mail to SRS_Land_Sales.at.fs.fed.us. Written comments may be sent to: USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1124, Washington, DC 20250-0003. Faxed comments should be sent to (202) 205-1604.
I will continue to closely follow the progress of this issue. National parklands are a treasure every American can share. Our breathtaking forests and mountains are world-renowned. As economic prosperity allows citizens and industries to expand in more rural areas, preserving national parks becomes more important than ever. Again, thank you for contacting me.
and my response???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You know what you can do with your little reply, Mr. Lugar....
You can shove it up your pompous, self-serving ASS!
That's what you can do!
You know why???
Because your ways are OVER! That's why.
The youth of America are about to SHOCK your ass with lightning so
powerful you won't know what to do with yourself/
FUCK you, and FUCK your president! He's NOT my president. You are
nothing but a little lapdog. I know you, and everyone here in
Evansville, Indiana that I come into contact with knows what you're up
to. I've looked at your voting record, and I'm passing it onto
everyone I know as we fucking speak.
You just keep up the 'good' work, Mr. Senator, and sleep well...sleep
well knowing that Hell Hounds are on your trail. We ARE WATCHING YOU.
NOW, KINDLY DIE!
You don't fucking fool me, and you don't fool anyone else wiht your
bullshit lies about trying to do ANYTHING for this country.
YOU ARE A JOKE.....AND YOU ARE A DISGRACE.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm
Now kindly die, sir.
That's right....DIE.
Your time is over.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:52:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, we'll talk here then...
How's the bass going, brutha? You playin' with anyone right now?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:50:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wish I did brotha.
my work compy doesnt allow for teh messaging services.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:47:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad...add me.
Let's talk about stupid shit for a minute...
Submitted by Some_Type_Of_Super (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:47:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85675
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:45:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad...you got MSN?
electrictoothsyndrome.at.msn.com
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:43:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Adolph Hitler was about to do to their country,
================
all in all, Hitler wasn't really all that bad for germany.
sucked for the rest of the world, but the germans would have been okay if he got what he wanted.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:39:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sistening to this right now: http://electrictoothsyndrome.com/songs/nirvanaproject/breed.mp3
Damn...I should have finished this album...
Maybe soon...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-23 01:37:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-22 20:03:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
you never answered my question...
-------------------
yea....
And fuck you AND your question.
How's that!?!??
I think I've said all I should have to say on this post.
Right now, I'm listening to good music and jerking my fucking cock around my apartment. And I feel like GOD HIMSELF.
How are you going to dissuede me from that?
That's right...you can't.
Good evening uber. I really hope you sleep well.
Good, God, I hope you sleep well...
Submitted by thecaes (user info) at 2006-03-23 00:07:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I just watched a very interesting documentary called "Why We Fight." It's about the American propensity for war and the blurred lines between war and business. I won't go into detail, but one of the most memorable and chilling lines from the movie was:
"The industrial-military complex has become so pervasive that it is almost invisible."
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-03-22 22:45:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Party hearty, rock and roll
Drink a keg, then smoke a bowl
Life's a bitch, and then you die
So fuck this world, and let's get high.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-03-22 22:18:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I always like your posts.
I'd give my two cents but I have a feeling one of the 400+ reviews (which I am WAY too lazy to read) have already hit most of my major points.
It comes down to the fact that war is good business, and any military action on their soil would set them back years if not decades. The ultimate goal I still believe is to keep the whole region destabilised long enough to utilize their resources until they become a non issue, because lets face it, when oil runs out most of the middle east is fucked, especially if they don't follow the lead of Dubai.
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-22 20:49:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"So the best thing to do, if we all value our current lifestyle in any way, is to stop this stupid bickering and convince people that the ENTIRE WORLD would be better off (including Canada) if the Democrats win back the house and senate this fall."
"You know, if the Democrats win back both houses, and can take back the presidency in '08, we MIGHT just come around to rejoining kyoto talks. We MIGHT increase subsidies for solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power - all of which have major players operating in Canada!"
-------------------------
Oh my god ETS, I can't believe you actually said that. There you go trying to force your opinion onto others again. Democrats are not going to save the entire world and they aren't the answer to all of our problems. I agree that our current situation sucks and it's not getting any better. I also agree that the president is a complete moron(he can't even pronounce nuclear!) and I hate him just as much as everyone else in the world. I still can't believe anyone voted for him in the first place. However, I don't think all of the blame for all that is wrong with our country can be placed on one person or one party and I don't think the solution is as simple as you make it seem.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-22 20:18:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
SEE WHAT YOU GUYS DID?
I WARNED YOU.
He thought the point was not yet beaten into the ground, dug out and beaten down again, and so he's started up again.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-22 20:03:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you never answered my question...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:49:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:28:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Its people like you who make people hate the left wing... so you're informed... good on you... now stop patronising those who aren't
----------------------
I didn't know trying to inform people, or give them the tools to inform themselves, was patronising... When did this happen? Did I miss a meeting?
Now THAT was patronizing. Learn the fucking difference.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:48:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:16:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, one more time... """
-- Why one more time? This is the 1st time I say that argument and that you respond to me without shedding tears.
The difference between your pussy-ass Canadian dollar and the greenback is the greenback is the world's premeire reserve currency. If the dollar falls against other currencies, (which our excessive spending is CAUSING), it means that the world's power balance is in jeopardy of tipping...and we all know what happens in situations like that. """
-- Most analysts seem to predict a recession to "correct" this situation. A recession most have been waiting for since 2001. I don't know what you mean by "we all know what happens in situations like that" but I suspect it has something to do with worst-case scenarios, total war and the last chapters of the Bible.
So the best thing to do, if we all value our current lifestyle in any way, is to stop this stupid bickering and convince people that the ENTIRE WORLD would be better off (including Canada) if the Democrats win back the house and senate this fall. """
-- Well...no shit! Everybody outside the United States are still baffled that you voted that clown and his buddies for a second term.
A quick look at the voting record of both the house and senate should tell people where the Republican priorities lie if there's ANY doubt... Go to this site:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm#D
Then choose any issue you think is important. Then look at the voting results for said issue. You can look at exactly who voted for and against any particular legislation. You can get on the internet through google.com and read that legislation in its entirety if there aren't direct links.
Then you can make an INFORMED decision on who should run this country, instead of sticking to party lines. """"
-- I'm not american, dumbass. I can have preferences but I have no say over who should run your country. I have however the opportunity to tell you what I think of you, which is where my problem lies, not necessarily your messages. You're not helping anything by jumping up and down and screaming like a panicking monkey. If you wanna convince the septics, you're gonna have to take a step back and let go of your ego for a minute. I think BadAssJulie was spot on your blatant attitude problem. Try to change that before you ask others for change.
Middle America needs to wake the fuck up and start informing themselves. """
-- Probably. But you need to realize that your attitude and over-the-top conclusions are exactly what makes people further distance themselves from politics.
Caul, you, of all people, should know this. So why keep this up? Why keep trying to knock me down? """
-- Knock you down of your pedestal? Maybe. But I hate your counter-productive fear-mongering caca.
Now cue you saying that you are being a victim of perceptions, not your own behavior. So much for waking the fuck up when you can't even make your own introspections. Anyway...I'm going to the gym. You should do the same. It could help evacuate some of that anxiety.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:38:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:58:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:48:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
Their neighbors were afraid
--------------------------------
Which Neighbors Exactly?
------------------------------------------
You do remember they invaded Kuwait? They were getting ready to go into Saudi.
Saddam was hated among arabs, but it is like when brothers fight, they hate you more for fighting him. An oversimplified analogy, but accurate.
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:28:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Its people like you who make people hate the left wing... so you're informed... good on you... now stop patronising those who aren't you fuck that just makes them NOT want to do what you say
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:28:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
PS: Caul, you could HELP me, you know...instead of bickering with me.
Maybe if we didn't bicker so much and helped each other out, we could share relevant information instead of trying to undercut each other's arguments with completely unrelated topics, like the Canadian dollar.
I just responded to your argument about the Canadian dollar, even though it's not AT ALL relevant to an argument about the American dollar.
Surely you can see how that is only a sidetrack and a distraction, because the two economies are completely different. They are run differently, they have different foreign investors, different budget deficits, different exports, different leadership, different EVERYTHING!
This isn't even a case of apples and oranges, this is a case of apples and sea-tortoises! They're not even in the same FAMILY of fruitiness!
You know, if the Democrats win back both houses, and can take back the presidency in '08, we MIGHT just come around to rejoining kyoto talks. We MIGHT increase subsidies for solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power - all of which have major players operating in Canada!
Most of the North American uranium exploration is in Canada.
Ballard Power Systems, the world's leading manufacturer of Hydrogen Fuel Cells operates in Canada.
Your COUNTRY would benefit from it. The whole fucking WORLD would. But yet, you sit here trying to knock me down... Why? Because you don't like me? Because I upset you somehow?
That's ridiculous, dude.
Don't want to help me? Ok. But can we at least have a little peace here?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:25:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's like a sport. Make the emotionally unstable redneck flip his lid.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:16:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, one more time...
The difference between your pussy-ass Canadian dollar and the greenback is the greenback is the world's premeire reserve currency. If the dollar falls against other currencies, (which our excessive spending is CAUSING), it means that the world's power balance is in jeopardy of tipping...and we all know what happens in situations like that.
So the best thing to do, if we all value our current lifestyle in any way, is to stop this stupid bickering and convince people that the ENTIRE WORLD would be better off (including Canada) if the Democrats win back the house and senate this fall.
A quick look at the voting record of both the house and senate should tell people where the Republican priorities lie if there's ANY doubt...
Go to this site: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm#D
Then choose any issue you think is important. Then look at the voting results for said issue. You can look at exactly who voted for and against any particular legislation. You can get on the internet through google.com and read that legislation in its entirety if there aren't direct links.
Then you can make an INFORMED decision on who should run this country, instead of sticking to party lines.
Middle America needs to wake the fuck up and start informing themselves.
Caul, you, of all people, should know this. So why keep this up? Why keep trying to knock me down?
Submitted by ScottPeterson (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:11:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul wins .
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 19:00:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:58:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, I'm not debating with you anymore. Even when I address every letter of your backward, vapid replies, you say I'm being selective.
So DEAL WITH IT.
===
Yes, actual arguments and past events that disprove your paranoid bullshit are vapid and backward. You are right.
Anything else, my lord?
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:58:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:48:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
Their neighbors were afraid
--------------------------------
Which Neighbors Exactly?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:58:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, I'm not debating with you anymore. Even when I address every letter of your backward, vapid replies, you say I'm being selective.
So DEAL WITH IT.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:54:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How about a Senate resolution to increase the statutory limit on the budget deficit by $800 BILLION???
Republicans - our great proponents of 'small government' - said 'YAY!'.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:49:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
p.s. Thanks for missing the point and stating the obvious and leaving out the majority of my reply with your trademark selective arguing.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:47:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:36:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:07:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
You're not getting poorer because of the devaluating U.S. dollar, your nation's getting poorer because your government is spending like a 13 years old girl in a vintage clothes store.
----------------------------
Obviously you know nothing.
The spending is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR.
---
Yes, I know nothing. You're right. I spent most of my youth in a nation that went through long term currency devalution and deficits. I also worked in bankings and finances for the majority of my still short career...I know nothing of this.
I'm sorry, you own the Truth and I keep forgetting.
This debate is so constructive, I'm gonna let you talk to yourself.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:36:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:07:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
You're not getting poorer because of the devaluating U.S. dollar, your nation's getting poorer because your government is spending like a 13 years old girl in a vintage clothes store.
----------------------------
Obviously you know nothing.
The spending is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:13:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:59:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
If I only cared about myself, I sit around on this website and paste other users' heads on people and write about how much I hate them instead of stimulating debate about the world's problems.
===
You're not stimulating debate. Saying you hold the Truth and cramming your pre-fabricated views down's people throat isn't exactly debate. You want approval or silence. This is obviously about you, not the world's problems.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 18:07:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Look at the devaluation of the American dollar and tell me HOW you're NOT getting poorer every day."""
Will you ever stop blabbering about the devaluation of the U.S. dollar? It's not Armaggadon. Canada withstood a LONG term devaluation during the nineties and we came out all right. In fact, since the our dollar rose in comparison to the U.S. dollar, we had to deal with a lot of plants closure that just couldn't export anymore. Fortunately, it also had its positive effects.
You remind me of the people who panicked in the early nineties when our dollar started plummeting because they thought that the currency was the only indicator of economical health. Next thing you knew, our economy revived.
You're not getting poorer because of the devaluating U.S. dollar, your nation's getting poorer because your government is spending like a 13 years old girl in a vintage clothes store.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:59:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I only cared about myself, I sit around on this website and paste other users' heads on people and write about how much I hate them instead of stimulating debate about the world's problems.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:48:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck off Shlongy. This isn't about you. You obviously only care about your fucking self. """
And you don't?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:43:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've offered a multitude of solutions.
Curb fucking unnecessary spending and get the fuck out of Iraq. Control the budget.
Shlongy, you wouldn't go out onto the golf course and throw hundreds at killing gophers would you? Same concept in government.
The problem is, even with our current deficit, domestic social programs - programs that are DESIGNED to stop the decay of society - a decay that is actually a THREAT to wealth maintenence - are being cut while corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy are also being cut, requiring the poor and middle class to fit more of the bill in the long run.
I'm not saying any of these ideas are 'new' or 'original'...I really don't care if I'm being original.
I'd rather be truthful in these matters than original.
Original in politics...what a stupid fucking notion.
You're a dumbass Shlongy.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:31:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Close.
I also care about 5 or 6 other people, too.
I know I don't care about closet homosexual rants from people with no life experiences to draw on, but with too much time spent on the internet pulling, then plagiarizing pseudo-pop psychobabble and passing it off as their own theories and posing as intellectual deep thinkers with no offers of solution, whether monetarily or by actually GETTING OFF OF THEIR DIRTY, LAZY, SLOVENLY ASSES and...
ah, never mind.
You're just so full of shit it makes MY head hurt.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:28:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, I'm done.
End of outburst.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:22:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:17:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
Having fun mumbling to yourself, ya goddman self-indulgent idiot?
-------------------
Fuck off Shlongy. This isn't about you. You obviously only care about your fucking self.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:21:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Think about something... How far are you in debt? How much do you owe your bank? For your car? For your house?
How much do you owe the credit card company? Because you had to borrow to pay the gas bill? Because you got sick and couldn't afford the healthcare?
How much?
Tell me you're not getting poorer.
Look at the devaluation of the American dollar and tell me HOW you're NOT getting poorer every day.
LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORDS BELOW.
WATCH YOUR SENATORS' ACTIONS!
GO FUCKING VOTE IN NOVEMBER AND TELL THESE MOTHERFUCKERS YOU'RE TIRED OF BEING LIED TO.
YOU'RE TIRED OF HAVING YOUR DOLLARS DEVALUED.
YOU'RE TIRED OF GETTING POORER AND POORER WHILE THE RICH GET RICHER AND RICHER.
YOU'RE TIRED OF PEOPLE THAT SAY ONE THING WHILE DOING QUITE ANOTHER.
These people have 90% incumbent rates! WHY!?!?!
Look at the people who voted against YOU in the Senate, and return the fucking favor in November.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:17:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Having fun mumbling to yourself, ya goddman self-indulgent idiot?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:16:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Increase funding to combat avian flu paid for by requiring tax withholding on government payments to contractors like Halliburton???
And LOWER CHEANEY'S STOCK!?!?!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00055
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:02:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Provide seniors with a simple prescription drug benefit plan that works???
No fucking way! We don't have room in THIS budget for those people! http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00071
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 17:01:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Preventing excessive TRICARE fees and copays for military retirees???
Not in THIS Republican-controlled Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00067
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:59:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Reducing debt by closing corporate tax loopholes??? NO WAY, says Repuclicans: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00064
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:55:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Legislative transparency??? Nope. Not for REPUBLICANS!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00035
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:53:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How about the 'pay-as-you-go' requirement reinstatement that pushed America back into the black in the late 90s? Seems like a good fucking idea, don't it?
Not to Republicans: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00038
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:52:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nor do we give a fuck about veterans: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041
Notice where the Democrats and REpublicans stand on these issues...
LOOK at these fucking pages.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:49:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521
"Like many cash-strapped Americans who have maxed-out credit cards, the federal government has hit its limit for borrowing funds to keep operating. If the limit isn't raised, the government likely will run out of borrowing authority within days, risking a shutdown.
When President Bush took office five years ago, the national debt was at $5.6 trillion; since then, big budget surpluses have collapsed into huge deficits, and the debt has shot up nearly 50 percent."
We can spend Billions on war, but we don't give a fuck about student aid: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00039
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:31:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i find the conclusions that the author of that article draws are provacative and groundbreaking, ets. he tells us to invest intelligently and with caution -- sweet jesus i had no idea. i have no energy to get into this right now, but if i have a mountain of gold in my house, i'm a lot less likely to be able to sell that than if i have a lot full of cars for sale.
realization: ets has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:22:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Paranoia is the language of war, caution is the language of peace. """
You must have a hard-on for war with all the fear-mongering bullshit you've been posting since you're arrival on this website.
Caution worked like a charm for Chamberlain, didn't it?
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:17:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I was a douchebag idiot once too.
Don't worry, one day you'll get over it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:16:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:47:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
The last thing I'm going to say is that I find it quite ironic that all the pro-war people are calling the anti-war people paranoid? Do you forget why you guys want to go to war? WMD that might exist, and might be used against the states. Why the hell would someone use a WMD against the states, do they think that would cripple them? No. it would mean the attacking country would be reduced to rubble in 24 hours and there wouldn't be a single person that would disagree.
------------------------
DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!
Paranoia is the language of war, caution is the language of peace.
Yea, I said that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-22 16:14:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This article sums up the attitude I share, which is...value in paper currencies is directly proportional to the confidence of the people in the government that printed them.
It's no secret that confidence in the U.S. government is fading fast. Therefore, it only stands to reason that the dollar will follow... And it IS.
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/richricher/2987
"The primary reason why I keep my dollars moving is because I'm bearish on the greenback. We have all heard the saying, "The U.S. dollar is backed by the full faith and confidence of the U.S. government." It is unfortunate that faith and confidence in the U.S. government is eroding. I don't believe Americans have the stomach to make the changes that are required to run a fiscally responsible government and save the dollar.
When President George W. Bush attempted to reform Social Security, that proposal was more unpopular with Americans than the Iraq war. People love their entitlements. When Bush pushed the Prescription Drug Benefit plan through, I decided the U.S. dollar is toast. To me, all hope of avoiding financial disaster was gone. The American people have voted.
My concern is that very soon, citizens of the world will tire of America's gross fiscal mismanagement and hesitate to take U.S. dollars. In order to keep the world interested in the greenback, interest rates must rise. When that happens, U.S. assets, especially paper assets such as U.S. stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and savings will drop in value. Some real estate prices will increase because replacement costs are high, but overvalued real estate will drop."
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:48:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:38:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
Wardy, iraq was never a threat. Not even it's neighbors were afriad of it. What were they going to attack us with again?
Also, you don't have to source and opinion.
Any of the number or facts listed in the article are EASILY checkable in a variey or sources.
---------------------------------------------------
1 Their neighbors were afraid, but they would still rather not have infidels protect them from other muslims.
2 http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1895403
The whole post is based off of an imagined conspiracy having to do with the oil boarse, which would only hurt us if the "dollar hegemony" works as Liu said it does.
Read up on him.
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:48:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Disagree with the use of force that is.
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:47:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The last thing I'm going to say is that I find it quite ironic that all the pro-war people are calling the anti-war people paranoid? Do you forget why you guys want to go to war? WMD that might exist, and might be used against the states. Why the hell would someone use a WMD against the states, do they think that would cripple them? No. it would mean the attacking country would be reduced to rubble in 24 hours and there wouldn't be a single person that would disagree.
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:43:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, i can honestly say i understand why people want to go to war with iran. Their leadership is crazy, and they're starting a nuclear program, but what people DON'T realize is that the consequences would be ridiculously huge if americas tries to attack.
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2006-03-22 15:38:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wardy, iraq was never a threat. Not even it's neighbors were afriad of it. What were they going to attack us with again?
Also, you don't have to source and opinion.
Any of the number or facts listed in the article are EASILY checkable in a variey or sources.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-22 13:09:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Thing is, Iran is signing long-term contracts with only a select few countries like China, so the system they choose to put in place with regard to the Euro are only applicable in THOSE sales. They don't have to be adopted by the entire globe to be viable. So, that's fallacy #1.
-----------------------
Unfortunately for your logic, China doesn't have large amounts of euros - what they DO have is large amounts of DOLLARS, due to the 40 billion trade deficit.
It's all moot anyways - the Bourse was supposed to open this Monday, the 20th.
Where is it? Where is the big collapse of the dollar?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-22 11:10:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Now give us an in-depth report on dollar hegemony (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm) and"
Can you name a single major news source that has reported on this?
Do you know the first guy I could find talking about this even in an opinion article? Asia times 2002 in a piece by Henry C K Liu (chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group).
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
I couldn't find much about him. I saw a few quotes from him on a site about a book called "Debunking Economics". http://www.debunking-economics.com/
"Debunking Economics may not delight economic conservatives, but it is certainly necessary. Our hope must be that it will be read by enough people to prompt reform of our economic thinking and save our endangered societies.'
-James Cumes, author of How to Become a Millionaire without really working, and other books
'Particularly useful to those, like myself, who are interested in economics but not formally trained in it. Debunking Economics reveals that neoclassical economic doctrines are faulty not because conditions have changed over time, but because the fundamental assumptions from which such doctrines have been derived are less than self-evident. This book will help create a more informed public so necessary for improving economic policy fromulation in a democratic society.'
-Henry C.K. Liu, Chairman, Liu Investment Group"
I think it is interesting that he has no training in economics, that I can find very little about his investment group, and that his quotes mirror the guy who wrote "How to Become a Millionaire without really working".
So what is really going on here. CNN, BBC, every major newspaper, even fucking Al-Jazeera are covering up this story, or Henry C.K. Liu is a crackpot. I would go with the second one since he isn't trained in economics, has an "investment group" that I can find nothing about, and has quotes next to a guy who writes books about pyramid schemes or other horseshit.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-22 09:22:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
and you will be fully forgiven in my eyes and the eyes of those I speak to on a daily basis about your often irresponsible reporting. """
Jesus, you're fucking nut...what a lame gay ass threat.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-22 05:40:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Folks, please don't make ETS think that this post is still alive.
Seriously.
He needs to make more tinfoil hats.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-22 05:13:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS has always been quite reasonable to me, mad, but reasonable.
His posts are almost always some wierd combination of the blindingly obvious and the completely insane, but I appreciate them for the discourse they bring.
And by discourse I do of course mean web slanging matches where people rely on personal insults and frantic googling to declare themselves victorious.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:43:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
clearly you don't watch the news. somebody at cnn is going to circulate this email and you are going to become an inside joke at cnn over night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet someone on their staff will post it on their blog and, ETS will become quasi-famous.
ETS, can I get your autograph?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:40:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you actually send that to them? Funny if you did. They probably recieve 10,000 emails a day, do you think they read all of them? or even pay someone/s to read them?
What's your next post gonna be on? I wasn't around for the start of this one.
Submitted by NerfHerder (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:35:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I read it all. I knew the vast majority of it already. But still, +2 for attempting to inform the ignorant.
I don't believe I have anything to the argument that hasn't already been added (for this war, or Bush's previous two). But how many wars does it take, George?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:33:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But just as I am capable of visceral criticism, I will be the first to praise progress, and I am pleased to see that Anderson Cooper 360 and CNN in general FINALLY beginning to actively question the war and the rest of the Bush administrations grave missteps.
-----------------
clearly you don't watch the news. somebody at cnn is going to circulate this email and you are going to become an inside joke at cnn over night.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:19:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
An email to CNN and Anderson Cooper:
FINALLY!
You're finally starting to GET IT! America doesn't care about puff pieces right now.
In a time when this president is taking liberties with our liberties and being completely disingenuous on nearly every single issue that crosses his lips, CNN and Anderson Cooper 360 has been camping outside the Entwistle's and driving Natalie Halloway down our collective throats.
I have been a vocal critic of Anderson's show and CNN's ability to accurately and fully cover the relevant news to our day both in daily life and on internet blogs.
But just as I am capable of visceral criticism, I will be the first to praise progress, and I am pleased to see that Anderson Cooper 360 and CNN in general FINALLY beginning to actively question the war and the rest of the Bush administrations grave missteps.
Now give us an in-depth report on dollar hegemony (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm) and how $800 BILLION annual deficit is slowly choking our country, and you will be fully forgiven in my eyes and the eyes of those I speak to on a daily basis about your often irresponsible reporting.
Thank you sincerely.
Brad Linzy
Evansville, Indiana
USA
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 22:19:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:06:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe anyone would say I ignore or outright dismiss arguments.
For Christ's sake, look at all the reviews on this post! Look at how many are mine!
I am doing nothing BUT defending myself and my post and my views while at the same time trying to search the web for a multitude of backup sources, formulate thoughtful answers around them, and at the same time juggle about 15 different replies from 15 different people asking 15 different questions, all of whom want the best, most informed answer they've ever heard even though I am a self-confessed learner in all this too, and they can't even accept the answers I give them OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. --------------------------
doesn't that clue you in on the fact that maybe you are just wrong? just a thought...
--------------------------
If ANYONE questions whether or not I thoughtfully and informatively answer all the questions I am posed, just read the reviews.
--------------------------
informatively? hmmmm... check your sources... no seriously...
--------------------------
...and for Wardy. Your shit is really starting to get old, friend. There is NOWHERE in this post I said ANYTHING to warrant this:
"how many times has ets purported that he is the only one capable of it in this post and the subsequent reviews."
--------------------------
hmmm... maybe it was an overstatement, i guess you could be right. the people that agree with you are also capable of the truth.
--------------------------
It's really about time you guys come off your idea that I am some self-righteous lunatic. I amight be forceful, I might be highly opinionated, and I might be a grade-A asshole to some people that piss me off with their incessant childish asking and RE-asking the same questions I've already completely addressed, but I am not a lunatic.
--------------------------
if you're forceful, highly opinionated, and a grade-A asshole, that sounds pretty self-righteous to me. i don't think it's a far stretch from there to call you a lunatic, but you're the one that said it not me...
--------------------------
I think I'm a pretty reasonable guy to those that are, themselves, reasonable and willing to disagree respectfully. Problem is, VERY FEW of you are...so, predictably, you get ETS, the Rampaging Asshole.
--------------------------
yeah, you're the reasonable one when you go around and -2 posts with your alters and yourself in retaliation...
--------------------------
There are many sides to my personality. Those who have been around a while might remember when it was "ETS-the guy who only posts puzzles". Then it was "ETS-the guy who only posts crappy Nirvana remakes". Then it was "ETS-the sometimes good poster, sometimes emo whiner". Now it's "ETS-the the conspiracy theorist/lunatic extraordinaire".
--------------------------
many different personalities? and you're not a lunatic?
--------------------------
When are you all gonna learn to stop trying to pigeonhole me? Doing so just makes you all look like jackasses when I eventually morph into something else.
--------------------------
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA... morph away, you fucking lunatic...
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 21:54:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Don't hate a playa for bringin' the truth.
That's just busted."
--
--
Huh? Is that Indiana Ebonics?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-21 20:43:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Frequently, ETS stands for Extremely Tenuous Stance, but on this post
he is 100% right. The naysayers just want to get their lick in.
I say, lick this !!!! :) :)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 19:57:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't hate a playa for bringin' the truth.
That's just busted.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-21 19:53:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:06:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
When are you all gonna learn to stop trying to pigeonhole me? Doing so just makes you all look like jackasses when I eventually morph into something else.
------------------------------
Morph? You aren't a fucking power ranger.
People don't hold special internet grudges against you, when you don't post crazy political BS people won't treat your posts like crazy political posts.
You will stop looking like a jackass when you stop posting the "truth".
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 19:48:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:06:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
I am doing nothing BUT defending myself and my post and my views while at the same time trying to search the web for a multitude of backup sources, formulate thoughtful answers around them, and at the same time juggle about 15 different replies from 15 different people asking 15 different questions, all of whom want the best, most informed answer they've ever heard even though I am a self-confessed learner in all this too, and they can't even accept the answers I give them OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
...
There are many sides to my personality.
...
When are you all gonna learn to stop trying to pigeonhole me? Doing so just makes you all look like jackasses when I eventually morph into something else.
==========================================================
This was entirely my point too.
"Open your eyes...look up to the skies and seeeeee...."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 19:18:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
heheheh..
This post kinda reminded me of this: http://www.ubersite.com/m/68839
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-21 18:06:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jesus christ ETS, your name alone causes heat.
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:59:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:26:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
BadAssJulie gets "best reply to ETS" EVER!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh, just pointing out the obvious. I just about fell over and died when I read this though:
"DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE TRUTH OR I SHALL SMITE YOU WITH MY INTERNET POWERS! THE PETRO-DOLLARS ARE COMING TO RAPE YOUR FIRST-BORN!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:57:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:50:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right...10 minutes is just TOO LONG to wait for a reply from someone who is at work at the time. I gave you a few different possible answers on the EU issue. Any of which could easily explain why they're doing what they're doing. """
-- I recall that you replied to all sorts of arguments while I kept reitarating mine (which I had used on another one of your post already where you ignored it too). And it took a little more than an hour. And you're an Internet Support Technician, so who cares if you're at work. But that's only one example and I don't want to get into one of your tedious argument where you play on words in order to save face. Many times I've seen you delibaratingly ignore valid arguments and that is a fact. End of story.
From now on, I'm at your beckon-Caul.
*rolls eyes* """
You are my beacon!?! ENLIGHTEN ME!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:50:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right...10 minutes is just TOO LONG to wait for a reply from someone who is at work at the time. I gave you a few different possible answers on the EU issue. Any of which could easily explain why they're doing what they're doing.
From now on, I'm at your beckon-Caul.
*rolls eyes*
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:38:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not once have you ever stand down even though your "theories" have been disproved, if not outright ridiculed. The only arguments you respond to are the ones you can refute with Internet "sources". The rest you ignore or attack the author. It took me ten times before you finally answered my argument about the EU, in a rather poorly way I might add.
-------
I feel obligated to state that ETS has backed off on a couple of his theories when given knowledgable rebuttles, although the second part of that statement holds some truth.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:32:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There are many sides to my personality. Those who have been around a while might remember when it was "ETS-the guy who only posts puzzles". Then it was "ETS-the guy who only posts crappy Nirvana remakes". Then it was "ETS-the sometimes good poster, sometimes emo whiner". Now it's "ETS-the the conspiracy theorist/lunatic extraordinaire".
-----
I prefer "ETS, the Rampaging Asshole" myself
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:26:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
BadAssJulie gets "best reply to ETS" EVER!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:24:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It's really about time you guys come off your idea that I am some self-righteous lunatic"""
You've painted yourself in a corner a long long time ago. What can we do!?
I think I'm a pretty reasonable guy to those that are, themselves, reasonable and willing to disagree respectfully. """
Not once have you ever stand down even though your "theories" have been disproved, if not outright ridiculed. The only arguments you respond to are the ones you can refute with Internet "sources". The rest you ignore or attack the author. It took me ten times before you finally answered my argument about the EU, in a rather poorly way I might add.
You're a crazy person ETS and eventually you will realize it.
Until then, keep entertaining us, petit sot! :-)
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:21:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:29:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
"DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE TRUTH OR I SHALL SMITE YOU WITH MY INTERNET POWERS! THE PETRO-DOLLARS ARE COMING TO RAPE YOUR FIRST-BORN!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
===============
hahahahah
Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:19:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this.
ETS- Before you get your panties twisted in a bigger knot than they're already in, I'll say I don't hate you. I don't like or dislike you but I almost feel sorry for you because you're so incredibly paranoid that you probably can't sleep at night. Now, I'm going to give you a little advice. Maybe if you 1)would do actual research(by this I mean looking up info from reputable sources that both supports and contradicts your ideas) before jumping to the conclusion that the world is ending for some reason or another, 2)didn't try to force your OPINION onto others, 3)didn't claim that your opinions are facts and absolute truths, 4)weren't such an immature, arrogant, self-righteous prick who throws a hissy fit anytime someone disagrees with you and/or points out the flaws in your "truths," people would actually take the things you have to say into consideration.
You think you're an advocate of truth? Well, here are a few truths for you:
- The whole world is not out to get you.
- Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's a personal attack(this is especially true of people on the internet who don't even know you).
- More than likely the world is not coming to an end and even if it is, there's nothing you or any one person can do to stop it.
- You can't believe everything you read or see.
- You're just one guy sitting at a desk in the middle of nowhere. You're not helping anyone or any of your causes, especially with the way you present your ideas and act like such an ass when defending them. If anything, you're only pushing people away from accepting your "truths."
- If anyone was really interrested in any of this bullshit that you put out, they could look it up themselves the same way you did and come to their own conclusions.
Caul said "Next thing we know, he'll be on a street corner, screaming about the apocalypse in a microphone."
Well, you already are one of these lunatics. The only difference is you're the lunatic with internet access so you use that as your microphone.
There, now you can go ahead and start retaliating with your pathetic -2 bullshit like you always do.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 17:06:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe anyone would say I ignore or outright dismiss arguments.
For Christ's sake, look at all the reviews on this post! Look at how many are mine!
I am doing nothing BUT defending myself and my post and my views while at the same time trying to search the web for a multitude of backup sources, formulate thoughtful answers around them, and at the same time juggle about 15 different replies from 15 different people asking 15 different questions, all of whom want the best, most informed answer they've ever heard even though I am a self-confessed learner in all this too, and they can't even accept the answers I give them OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
If ANYONE questions whether or not I thoughtfully and informatively answer all the questions I am posed, just read the reviews.
...and for Wardy. Your shit is really starting to get old, friend. There is NOWHERE in this post I said ANYTHING to warrant this:
"how many times has ets purported that he is the only one capable of it in this post and the subsequent reviews."
It's really about time you guys come off your idea that I am some self-righteous lunatic. I amight be forceful, I might be highly opinionated, and I might be a grade-A asshole to some people that piss me off with their incessant childish asking and RE-asking the same questions I've already completely addressed, but I am not a lunatic.
I think I'm a pretty reasonable guy to those that are, themselves, reasonable and willing to disagree respectfully. Problem is, VERY FEW of you are...so, predictably, you get ETS, the Rampaging Asshole.
There are many sides to my personality. Those who have been around a while might remember when it was "ETS-the guy who only posts puzzles". Then it was "ETS-the guy who only posts crappy Nirvana remakes". Then it was "ETS-the sometimes good poster, sometimes emo whiner". Now it's "ETS-the the conspiracy theorist/lunatic extraordinaire".
When are you all gonna learn to stop trying to pigeonhole me? Doing so just makes you all look like jackasses when I eventually morph into something else.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:41:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:29:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
"DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE TRUTH OR I SHALL SMITE YOU WITH MY INTERNET POWERS! THE PETRO-DOLLARS ARE COMING TO RAPE YOUR FIRST-BORN!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Everything else we've said set aside, that was fucking HILARIOUS, Caul!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:29:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:02:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
In my humble opinion, he's no more unreasonable than any of us. Look at all the shit going on with the damn poetry contest, for example, and how unreasonable some of THOSE arguments have been."""
-- You must be kidding. His retaliation in everybody's user account and rather troubling uncontrollable fits don't sound like someone reasonable to me. But most importantly, believing everything you read on the Internet and extrapolating it to ridiculous levels does NOT make you a reasonable person.
I can't say I agree that he "bullies" people. He's standing up for what he believes in. Maybe it is truth/fact and maybe it isn't, but at least he isn't conforming to the mob mentality. I for one admire that characteristic of Brad. Not once has he ever said, to my knowledge or search capabilities, that anyone MUST conform to his beliefs/politics or else he'd go apeshit on them."""
-- Can you explain why he ignores or dismisses the myriads of very valid counter-arguments that he is constantly flooded with? I don't know about you, but saying you own the utlimate Truth and telling others who disagree with you that they are sheep and that you're above them sound is cramming your opinion down people's throat in my book.
I just know that I would much rather see an attempt at an educational, informative, and hopefully well-researched post that sparks controversy, or an original story, as opposed to the usual photoshop or garbage normally in abundance on Uber."""
-- I don't mind his posts...even though they mostly consist of sketchy Internet "facts" poorly linked together which usually result in bizarre conclusions (which are contradicted within seconds) that all lead to apocalyptic scenarios. What used to bother me (now I just find it hilarious) is not the message, it's messenger.
I know I'm only throwing oil on the fire but our friend conniptions here are just like fireworks, just when you thought you saw the biggest bang *BOOM* there goes a bigger one. Seeing that he is getting crazier by the minute, I can't wait for his final emotional outburst.
"DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE TRUTH OR I SHALL SMITE YOU WITH MY INTERNET POWERS! THE PETRO-DOLLARS ARE COMING TO RAPE YOUR FIRST-BORN!!! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:27:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Tell that to Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He gave a speech on exactly the same thing on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
---
I don't care if my mom said it. It's still just a conspiracy theory.
Doesn't it make more sense to say that we will go after Iran because they are enriching(sp) Uranium and won't let anyone see what for? Or because their Elected Dictator(Oxymoron) has vehemently expressed his hatred for Israel/The West. Or that Iran has missiles capable of reaching Europe? Or, how about the fact that they hid their efforts from the IAEA for 18 years.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran27feb27,1,5360456.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:16:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
thorns -- hit CTRL+F and type in the word "truth" -- how many times has ets purported that he is the only one capable of it in this post and the subsequent reviews. then do "sheep" -- i think that comes up a few times, can't really remember though... goddamn i'm bored...
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:05:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i sincerely doubt it.
the culture he gets there is a night out at Taco Bell.
but, in a state where evrybody is a nobody, you cant really blame him for trying to be somebody.
his view of somebody is twisted like a tornado though.
but hey, Indiana did produce Michael Jackson, and he's made himself into something.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:02:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:43:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Or I could just be stirring shit amongst you naysayers (wardy, ninja, Caul)...guess you'll never know...
===
I'm not saying yea or nay to anything. I just don't like people who can't get over themselves, that want to bully people into agreeing with them and can't think objectively. Bradley here as one hell of a severe case of inflated ego. Do you even read his replies? Does that look like someone reasonable to you?
=============================================
In my humble opinion, he's no more unreasonable than any of us. Look at all the shit going on with the damn poetry contest, for example, and how unreasonable some of THOSE arguments have been.
I can't say I agree that he "bullies" people. He's standing up for what he believes in. Maybe it is truth/fact and maybe it isn't, but at least he isn't conforming to the mob mentality. I for one admire that characteristic of Brad. Not once has he ever said, to my knowledge or search capabilities, that anyone MUST conform to his beliefs/politics or else he'd go apeshit on them.
I just know that I would much rather see an attempt at an educational, informative, and hopefully well-researched post that sparks controversy, or an original story, as opposed to the usual photoshop or garbage normally in abundance on Uber.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 16:01:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:28:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i had friends that moved to indiana for their work. they said it is the most boring, arm pit city in america.
===
Yeah, I bet Indiana really is a hotbed of culture and a window to the world.
I wonder if he ever lived elsewhere.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:43:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
good. I'm from boston anyway. but the wizzard of oz is the best!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:43:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Or I could just be stirring shit amongst you naysayers (wardy, ninja, Caul)...guess you'll never know...
===
I'm not saying yea or nay to anything. I just don't like people who can't get over themselves, that want to bully people into agreeing with them and can't think objectively. Bradley here as one hell of a severe case of inflated ego. Do you even read his replies? Does that look like someone reasonable to you?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:42:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ahahahahahahahah. That little outburst brightened my day a little.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:40:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'M FROM KANSAS! WTF IS WRONG WITH KANSAS? YOU NEVER SEE INDIANA IN ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES EVER!!!
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:38:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They've obviously never had the misfortune of visiting Kansas.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:37:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
oops. anyways, it is the most baron state in the country.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:35:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:28:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
i had friends that moved to indiana for their work. they said it is the most boring, arm pit city in america.
===
You realise that Indiana isn't a city, right?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:35:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:21:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
Caul you are just jealous, he is the peoples poet!
===
Actually, I'm appointing ETS as the new I_Have_A_Kristen_Fetish. He might not have borderline child molesting tendencies (though one never knows), but there is so much material to laugh at to compensate.
What's great is that the less people take him seriously, the more prophetical and flippant he gets. I say we're up for some serious entertainment as Bradley here continues sinking deeper into mental illness. Next thing we know, he'll be on a street corner, screaming about the apocalypse in a microphone.
Keep it up ETS! :-)
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:28:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
P.S. I am not an alter.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:28:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i had friends that moved to indiana for their work. they said it is the most boring, arm pit city in america. ets is a product of that.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:26:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or I could just be stirring shit amongst you naysayers (wardy, ninja, Caul)...guess you'll never know...
MUAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:24:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:53:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Are they gonna print it?
---------------------------
Like I said...they printed an editorialized version. Check your e-mail and I'll fill you in.
(I'm not about to disclose the newspaper here on Uber lest all you jokers know my real name. We KNOW what happened to Jeff, um I mean Shlongy, when his personal info got out.)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:21:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:00:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:53:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Are they gonna print it?
===
See what I told CaptainThorns? He's already excited. If you say yes he'll parade in his pijamas in his parent's basements, listening to the Gladiator sountrack...imagining himself leading troops to Washington.
"Men!! What you do on the Internet...echoes in eternity! EMO VICTOOOOOOOOOOOR!"
-------------------------
Caul you are just jealous, he is the peoples poet!
You thought you could stop the truth, but I say nay, NAY! the truth will be heard.
This is only the beginning, first in Capt Thorny's highschool paper, then to the papers of the world.
Well at least until they realize that this is largely cut and pasted from some political blog.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:14:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:06:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, you really shouldn't link to Blogs to prove anything. Just look at this guys bio...he's wackier than you. It's really hard to say this isn't biased when the author openly admits he's a political activist.
Was this supposed to be informative, or just your opinion?
I hope it was your opinion. The information was rank.
-----------------
Tell that to Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He gave a speech on exactly the same thing on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:09:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:00:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:53:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Are they gonna print it?
===
See what I told CaptainThorns? He's already excited. If you say yes he'll parade in his pijamas in his parent's basements, listening to the Gladiator sountrack...imagining himself leading troops to Washington.
"Men!! What you do on the Internet...echoes in eternity! EMO VICTOOOOOOOOOOOR!"
---------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:06:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
John
Location:Hebburn, Tyne & Wear, United Kingdom
Full-time political activist (Revolutionary Socialist, writer, film-maker) heavily involved with the politics of the SPGB, the oldest socialist organisation in Britain.
ETS, you really shouldn't link to Blogs to prove anything. Just look at this guys bio...he's wackier than you. It's really hard to say this isn't biased when the author openly admits he's a political activist.
Was this supposed to be informative, or just your opinion?
I hope it was your opinion. The information was rank.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 15:00:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:53:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Are they gonna print it?
===
See what I told CaptainThorns? He's already excited. If you say yes he'll parade in his pijamas in his parent's basements, listening to the Gladiator sountrack...imagining himself leading troops to Washington.
"Men!! What you do on the Internet...echoes in eternity! EMO VICTOOOOOOOOOOOR!"
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:58:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:48:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
I sent a condensed version of this to my local newspaper - and of course they saw fit to editorialize the article prior to publication, leaving out the anti-Bush statements.
Corrupt media at its finest.
------------------------------
what part of this is getting published? i'd also like to know what local newspaper you are talking about so that i can send them a letter on what constitutes yellow journalism.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:55:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Smoke another pole.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:53:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Are they gonna print it?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:52:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:48:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
I sent a condensed version of this to my local newspaper - and of course they saw fit to editorialize the article prior to publication, leaving out the anti-Bush statements.
Corrupt media at its finest.
===
ETS already sees himself as a prophet even though he's just some loser in the the middle of nowhere with no future to look up to. Imagine how will see himself if you tell him that his "Truth" is being dispatched to local papers by Internet minions...he will think he's fucking God.
You shouldn't have said that.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-21 14:48:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I sent a condensed version of this to my local newspaper - and of course they saw fit to editorialize the article prior to publication, leaving out the anti-Bush statements.
Corrupt media at its finest.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-21 13:30:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:32:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Here is your daily dose of truth"
You earned your -2 right there, you sanctimonious fucking goober.
You know what? I DO agree with you on 99% of what you present, but the WAY you present it makes me fucking despise you and totally turns me off to whatever you're trying to convey. Maybe if you didn't try to forcefeed this shit down everyone's throat, you'd be a little more well-received, did you ever think of that? Your arrogant manner of presenting your material would make even Saddam Hussein jump right into bed with Bush and embrace "democracy". Who the fuck do you think you are to tell US what the truth is?
Idiot
===================================================
This was a funny review.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-03-21 12:28:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't understand how this can have a negative rating.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2006-03-21 11:26:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
It's like being lectured by Michael Moore's hipper younger brother.
If there had been an interval for me to grab a beer and get a blowjob then this would have been worth the fifteen minutes I wasted on it.
Anybody who loves me will not see me write a cleverer line than that last one.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-21 10:15:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the EU cannot put themselves in a position to draw the ire of the U.S. unless the benefits were a certainty. """
The EU has put themselves in that position in the war in Iraq.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:57:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bah, weird time zones, its 10 AM here.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:50:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
indeed. but i'm going to bed. this discussion can wait for another day.
sweet.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:31:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wouldn't say its in the shitter, but I would say its bad, I guess any definition of what is 'bad' is only opinion really.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:30:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And I don't agree with all that fancy shit ETS, a dollar is worth what you can get for it, which was about 60P last I heard, or half a bigmac.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:29:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
GAH!
STOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPITSTOPIT
You guys are making the baby cry, the laundry hasn't been done yet, and the Mhendelson's will be here in 45 minutes for dinner!
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:27:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i was making fun of ets' comment in regards to the 20-30% of nothing, woody.
as far as the u.s. economy being in the shitter, i'm still going to disagree. but you're probably not going to change my views on that, so whatever.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:15:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay I've changed my mind.
Wardy, you don't understand shit about economics. I can't be bothered to go through everything but basically most of what you said is stupid and/or wrong.
20-30% of nothing?
7% of nothing?
You idiot.
And yes America does have a bad economy. Like you said, we've been over this.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-21 04:12:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a lot of really really bad economics going on here, but I'm staying out of it, I've proved my point. I think.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-03-21 02:08:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
thank god somebody has it all figured out.
ets, please cure cancer next.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 01:11:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1893004 -- but okay, fine. you win. good show. our world is fucked, you got me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-21 00:47:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You haven't refuted a single thing. You just think you have.
Fact is, I have answered every single one of your questions on this post nad then some. There is enough information in the links from this post to educate an entire army of budding economists, and still you're not satified. I don't know what to do other than encourage you to enroll in an economics class and bring this stuff up with the professor. Maybe he'll have better luck than I have.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-21 00:27:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
we don't have a point...? hmmm... okay, was that because we've been able to refute every point you've made? does that mean we don't have a point?
good work, watson. this house is clear.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-21 00:16:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I understand, Wardy.
Zealots make for great conversation starters.
Sadly, they know nothing of conversation enders...
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2006-03-21 00:07:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
if ignorance is bliss, then wipe the smile off my face
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 23:52:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Children.
You can not make the other see your point.
It is hopeless.
Read a comic book or something.
----------------------
Well, it doesn't help when the other side doesn't have a point.
REgardless, you're right. I'm done trying to convince the likes of wardy and indoninja. This wasn't for them anyway.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 23:31:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
jay -- i've been bored for the last day because we just got back from spring break so i haven't had any school work to occupy me. it's okay, i'm pretty much done here on this thing... although i said that before... it's just that it's so addicting because... ahhh... it's like crack, goddammit...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 23:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 22:17:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
--------
Seriously now, you know it's bad when the reviews are over 200 times longer than the post itself.
Children.
You can not make the other see your point.
It is hopeless.
Read a comic book or something.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 23:09:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
indo is right. a gold backed dollar is just as arbitrary as having shoelaces back the dollar. what it all comes down to is that we now base the dollar and other currencies on the strength of our economies. and seriously, don't give me some bullshit about having a bad economy. we've already gone over this, and while our economy might not be the best it's been, it's still a far cry from anything near unstable or weak. we are facing a world market with a strong euro because their economy is based on the strength of some eleven countries or whatever it is. yeah, it's tough to keep pace with the eu, but somehow we manage to be doing it. the fact that we're outsourcing more jobs then, of course doesn't mean anything because that means that there is industry growth, which increases stock values... which would mean a boost in the economy.
holy shit, a boost in the economy? that might get our dollar up 7% or something... although we're still fucked because it's 7% of zero, so i have no idea how we're getting out of that hole, but i'll talk to some people and figure that out.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 21:56:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Look dude, you asked me a question and I gave two different answers from two completely different points of view, both of which answer your question as to why the EU might side with the US on the issue of Iran. --- right... and this is what we've been telling you all along is happening, so i don't see how this helps you... but whatever....
The economics of hegemony is highly complex and strikes right at the core of the monetary system itself. The only thing that could possibly solve the problem would be, unfortunately, a war the size of which the world has never known - big enough to bring civilization back to a point where goods are exchanged for goods or services directly without a middle man. ------ well, i'm very grateful that you think that once again you are the one capable of teaching me the ways of this complex system. i haven't had an econ course in a few years, but i guarantee you i still have more knowledge of the system, based soley on the statements you made regarding the gold-backed dollar (see above).
Right now, the US people are living like the lazy guy on the couch who muches all your food and smokes all your weed and doesn't have a real job to speak of... For god sake, man, we're running up annual deficits approaching the TRILLION dollar range... ------ hmmmm... yeah, it sucks that we have such a high standard of living in this country. fucking hell, i don't know what i'm going to do but get real angry now. tell me again how you sit on the internet for ten hours a day during work and research shit you still have no clue what you're talking about -- that part was fun. but indications are that the economy is improving steadily (see some review i had earlier, i linked some stuff that you probably neglected.) yeah, deficits aren't desirable, we've made it so far without the sky falling. but let me move on.
The current state cannot continue. The only thing that can solve it is the only thing that's propped it up from the beginning...war. Well, that, or bringing our budget under control and starting to contribute our fair share to the world instead of stealing the wealth, resources, and labor from poorer nations or nations under oppressive regimes. ----- thanks for telling us that our current state cannot continue. we are all well aware of the increased budget, but there a lot of reasons for budget increases, not just the defense spending. medicare/medicaid for an ever growing population, along with social security spending, katrina (not positive this is in the budget, but not sure where else it would be), the tsunami in southeast asia, welfare spending, other humanitarian aid, etc. so yeah, we could cut defense spending, but believe it or not that cuts jobs either in the private sector, or would require the release of paid military servicemen and women. so now they unemployment rate goes up. hooray. the budget isn't, ets. if it was, my crazy uncle bill would have taken care of it while he scooped handfuls of cheese out of a bucket. believe it or not, ets. believe it or not.
That is the truth. But that is not the truth anyone wants to hear or believe. --- i think i've just outlined the truth that you refuse to hear or believe. correct me if i'm wrong here, but i don't think i am.
also, from now on don't give me any links of your sources. i refuse to click on anymore of your useless crap that apparently has nothing more to tell me other than what crazy uncle bill has already taken care of.
your love,
wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 22:50:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 22:04:46 (#)
Ranking: -2
Actually you gave three different answers. Non of which really stand up to any real thought. For your last one of the EU just warning Iran so their plan goes into effect, once again ask yourself why China is not on the same page as them?
-------------------------
No, in my last one I said that it is in the EU's best interest to encourage Iran to step down from its uranium enrichment stance and take Russia's offer. That is really in EVERYONE's best interest in the long run, including the EU, China, Russia, the US, AND Iran itself. Here's why:
EU: EU benefits from Iran cooling it on the uranium because the oil boarse WILL go through, China will buy all their Iranian oil in euros, and so will the EU countries that buy from Iran. This will hold up a potential reserve status for the Euro.
China: It's certainly in China's best interest Iran cools it, because they are the last country that wants UN sanctions imposed on all that oil. Oil they desperately need to keep their economy's growth.
Russia: Russia gets the benefit of producing enriched uranium for Iran, and will get to sell it back to them, plus they will also secure their oil interests there.
United States: The US is torn really. The US doesn't want Iran to have the potential to nuke Israel or give it the power of mutually assured destruction ALL 5 MEMBERS of the UN Security Council enjoy. On the other hand, this oil boarse, many say, including Republican Congressman Ron Paul in his speech, is going to force our hand no matter what Iran does in terms of uranium enrichment, therefore, it might be in our best interests in terms of worldwide approval of an invasion if Iran continues enrichment...but to complicate matters further, if China can't get its oil from Iran, the prices of goods in this country - and around the world - will skyrocket. Not to mention the fact that we're still currently bogged down in a war in Iraq.
Iran: I'm not going to speculate too much on why Iran is insisting on continuing enrichment, but it's pretty easy to conclude that they want the bomb. I'm not disputing that, nor am I disputing it's more than enough legitimate reason to do something about Iran, but Iranians are a proud people with a strong military and a difficult terrain in which to fight a war. No one wants to fight Iran in a ground war there - hence the reason, I believe, for Bush's commission of a bunker-busting nuclear bomb. Problem is, that kind of attack on a country, even with its low kilotonnage, is going to severely blur the lines between conventional and nuclear warfare and would set a dangerous precedent not only for an Iranian conflict, but for any future conflict as well.
In short, there are no easy answers. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In my view, it's probably the most pressing thing going on in the world right now, other than climate concerns.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 22:17:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 22:04:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Actually you gave three different answers. Non of which really stand up to any real thought. For your last one of the EU just warning Iran so their plan goes into effect, once again ask yourself why China is not on the same page as them?
"The economics of hegemony is highly complex and strikes right at the core of the monetary system itself. The only thing that could possibly solve the problem would be, unfortunately, a war the size of which the world has never known - big enough to bring civilization back to a point where goods are exchanged for goods or services directly without a middle man."
I thought the oil bourse would do that?
In reality, it won't hurt the dollar that much, end of story.
Quit fucking harping on the dollar being worth nothing, no currency is really worth anything, but if it gets to the point where you can't get anything for it you will have bigger concerns than what is going on in Iran.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 21:56:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Look dude, you asked me a question and I gave two different answers from two completely different points of view, both of which answer your question as to why the EU might side with the US on the issue of Iran.
The economics of hegemony is highly complex and strikes right at the core of the monetary system itself. The only thing that could possibly solve the problem would be, unfortunately, a war the size of which the world has never known - big enough to bring civilization back to a point where goods are exchanged for goods or services directly without a middle man.
Right now, the US people are living like the lazy guy on the couch who muches all your food and smokes all your weed and doesn't have a real job to speak of... For god sake, man, we're running up annual deficits approaching the TRILLION dollar range...
The current state cannot continue. The only thing that can solve it is the only thing that's propped it up from the beginning...war. Well, that, or bringing our budget under control and starting to contribute our fair share to the world instead of stealing the wealth, resources, and labor from poorer nations or nations under oppressive regimes.
That is the truth. But that is not the truth anyone wants to hear or believe.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 21:19:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:50:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Think about it in these terms...
If the EU can simply help convince Iran to cool it on the nuclear front, the boarse should go through without a hitch, because the U.S. would then have no 'official' reason to attack them.
If they could help convince Iran to let the IAEA inspectors back in, and would agree to Russia's offer, they WOULD come out ahead!
That seems simple enough, right?
---------------------
I noticed neither of you touched this review.
----------------------------------------
As for the worth of the dollar, does any cuountry have a reserve of gold they will trade for their currency?
Why touch this review? It refutes your earlier point #1 where you say that the EU doesn't want the boarse because it would hurt their economy. Or maybe because it refutes your point #2 where you admit that Iran as a nuclear power would be a threat to the EU. Or maybe because it is pure conjecture with no fact to back it up.
This is why I don't like to argue with you. You make no sense. You can't stick with a particular point.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:50:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:30:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:21:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
Europe doesn't care about Iran's oil Bourse otherwise they wouldn't be calling on Iran to behave when it comes to its nuclear energy policies.
-------------------
Think about it in these terms...
If the EU can simply help convince Iran to cool it on the nuclear front, the boarse should go through without a hitch, because the U.S. would then have no 'official' reason to attack them.
If they could help convince Iran to let the IAEA inspectors back in, and would agree to Russia's offer, they WOULD come out ahead!
That seems simple enough, right?
---------------------
I noticed neither of you touched this review.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:45:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
---- so basically our money has not been worth shit for the last 35 years? sweet jesus in a tube top, that has to be the most ridiculous, unfounded statement ever uttered other than the time i said my penis was shaped like a hammer. and a 20-30% collapse on the dollar? you know what i can pull out of my ass?
----------------------
"so basically our money has not been worth shit for the last 35 years?"
That's PRECISELY what I'm saying. And I'm not alone... It's commonly referred to as 'dollar hegemony'.
Rep. Ron Paul (R)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
"The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was said to be "as good as gold," and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.
The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.
It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.
Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread."
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dollar_hegemony
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dollar_hegemony
http://middleeastinfo.org/article4398.html
And just for you...http://money.howstuffworks.com/currency7.htm
20-30% is reflective of the amount of dollars countries must keep in reserve, thereby investing their own currency in exchange, to purchase their country's oil needs. Every barrel of oil purchased in the world must be done with dollars under the current system.
Speaking of credible sources... Read this article in The Economist: http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446249
In case you didn't know, The Economist is read by more billionaires than any other publication, according to NPR.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:24:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:12:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
I BEAT INDO! I BEAT INDO! I BEAT INDO!!!!!!
-------------------------
Damn you wardy, damn you to hell!
You will regret this day!
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:12:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I BEAT INDO! I BEAT INDO! I BEAT INDO!!!!!!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 20:06:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS-
"1: The EU countries have massive amounts invested in the U.S. economy and private investors throughout Europe invest in the U.S. dollar as a hedge. The world economy is dependent on the stability of the dollar. Even though there is nothing propping up the dollar, and it really hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on since 1971, it is nonetheless a stabilizing force in terms of world currency exchange. So, in the end, any benefits to the EU as a result of the deal could be erased when you consider the effect the dollar's 20-30% collapse could bring."
-This is a terrible argument. China is in the exact same boat as Europe when it comes to America's economy. If it falls so does China's. How do you think their economy is growing so fast? The US buying all their crap. If they really thought the Oil Bourse was such a threat they wouldn't go along with it. China is honky dory with Iran having nukes because they have no beef with each other, and they know that US and Europe will stop it and they will still be on good terms with Iran.
"2: The EU cannot afford to posture themselves as being equated and aligned, at least not officially, with a country considered a rougue state and a harbor of terrorism, particlarly not when that same country could be a military threat on a nuclear scale. It is more important for EU countries' security to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and having that level of power in international dealings. Being second fiddle to the U.S. in terms of world power, the EU cannot put themselves in a position to draw the ire of the U.S. unless the benefits were a certainty."
-Did you read this? It pretty much wipes out your argument. The article you pasted pretty much stated that Iran is not a real military threat, but here you are saying that EU sees them as a threat. You can't say you think the effect of the Bourse is certain and the real reason for concern over Iran in one breath, and in the next say that europe is actually afraid of them getting nukes and not sure about the effect of the Bourse.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:56:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:23:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, Indo:
Why isn't the EU actively participating in siding with Iran on this issue...
*cracks knuckles*
I've thought about this a lot too, because, you're right, at first glance it would seem to blow a hole in this theory. But there are several reasons the EU cannot take this course of action even if it would be a boost for their monetary system.
1: The EU countries have massive amounts invested in the U.S. economy and private investors throughout Europe invest in the U.S. dollar as a hedge. The world economy is dependent on the stability of the dollar. Even though there is nothing propping up the dollar, and it really hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on since 1971, it is nonetheless a stabilizing force in terms of world currency exchange. So, in the end, any benefits to the EU as a result of the deal could be erased when you consider the effect the dollar's 20-30% collapse could bring.
---- so basically our money has not been worth shit for the last 35 years? sweet jesus in a tube top, that has to be the most ridiculous, unfounded statement ever uttered other than the time i said my penis was shaped like a hammer. and a 20-30% collapse on the dollar? you know what i can pull out of my ass? a paper weight and finger nail that must've broken off... *sniff*... fuck, like a week ago? shit. okay, so let me get this straight though, the world economy is dependent on the stabillity of the dollar, but the dollar has no value supporting it and could drop 20-30% more from zero. well fuck, we're really fucked. not only are we going to somehow have to figure out how to get 20-30% of zero, but fuck the rest of the world and their retard economic tactics of trusting our worthless dollar. i just don't know what they were thinking, bunch of stupids. ----
2: The EU cannot afford to posture themselves as being equated and aligned, at least not officially, with a country considered a rougue state and a harbor of terrorism, particlarly not when that same country could be a military threat on a nuclear scale. It is more important for EU countries' security to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and having that level of power in international dealings. Being second fiddle to the U.S. in terms of world power, the EU cannot put themselves in a position to draw the ire of the U.S. unless the benefits were a certainty.
----- okay, so the eu you say wants to be aligned with iran's interest, but yet they won't because you say that they couldn't afford to. Hmm. That really sucks to be in that position, huh. i mean, besides me randomly capitalizing sentences and words, the eu is really in a shit kicker of a spot right now, huh? i mean, you say they want to align with iran, but you also argue that they want to help the u.s. in diplomatic talks to help curb nuclear proliferation.
basically all you did in these two statements was confirm what everyone has been trying to tell you. the u.s. and the eu are trying to resolve things diplomatically and that the u.s. dollar will remain instead of a crossover to the euro. man, but the world really is fucked, huh. ----
Who knows if the EU is secretly hoping the deal goes through. The fact remains, they certainly can't afford to appear to be helping it along right now. -- maybe that's because they aren't? i don't know. maybe i'm gullible, but when i see a government setting forth diplomatic policy with other countries, i generally don't think their motives are backhanded, especially not one of our strongest allies.
hooray for ets maybe getting it now?
wardy.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:45:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
This is still going?
Seriously, this is what it sounds like now.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:32:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Either way...
This is a complex issue, and the repercussions for the EU in all this have positives and negatives on both sides, so they won't want to rock the boat too much.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:30:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:21:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
Europe doesn't care about Iran's oil Bourse otherwise they wouldn't be calling on Iran to behave when it comes to its nuclear energy policies.
-------------------
Think about it in these terms...
If the EU can simply help convince Iran to cool it on the nuclear front, the boarse should go through without a hitch, because the U.S. would then have no 'official' reason to attack them.
If they could help convince Iran to let the IAEA inspectors back in, and would agree to Russia's offer, they WOULD come out ahead!
That seems simple enough, right?
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:27:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wait, where's Rad? He's a member of the ACLU, right?
Right???
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 19:23:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, Indo:
Why isn't the EU actively participating in siding with Iran on this issue...
*cracks knuckles*
I've thought about this a lot too, because, you're right, at first glance it would seem to blow a hole in this theory. But there are several reasons the EU cannot take this course of action even if it would be a boost for their monetary system.
1: The EU countries have massive amounts invested in the U.S. economy and private investors throughout Europe invest in the U.S. dollar as a hedge. The world economy is dependent on the stability of the dollar. Even though there is nothing propping up the dollar, and it really hasn't been worth the paper it's printed on since 1971, it is nonetheless a stabilizing force in terms of world currency exchange. So, in the end, any benefits to the EU as a result of the deal could be erased when you consider the effect the dollar's 20-30% collapse could bring.
2: The EU cannot afford to posture themselves as being equated and aligned, at least not officially, with a country considered a rougue state and a harbor of terrorism, particlarly not when that same country could be a military threat on a nuclear scale. It is more important for EU countries' security to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and having that level of power in international dealings. Being second fiddle to the U.S. in terms of world power, the EU cannot put themselves in a position to draw the ire of the U.S. unless the benefits were a certainty.
Who knows if the EU is secretly hoping the deal goes through. The fact remains, they certainly can't afford to appear to be helping it along right now.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:54:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GOD I CAN'T FATHOM HOW ONE PERSON CAN BE SO FUCKING SMART YET SO FUCKING STUPID AT THE SAME TIME
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:53:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:41:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:29:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
You reinforce that impression on almost all your posts.
On ones that don't come off as preachy and when you actually try and understand other peoples arguments I rate accordingly.
-------------------------
Funny thing is, I can't remember the last time you returned the favor.
------------------------------------------
Returned the favor? What favor?
I read your post, I get your post it just doesn't make sense. Your sources are nothing more than opinion blogs. You have no response to virtually all of the EU being worried about Iran. If it would be in the best interest of the EU for the Oil Boarse to go down why are they siding with the US on Iran? If there was no serious threat why would Frances leaders be upsetting their sizable muslim population by going agaisnt Iran?
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:53:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
NO YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT, SARCASM IS NOT CARRIED OVER VERY WELL WITH THE WRITTEN WORD, THUS THE NEED FOR SIMPLETONS TO CREATE TERMS LIKE "LOL" AND "ROFL", BECAUSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE JOKING OR NOT.
NEXT TIME SAY SOMETHING LIKE "HERES YOUR DAILY DOSE OF TRUTH LOL" SO RETARDS LIKE ME CAN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE THINKING, BECAUSE CONTRARY TO PRIOR BELIEF, I CAN'T READ FUCKING MINDS
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:51:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And I don't have to be excuse for anything you arrogant little cunt. If you can't convey a point without being constantly misunderstood: you're the one who should know better.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:48:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're somewhat excused because English is your second language, Caul, but others should know better"""
English being your first language, why do you keep ignoring our argument?
I reiterate:
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:28:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
You still ignored my argument and indoninja's which contradicts your petro-dollar fear-mongering theory.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1892660
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1892586
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:44:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
The statement, "I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite, " was made as an exaggeration - the same way someone would say, "I'm so hungry, I'd eat a horse". """
Nice back-tracking by the way. Kinda echoes waht Teephphah said about you "I didn't say/mean..." game.
--------------------
Dude, but it's like you guys are simply so blinded by your hatred of me, you can't tell the difference anymore between when I'm serious and when I'm not...when I'm using something as a figure of speech and when I mean something literally...when I'm exaggerating and when I'm posting actual statistics...
It's madness.
You're somewhat excused because English is your second language, Caul, but others should know better.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:41:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:29:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:27:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
And you know what.... I can pinpoint the EXACT moment you got that impression of me.
And it hasn't gone away since. Unfortunately, the whole thing was a misunderstanding in the first place, but you never seemed to really accept my explanation of what I meant at the time.
---------------------------
You reinforce that impression on almost all your posts.
On ones that don't come off as preachy and when you actually try and understand other peoples arguments I rate accordingly.
-------------------------
Funny thing is, I can't remember the last time you returned the favor.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:40:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
still ignoring our arguments
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:39:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:23:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Face it, I think the way I think. If I think you're being a dumbass, I'm gonna say so. My verbal explosions aren't always going to include every statement of fact, and they aren't always going to consider every possible way a person could take the statements included in them, and they sure as hell aren't always gonna be correct or fully represent who I am in real or internet life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:02:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
You know...at least I'm TRYING to learn here. If it seems like I think I know everything, it's because I measure my responses and consider my arguments and collect sources now BEFORE I open my mouth. I am learning more and more all the time because of it. You should try it sometime. I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite.
------------------------------------
sorry, couldn't resist... good to see you keep your shit straight...
okay, now i'm done.
love,
wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:38:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:32:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Here is your daily dose of truth"
You earned your -2 right there, you sanctimonious fucking goober.
--------------------
Perfect example of the irony I face right there.
That statement was put there because I pretty much knew full well how this post woud be received, so the statement was actually a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:36:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:33:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:38:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
At this point, I'm cheering the other team.
I hate to say that I wish this on anyone, but if we're so arrogant that we're going to continue getting ourselves into conflicts in the middle east - (there has even been discussion of a PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR ATTACK on Iran by Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush has commissioned a bunker busting nuclear bomb) - I think we (America) deserve to have our asses handed to us.
-------------------------------------
America should be wiped out by muslim extremists because we DISCUSSED preemptive nuclear attack?
Great reasoning dumbass.
-----------------------------
Nope...didn't say that.
You see those hyphens in that sentence? That's an elaboration or a piece of side information that is really not necessary to the continuity of the sentence, but enhances the information therein.
Now remove the text between the hyphens and read the sentence again keeping in mind what the grammatical subject of the sentence is.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:34:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Who the fuck do you think you are to tell US what the truth is? """
ETS self-aggrandizing personal perception explained here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/85276
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:32:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Here is your daily dose of truth"
You earned your -2 right there, you sanctimonious fucking goober.
You know what? I DO agree with you on 99% of what you present, but the WAY you present it makes me fucking despise you and totally turns me off to whatever you're trying to convey. Maybe if you didn't try to forcefeed this shit down everyone's throat, you'd be a little more well-received, did you ever think of that? Your arrogant manner of presenting your material would make even Saddam Hussein jump right into bed with Bush and embrace "democracy". Who the fuck do you think you are to tell US what the truth is?
Idiot
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:30:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The statement, "I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite, " was made as an exaggeration - the same way someone would say, "I'm so hungry, I'd eat a horse". """
Nice back-tracking by the way. Kinda echoes waht Teephphah said about you "I didn't say/mean..." game.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:30:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ets --
this is my last response to this post. clearly the concept of rationality waved bye-bye to you a long time ago. i guess i'm the dumbass for thinking this was going to be a fun discussion, but then again i was hopped up on uppers for most of the time, so i guess it helped me pass the time.
as far as the source being more credible, well for starters maybe because it wasn't a blog. you're post started off with a blog by a self-admitted socialist(?) i think. that generally doesn't bode well for your argument of an unbiased, factual representation of the "truth." johnnyx's source had a team of editors (that i still don't know who they are, so i haven't said his was any good anyways), but they had a mission statement that appeared to purport a non-profit approach to showing a certain facet of the world's energy market. don't get me wrong, i still don't think that i would trust johnnyx's sources any more than yours, especially because of the fact that articles can be submitted by users. once i find out who the team of editors are, i'll be better able to pass my judgement. as for now, i'll stick to my sources, though.
you should probably look into taking a course on doing proper research, though. i fear that your lack of understanding of what a credible source is displays poorly on your academic achievements, whatever they may be. you could probably get a great deal on like a community college course or even like an online course might be a good option for you, seeing as how you're on the computer all day anways. which brings me to my next point.
it's good to see you're spending ten hours a day at your job researching this instead of doing your job. and you whine when they outsource jobs to india. yeah, i feel your pain man. you're life is rough.
and thanks for telling me i need to stay in school, i know i do. i haven't gotten enough credits yet to graduate, so it would've been foolish for me to leave. man, you are a huge lifesaver.
thanks for doing all your research of opinion based articles by non-credible sources from the front page of your google search. it really helped others and myself show you how weak your argument really was.
i'm sorry you never really answered some of the points i made, especially regarding the federal college aid and the economy. it made me sad earlier today, but then i realized i had fifty cents in my pocket and i could get a slice out of the soda machine. remember, i was able to acknowledge when i had misinterpreted things or was unaware of certain things, you however were unable to do this. it made me sad.
unfortunately, it looks like this is it for me on this post. after you went and -2ed some of my posts for pretty much juveneille reasons, it really shows the kind of person you really are. it really shows the kind of person you are when despite being bombarded with credible information, you still tout your theories as being the only "truth." i thought that we could be lover internnet friends and frolic on the fields of uber like unicorns high on acid. well thank you, sir. you have taught me a valuable lesson.
the lesson is this: a watch pot never boils. therefore, you'd be best off if you just stopped paying attention to the news in general. after some time, who knows -- maybe we could get this planet really cooking, no?
your arch enemy,
wardy and the government peoples.
p.s. kansas wants you to come back.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:30:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:27:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't live in my parent's basement.
But you knew that.
---------------------
Basement, garage it is hard to keep track.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:29:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:27:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
And you know what.... I can pinpoint the EXACT moment you got that impression of me.
And it hasn't gone away since. Unfortunately, the whole thing was a misunderstanding in the first place, but you never seemed to really accept my explanation of what I meant at the time.
---------------------------
You reinforce that impression on almost all your posts.
On ones that don't come off as preachy and when you actually try and understand other peoples arguments I rate accordingly.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:28:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You still ignored my argument and indoninja's which contradicts your petro-dollar fear-mongering theory.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1892660
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1892586
Try not to select only small part of it for once, if you're capable of that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:27:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't live in my parent's basement.
But you knew that.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:27:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:05:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
"You know...at least I'm TRYING to learn here. If it seems like I think I know everything, it's because I measure my responses and consider my arguments and collect sources now BEFORE I open my mouth"
Then present it as opinion not as the "TRUTH".
It doesn't seem like you know everything, it seems like you ignore people argument when it doesn't agree with your "theory".
-----------------------------
And you know what.... I can pinpoint the EXACT moment you got that impression of me.
And it hasn't gone away since. Unfortunately, the whole thing was a misunderstanding in the first place, but you never seemed to really accept my explanation of what I meant at the time.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:26:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:24:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Lucky for me, I'm not really interested in what you think is an accomplishment.
---------------
Hopefully for you preaching on the internet at a dead end job and living out of your parents basement is an accomplishment.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:24:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:18:30 (#)
Ranking: -2
"I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I spend 10 hours a day at work and sometimes several more at home just reading on subjects like this one. It's about all I've done for the past year."
Maybe if you actually worked at work, or took some night classes instead of reading conspiracy theories all night you could amount to something. You aren't bringing truth to anyone here, and even if you were, that isn't an accomplishment.
-----------------
Lucky for me, I'm not really interested in what you think is an accomplishment.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:23:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Will you ever get over youself?"
----------------
Will you ever get over asking me that? You do it on every post, and it's really getting old.
Face it, I think the way I think. If I think you're being a dumbass, I'm gonna say so. My verbal explosions aren't always going to include every statement of fact, and they aren't always going to consider every possible way a person could take the statements included in them, and they sure as hell aren't always gonna be correct or fully represent who I am in real or internet life.
That's me. Get over it.
Sometimes I get pissed off.
The statement, "I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite, " was made as an exaggeration - the same way someone would say, "I'm so hungry, I'd eat a horse".
I didn't mean that literally...although it COULD be true. I have done an awful lot of reading. :P
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:18:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I spend 10 hours a day at work and sometimes several more at home just reading on subjects like this one. It's about all I've done for the past year."
Maybe if you actually worked at work, or took some night classes instead of reading conspiracy theories all night you could amount to something. You aren't bringing truth to anyone here, and even if you were, that isn't an accomplishment.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:16:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teeph: I am not a journalist. Never have been. This is ubersite, not CNN. I point you to the stories and I give my assessment of them... No matter how off-the-wall you might think those are, it is understood they are my opinions because of the very nature of the way I write.
Hell, it's obvious how little people think of my opinions about the world from the ratings I get from post to post.
I never said I was Ted Copple. I never said I was Walter Cronkite. I am ETS, the mad, raving, conspiracy lunatic, and this is what I see happening in the world.
You're right, I do sometimes state things as 'fact' that are not necessarily 'fact', but that's only to punctuate my convictions on the subject.
Sometimes I am in journalist mode, and I will carefully measure my words so as to avoid any such misunderstandings, but more times than not, I'm just telling it like I see it. I give a plethora of sources to document and back up what I say.
That's the best I can do. I encourage EVERYONE to refute me. The reason being, because I think maybe a few will join me in seeing what I see in the news.
I will admit that much of my writing of late has stemmed from an unmistakable feeling of deep distrust for our leaders, particularly Bush and his cronies, as well as an unshakable feeling that the world is on the cusp of something huge...something epochal...something what will change the course of history and mankind forever.
I can't explain these feelings anymore than anyone else except to say I have them...they're there.
The only thing I can do is try to share as specifically as possible the things I can look at that give me this feeling, and describe how that feeling has arisen as precisely as I can.
I never claimed to be an expert. (I'm learning new things every day.)
I never claimed to be a professional journalist. Although I know how to write from a journalist's perspective, that's not really my goal in most of my posts. I just want people to join me in thinking about things and discussing the things I see as important, that's all.
And, yea, if in the end, I find I've made some sort of small difference, then great.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:10:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're so quick to rush to judgement, and you seem to have ZERO ability to think for yourself or do your own research on this subject.
You know...at least I'm TRYING to learn here. If it seems like I think I know everything, it's because I measure my responses and consider my arguments and collect sources now BEFORE I open my mouth. I am learning more and more all the time because of it. You should try it sometime. I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I spend 10 hours a day at work and sometimes several more at home just reading on subjects like this one. It's about all I've done for the past year."""
===
Jesus fucking Christ, will you ever stop assuming you're superior to everybody? I used to read a lot about geopolitics on the Internet too, like A LOT, and that didn't make me more knowledgeable than anyone since you can't actually quantify this. That just made me a person who reads a lot on the Internet.
Now let me ask you, if you're so fucking great and that we're all inferior to you...why do you even come here? If you don't have the monopoly on truth like your disclaimer says, why aren't you open to anything, even other opinions found on ther Internet which you so heavily rely on?
Will you ever get over youself?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:05:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"You know...at least I'm TRYING to learn here. If it seems like I think I know everything, it's because I measure my responses and consider my arguments and collect sources now BEFORE I open my mouth"
Then present it as opinion not as the "TRUTH".
It doesn't seem like you know everything, it seems like you ignore people argument when it doesn't agree with your "theory".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:02:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:10:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
johnnyx -- i couldn't find any info on the author of that article or the editors of the site itself. it definitely seemed more credible than the ones that ets was touting, but if you know the answer to my question, that'd be spectacular.
whoop whoop,
wardy.
------------------------
You thought that site seemed more credible huh?
What part 'seemed' more credible to you?
Was it the part where the author said, "These things WILL NOT HAPPEN, and we have, as a supposedly reality-based community"?
Reading the introduction alone told me that this piece was EXACTLY what Teeph is all up in arms against - opinion pieces. It's the guy's OPINION. He can't tell the future. He cannot say, and no self-respecting journalist will EVER say, "this WILL NOT HAPPEN".
Now, they might say something to the effect of: "if present conditions are any indication, thie will not happen". And they might say something like, "a source close to the [thing in question] said this will not happen". But no REAL journalist will say something "WILL NOT HAPPEN", "CANNOT HAPPEN", or anything else pertaining to the certainty of the future.
Wardy, you need to stay in school, friend, cause you are one misguided and gullible motherfucker.
You're so quick to rush to judgement, and you seem to have ZERO ability to think for yourself or do your own research on this subject.
You know...at least I'm TRYING to learn here. If it seems like I think I know everything, it's because I measure my responses and consider my arguments and collect sources now BEFORE I open my mouth. I am learning more and more all the time because of it. You should try it sometime. I guarantee that at this point I've read more on this particular subject than anyone else on ubersite.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I spend 10 hours a day at work and sometimes several more at home just reading on subjects like this one. It's about all I've done for the past year.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 18:00:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oil Boarse
And the real reason for the coming war with Iran? Forget the nuclear threat. Forget the support for terrorist cells and the other hackneyed charges against this "rogue state". The very simple fact is that next month, in March, Iran intends to launch its Oil Boarse which will facilitate the future trade of oil in the Euro instead of the US petro dollar - the international currency that props up the US economy. (For further info see this blog's entry for May 15th of last year)""""
As indoninja already mentionned a few reply below and as I did to you a while ago, this makes no sense.
If the conversion to Euros was SO profitable, why is Europe's foreign policy aligned with the U.S. on this? And that regardless of the fact that this could put them at odds with their huge - and in some case hostile - muslim populations? Why would Jacques Chirac, a self-admitted GAULLIST (which explains France stance on pratically anything), would echo the American administration by threatening Iran with harsh reprisal?
This petro-dollar theory doesn't make sense. I suspect you will ignore this argument again and have a hissy fit, but we're used to it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:49:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:41:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's why ETS is wrong, by energy analyst Jerome A Paris
http://www.energybulletin.net/13192.html
It was too long to paste in for some reason, but I highly recommend reading it, it's not that long, and it COMPLETELY defeats every argument ETS posits in his IOB scare-story.
-------------------------
Read it.
Now let me explain why I feel that assessment is unequivocally wrong...
First, the article states: "Once players have agreed to come to one place, it is simpler to come to that place than to try and organise a new place, which everybody must agree to and which all occasional players need to be informed of."
This is not true in the case of Iran in particular, because they sell oil mainly to European countries, Russia, and China. Those are their main buyers. Oil does not fit into his Microsoft Windows analogy, because oil only comes from certain places, essentially giving the controlling countries of those reserves a monopoly on how they're sold, to whom they're sold, and at what price they're sold. This is only not true when there are international embargos in place, or agreements with international bodies not to create a new way of pricing oil.
Thing is, Iran is signing long-term contracts with only a select few countries like China, so the system they choose to put in place with regard to the Euro are only applicable in THOSE sales. They don't have to be adopted by the entire globe to be viable. So, that's fallacy #1.
Fallacy #2 is this: "liquidity exists when you have a deep market, i.e. many buyers and many sellers. That comes from having a place where everybody comes, and a place that everybody trusts because it works. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke" applies here. Again, this is a compelling argument against Iran. Iran can potentially act as a seller, but would will ensure that there are buyers on that particular market?"
This is COMPLETELY stupid because we're talking about OIL here, not TiddlyWinks or marbles! There is NO SHORTAGE OF BUYERS AND THERE NEVER WILL BE! China doesn't give a shit what Iran wants in exchange for oil, so long as it's a good price and they GET that oil. Iran only sells to a select few nations, so the argument of universal historical data is meaningless because all China has to do is consider Iran's oil a separate commodity.
Why you, or this Paris joker think this is ANY argument against whether Iran will go through with an oil boarse I can only guess.
My suspicion is that no matter which side of the issue I was on, some of you would choose the other just 'because'.
I am surprised to know how you will respond to the recent statements by the Norwegians about creating their own boarse in Euros as well: http://www.energybulletin.net/13081.html
There you go. That link is from the same website as your link, so you must already know it's true.
Submitted by sizzlemctwizzle (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:47:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I spoke up and used my voice to tell Jesus how much I love him. http://www.ubersite.com/m/85533
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:34:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What was the point of this post? What are you advocating?
You really trust Iran? You believe those two fucks that think sanctions will only make Iran madder, you think we should let them do whatever they want, you think if they are given free reign that they won't develope weapons to use against us?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:33:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:38:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
At this point, I'm cheering the other team.
I hate to say that I wish this on anyone, but if we're so arrogant that we're going to continue getting ourselves into conflicts in the middle east - (there has even been discussion of a PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR ATTACK on Iran by Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush has commissioned a bunker busting nuclear bomb) - I think we (America) deserve to have our asses handed to us.
-------------------------------------
America should be wiped out by muslim extremists because we DISCUSSED preemptive nuclear attack?
Great reasoning dumbass. I can promise you that every single president since world war has at least discussed this, and if they haven't they have been sorely lacking in their role as commander in chief.
Grow the fuck up.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:21:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. "Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its 'additional protocol.' ' Is the world ready to live with such prospects?"
Iran has already left the Nuclear Non-Proliferatin treaty.
If it was only US and their Lackey's that see Iran as a threat, then why has France condemned them?
The US isn't afraid of the Bourse. Europe doesn't care about Iran's oil Bourse otherwise they wouldn't be calling on Iran to behave when it comes to its nuclear energy policies.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:15:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teeph: The problem with your Russia argument is that you didn't use the magic word "COULD" or "MIGHT". When attempting to draw conclusions from confirmed facts, or create conjecture about the future in journalism, you have to use such words, or the statement is not 'true'.
For instance, I could take the facts about the US and Russia's enemy status in the late 40s, and the fact that the US was looking into producing long-range missiles, but I couldn't make any type of marrying statement about those facts unless I said because of those facts, this meanst the United States COULD attack Russia...not, as you stated, they WILL.
Therein lies the difference, and therein lies the misconception both you and Wardy have gone to great lengths to perpetuate about independent and opinionated journalism.
_________________________________________________________
Brad -
I'm trying very hard to be patient with you. Please know that.
The thing is, this is a game you've been trying to play quite a bit lately. This little game of "that isn't what I said," is one I have more than a passing familiarity with. But, and this is where that smugness you're so sick of probably comes in, when people misinterpret what *I'm* trying to say, it is usually because the point I'm trying to make is subtle.
I really don't think that is the case here.
The nature of this post, and of a great many of the posts before it, are not to expose what COULD happen. If that were the case, there wouldn't be the sense of urgency you continually try to convey. The goal of your posts isn't to show people what COULD happen, it is to show people what you think IS happening. To pretend otherwise is, again, misleading. Give Ubersite a little more credit than that.
Why haven't I seen a post from you dealing with "Cigarette smoking MAY lead to lung cancer or heart disease?" or "Concentration and inhilation of fumes MAY cause brain injury?" or "The nuclear stockpiles of the former Soviet Union COULD decimate the entire global population?"
Simple end of the world POSSIBILITIES aren't your thing at all.
If you want, I could go back through this post and the replies thereto, and I'm SURE I could find something that makes a liar out of you. One simple definative statement is all it takes, (if you really want to play the subtle game of "that's not what I said," you'd better be prepared - I hope your concentration in typing replies has been better than it was in picking news articles to support your earlier statements). I hope I don't have to go that far.
Actually, you know what? I won't go that far. It isn't worth it. My time is too valuable to spend it arguing with someone as, shall we say, "convicted" about their stance as you are. Call me stubborn if you want, but you've certainly got me beat there.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 17:10:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
johnnyx -- i couldn't find any info on the author of that article or the editors of the site itself. it definitely seemed more credible than the ones that ets was touting, but if you know the answer to my question, that'd be spectacular.
whoop whoop,
wardy.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:44:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And what it doesn't cover is swiftly mopped up by this little gem: http://www.bizarrerecords.com/galleries/animals/cepillinCoco.jpg
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:42:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Quite honestly, I think this says it all: http://www.bizarrerecords.com/galleries/funky/DiscoRick.jpg
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's why ETS is wrong, by energy analyst Jerome A Paris
http://www.energybulletin.net/13192.html
It was too long to paste in for some reason, but I highly recommend reading it, it's not that long, and it COMPLETELY defeats every argument ETS posits in his IOB scare-story.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:13:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
-- ets, i have another word for this: conspiracy theory.
-----------
No, a 'conspriacy theory' is a theory that two or mmore persons have 'conspired' to bring about events. That's completely different than asserting that because certain conditions (x and y) exist that it MIGHT be possible that a third condition (z) exists.
and i'm sorry for calling you ignorant, i didn't realize that would get me -2ed on other posts in retaliation.
--------------------
Well, now you know.
*kisses*
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 16:07:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
thanks teeph for checking on those resources. guess i'll have to take back that compliment i gave you, ets. i was rushed when i skimmed the articles, as i had an african american lit course that started maybe ten or fifteen minutes after you posted those. i simply noted that two of the sources were news sources, one of which was the washington post, and assumed that they were not editorials but in fact just good old reporting of the events. and yes, it is possible to do that.
"When you say 'opinion' article, what you really mean is an article that draws logical conclusions and uses absolution words and phrases like 'might happen' or 'could happen IF' or 'considering this other information we already know' or 'sources say'."
-- ets, i have another word for this: conspiracy theory. they are generally can't hold any water, much like your arguments.
and i'm sorry for calling you ignorant, i didn't realize that would get me -2ed on other posts in retaliation.
love,
wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 15:18:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 14:18:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
What I want to know is, when you read things like this and see a quote saying that Rumsfeld wants to drop nukes on Tehran "To kill as many dirty a-rab children as possible" don't you ever take a step back and ask yourself, "now, is that the sort of thing a rational reasonable person would say?" Do you ever stop and ask yourself if there is a LESS grandiose explanation of the situation?
--------------------
Well, I might if indeed someone on this post had said such a thing, but no one did.
This is why your arguments against me are fallacious most of the time, because you keep trying to put words in my mouth.
I already have said that my previous statement (a statement taken purely from memory from a day-old news story) was slightly misstated.
I corrected the mistake below and apologised for the confusion. What more do you want?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 15:09:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: I didn't bitch about dissenting views until they turned personal. Iddqd was making personal jabs from the beginning of his statements, and Wardy started HIS personal jabs here http://www.ubersite.com/m/85523#1890958 by calling me 'ignorant'. Look before that rating and you'll see that although Wardy was dissenting in his views, I was gracious and attempted on every level to provide him with satisfactory answers to his questions.
Teeph: The problem with your Russia argument is that you didn't use the magic word "COULD" or "MIGHT". When attempting to draw conclusions from confirmed facts, or create conjecture about the future in journalism, you have to use such words, or the statement is not 'true'.
For instance, I could take the facts about the US and Russia's enemy status in the late 40s, and the fact that the US was looking into producing long-range missiles, but I couldn't make any type of marrying statement about those facts unless I said because of those facts, this meanst the United States COULD attack Russia...not, as you stated, they WILL.
Therein lies the difference, and therein lies the misconception both you and Wardy have gone to great lengths to perpetuate about independent and opinionated journalism.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 14:18:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What I want to know is, when you read things like this and see a quote saying that Rumsfeld wants to drop nukes on Tehran "To kill as many dirty a-rab children as possible" don't you ever take a step back and ask yourself, "now, is that the sort of thing a rational reasonable person would say?" Do you ever stop and ask yourself if there is a LESS grandiose explanation of the situation?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 14:17:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:27:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Look here you fucking little turd, you're not even a goddamn American, so as far as I'm concerned, this post has nothing to do with you anyway.
Shut your crocodile-fucking face, nigger.
Take your little bullshit, schoolboy opinions and shove them up your scrawny, upside-down ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:22:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
You know...I can't even fucking COUNT the number of posts I've written that call for a move toward hydrogen and nuclear energy even before Bush was fucking doing it, and now I've got fucking assholes like this little pretentious FUCK, iddqd, telling me I'm not doing enough...
FUCK YOU, YOU RED-FACED, SKINNY LITTLE CROCODILE FUCKER!
Why don't you tell me what YOU'VE done lately in terms of trying to help anything in the world in even a LIMITED capacity, you know...instead of making bullshit posts about how it doesn't matter what we do to the environment, or whether we kill ourselves off as a species because that's just "nature's way".
KISS MY SHINY WHITE ASS, YOU SPINELESS, GUTLESS, B-CLASS-COUNTRY-LIVING SON OF A BASTARD, STAND-FOR-NOTHING CRIMINAL!
==============
Tsk tsk tsk ETS...once again you demonstrate that you are choleric despot who cannot stand any form of dissent. You say you do not think you have a monopoly on Truth, you sure act like you do.
And stop telling others you help the world. iddqd might raise questionnable points but he's open for debates whereas you're only being a fear-mongering Internet parrot. As far as anyone here is concerned, you're doing the exact opposite of contributing by using what could be legetimate debates on sensitive issues to jerk off your frail ego.
Screaming in people's ears is a good way of getting their attention, but not to listen to you.
I reiterate: you need to get over yourself.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 14:05:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My idea of real journalism doesn't exist? Maybe not. But please don't ever tell that to Ms. Nelson (my high school journalism teacher).
Reasonable conclusions?
Imagine you were in the U.S. in the late 1940s or the 1950s. You learn that the United States is researching the use of ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear payloads - fact. You know that relations between the United States and the Soviet Union are strained and that there is much fiery rhetoric on both sides - fact.
What's your reasonable conclusion there? The U.S. plans to attack Russia. At least based on your reasonable conclusions here.
But, couldn't you look at the policy of the United States to continually research and develope new weapons as a DETERANT to actual conflict?
No?
I think you COULD reasonably think that. But YOU don't. Ever.
At least you never bring it up. You don't even TRY to see other alternatives. Why is that?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 13:43:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 13:16:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and before I forget, all of the documentation that claims that the Administration was or is going to seek funding for the development of bunker-busting mini-nukes sure all looked like it was DRAFT or PROPOSED regulations from my reading.
That means that it hasn't happened yet.
----------------------
No shit. And I didn't state any differently.
In fact, my exact words were: "there has even been discussion of a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran by Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush has commissioned a bunker busting nuclear bomb."
The fact is, Bush HAS commissioned a bunker-busting nuke. Might not be the right word, 'commissioned', but he has ordered its development. The only reason they are going to the Senate is to get approval for funding.
My mistake in that statement, which I will now admit was incorrect, was that Runsfeld NAMED Iran as one of the potential targets, when he was more general in his description of its potential uses.
But again, this goes back to reasonable conclusions... It's not entirely unreasonable to conclude that's what they're after it for, for all the reasons I listed in my last review.
All the facts string together to paint a pretty clear picture of what's going on, and me and you sitting here quibbling over minute details of what exactly was said by whom - while important - are nonetheless vain.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 13:35:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teeph: I read the article I quoted. Didn't read the rest because I just googled and left it up to those of you who wanted to go through them yourselves.
When you say 'opinion' article, what you really mean is an article that draws logical conclusions and uses absolution words and phrases like 'might happen' or 'could happen IF' or 'considering this other information we already know' or 'sources say'.
What the author of that news story was doing was handing people one of the possible conclusions that can be drawn from the facts.
*Bush administration wants a bunker-busting nuke. - Fact.
*There is much talk taking place right now about taking out Iran's nuclear facilities using bunker-busters. - Fact.
*The Bush administration has stated PUBLICLY its strategy of preemption with regard to terrorism and terrorist states. - Fact.
*Bush administration defines Iran as a terrorist state, a member of the fabled axis of evil, and has declared it the most grave threat to national security America now faces. - Fact.
*Donald Rumsfeld has testified before a Senate committee stating that there are countries with facilities conventional bunker-busters cannot reach, and has used this as a prop for his argument the U.S. needs a nuclear bunker-buster. - Fact.
From there, it's only a simple matter of putting 2 and 2 together, wouldn't you agree?
So where do you draw the line between an opinion piece and just a plain statement of facts? If that's all news reported - a dry statement of facts without context - no one would ever really be informed unless they did all their own investigating.
Show me a news outlet that doesn't do that, and I'll show you one who's not selling a single newspaper.
Actually, I would argue that you cannot formulate a news 'story' without some of this type of reasoning and combining of facts to extrapolate 'news'.
Otherwise, the news would read or sound like this:
"Today, Donald Rumsfeld testified before a Senate committee saying: "Blah"
"Hamas visited Russia, but we don't know what they talked about."
"Today Iran said "fuck you" to Israel and the United States. A spokesman for the US said the statement was "uncalled for".."
We want to know more! We want to know about other stories that tie into those and that seem relevant to the subject, because we want to gain a better understanding on things to look out for in the future. We don't want to be spoon-fed news or pundicized to death by pontiffs of a political party (excuse the alliteration). We don't want to watch or read news that 'spun' so far and so fast that we puke on our own laps from dizziness trying to understanding it. But we DO want news that's relevant, responsible, investigative, and cutting edge.
I don't see where that 'opinion' article was any different that anything else you'd see on ANY of the major news conglomerate websites around the world, or on ANY cable news station.
Your idea of 'real' news simply doesn't exist.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 13:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
on abortion : http://takeshibabies.ytmnd.com/ for Teephaph
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 13:16:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and before I forget, all of the documentation that claims that the Administration was or is going to seek funding for the development of bunker-busting mini-nukes sure all looked like it was DRAFT or PROPOSED regulations from my reading.
That means that it hasn't happened yet.
See, this is the kind of shit that just starts getting me pissed off.
Congrats.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 12:48:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not sure you caught my point there, ETS. The point is, had I come out and said something like, "You are Anti-American" or "You are against our troops," (that one is sacred) I'm fairly sure you would have gone on the defensive to prove what a patriot you are. I'm fairly sure that if I had to, I could find stuff in your posts to prove me right.
It wasn't really about the use or definition of the word nigger or niggardly.
Beyond that, I would recommend that Wardy read a little more closely. Those "couple good sources?"
Let's see . . .
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/EDIT/603200301/1003 - This is from an OPINION article. So, when you quote it as if it is stating confirmed facts, that's sort of misleading. Oh, I know, "there is no such thing as objective journalism" right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701546.html - I actually like this one. It does feature the words "bunker-buster" and "nuclear" but it's really about the plans of the administration to CONVERT NUCLEAR MISSILES TO MISSILES CARRYING CONVENTIONAL WARHEADS and use them for their speed and "bunker-busting" abilities.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988 - There is actually a story catagory on the side here labeled "OCEANIA." CLEARLY this is not the news source for someone thinking that we live in an Orwelian dystopia.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.nuclear16mar16,0,3895655.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines - Again with the re-running of the SAME opinion article.
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=531022 - Other articles featured here "Bush advisor states administration has right to torture children." Yeah. I probably should have read that, just to make sure it was legit.
http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/article.asp?ArticleId=231229&CategoryId=13303 - The Daily Journal is a Venezualian online newspaper. You know, Venezuela, where Chavez controls pretty much everything now.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/silverberg/03182006.htm - This one is great because it is basically FOR the invasion of Iran, because it says that Iran's president is a madman who thinks it is his religious duty to bring about armagedeon. It also seems to indicate that if anyone takes out Iran's nuclear plants, it's going to be Isreal (again).
Do you really read this stuff?
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-03-20 12:09:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Thanks for having the balls to bring this up.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-03-20 12:04:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 11:53:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because you actually had a few decent sources in there. see how easy it is?
love,
wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 11:43:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy:
"Pursuit of the bunker-buster and Rumsfeld's testimony confirm the administration's shift away from nuclear deterrence toward possible use of nuclear weapons in war. Under Bush's doctrine of pre-emption, the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has added missions to its war plans. STRATCOM's global strike plan foresees the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction or to destroy an adversary's WMD stockpiles."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/EDIT/603200301/1003
And here are some others for good measure:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701546.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.nuclear16mar16,0,3895655.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=531022
http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/article.asp?ArticleId=231229&CategoryId=13303
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/silverberg/03182006.htm
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 11:33:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:41:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:38:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
At this point, I'm cheering the other team.
____________________________________________________________
But . . . don't you get, like, REALLY indignant when other people point this out?
Help me out here. This is sort of an N-word thing, isn't it? You can say it, but no one else can.
---------------------
Where have you seen me get indignant toward anyone that said America deserves to have her ass kicked? Shit, man, I've gotten nothing but hell over saying it myself.
N-word? You mean 'nigger'? Who said no one else can say it? Where? What?
It should actually please people to know that I called a white Australian a 'nigger'. If that's not devaluing the racist aspect of the word, I don't know what is. The fact of the matter is, the word has been part of our lexicon for centuries in more contexts than just the one we all know:
nig·ger Audio pronunciation of "nigger" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1.
1. Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: "You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger" (James Baldwin).
2. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people:
I was referring to the second definition there. But there are also other derivitive words such as 'niggard', which means 'selfish', which also applied to my description of iddqd, the white Australian.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 11:08:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
can i get a source on your quote of rumsfeld looking at a pre-emptive nuclear strike of iran? i haven't heard anything about this in the news, and i imagine a statement like this in itself could cause a lot of really bad shit, so if it's true i'd like to know.
thanks love,
wardy.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:41:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:38:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
At this point, I'm cheering the other team.
____________________________________________________________
But . . . don't you get, like, REALLY indignant when other people point this out?
Help me out here. This is sort of an N-word thing, isn't it? You can say it, but no one else can.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:38:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
At this point, I'm cheering the other team.
I hate to say that I wish this on anyone, but if we're so arrogant that we're going to continue getting ourselves into conflicts in the middle east - (there has even been discussion of a PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR ATTACK on Iran by Donald Rumsfeld, and Bush has commissioned a bunker busting nuclear bomb) - I think we (America) deserve to have our asses handed to us.
I hope they fuck us up so bad we no longer have this ceaseless taste for war as a people, and, instead, focus on domestic issues and peace at long last.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:11:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And I got the quote, but the whole quote is basically saying 'wow, deep'.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 10:05:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, maybe. I thought they were just for decoration these days, like the Queen.
Caul just made my day.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:59:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes and no.
Based on my understanding, the Ayatolla is the "Supreme Leader" of the country (per the Constitution) and has the final say on ALL matters of state.
He's supervises the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and directs ALL of its foreign and domestic policy. He also controls the military and has the sole polwer to declare war. He APPOINTS the judiciary, the state contrlled media, and half of the Council of Guardians.
So, yeah, the President may run the day-to-day nuts and bolts, but the real decision maker (again, per the Constitution) is the Ayatolla . . . or, if you want to get really technical, the group of 86 clerics who elect the Ayatolla.
But, the good news is, the elective process for an Ayatolla looks to be more similar to that of a Bishop than I thought. MORE democratic even. Because The People elect the clerics who elect the Ayatolla. Who then rules EVERYTHING.
It would be, in a very real sense, like having the Pope (pre-reformation) in charge of a country.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:56:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All out war would be great. It would give a meaning to our dejected generation.
I hope I'm a conscript. I can't wait for my surrender.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:40:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teph teph teph.
The president runs the country, and in fact its President Mahmoods quotes about 'wiping Israel off the map' that are getting the international community worried.
And he got himself elected hitler style, by the average ignorant dumbarse on the street.
Hes atually quite unpopular with the clerics.
Submitted by leilani (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:32:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
good title too
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:28:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And even if the Vatican had nuclear weapons, it would still prove my point. The current state of the Vatican is that of a "country" that has at least been influenced by the Protestant Reformation. Like it or not, the Catholic church of today is NOT the Catholic church of the Medici popes. They've been FORCED to change. Forced to moderate themselves. Islam has faced no such reformation.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:22:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:17:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
do catholics elect the pope?
___________________________________________________
Technically, yes. But it's more like an electoral college process.
But do Catholics run (in a de facto way) a country on the hunt for nuclear weapons?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:20:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And damn it Woody, the "Deep" part was more about keeping true to the quote.
(In the Matrix, Morpheus gives Neo the choice to continue living his life comfortably within the matrix or to "see just how deep the rabbit hole goes." Red pill wakes him up, blue pill keeps him asleep. Later Cypher says the, "I know what you're thinking" line in reference to the choice between pills.)
If you're not able pick up on random shitty sci-fi movie quotes, I'm not going to be able to have this discussion with you.
I bet you would have figured it out if I had said something about a five-minute hate or Emmanuel Goldstein - Enemy of the People.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:17:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
do catholics elect the pope?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:16:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No. They don't-, when I say admitted it is wasn't exactly an offcial announcement or anything.
Most people do think that Mars is red. stuff like that happens all the time. You can't trust big reputable news sources to give it too you straight.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:14:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:07:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, you know Iran is already democratic right?
-------------------------------------------------
In theory, yes. But last I heard they weren't exactly holding elections for new Ayatohlas.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:12:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
woody -- that doesn't make nasa, cnn, or bbc bad news sources. if anything, it makes them trustworthy news sources. perhaps that is their way of doing things, but the fact remains that they make sure their readers are aware of this.
that's the difference between them being reputable, fact-based sources and a blog or rogue site that has no listing of sources.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:11:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:07:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, you know Iran is already democratic right?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 09:02:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Deep?
Anyone with half a brain could figure this out.
Deep. Ha.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-03-20 08:51:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I know what you're thinking. . . "Why, oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?"
Man, the rabbit hole sure is DEEP, ain't it?
I didn't have the stomach to read through all of the replies, but I did read something that made me want to mention that allllllll the way back at the beginning of the Iraq war, when I used to argue with Loki and Glam Daddy about this shit, I was saying that the idea in moving into Iraq was to establish a base of operations to move on to Iran. This is not news.
When Bush came out with his "axis of evil" theory, he was telling us exactly what he had in mind.
Back then I was aguing that the idea behind taking out the regimes in Iraq and Iran is to bring democracy in the middle-east (and a coresponding "reformation" in Islam). I haven't seen anything in the last three years to make me think otherwise.
Wow. That was fun! I'll be back to -2 this with some alters later because I've decided that I don't respect you as a person. B'bye!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 08:09:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't believe anything anyone tells me. I'm sceptical on a proffesional level, I did a post underlining the general untrustworthiness of just about everyone, which went down like a turd in quicksand cos I accidentally implied that the readers were morons.
One of the questions I asked was what colour the planet Mars is.
Red. I bet you're thinking red, but if you've any paranoia in your soul you should know I woudn't be asking if it were as simple as that.
It comes down to one thing. Who can you trust?
There are pictures of Mars all over the net probably right? Go look at one. Is it red? so do you trust the source for that pic? Its a fair bet its from NASA.
NASA edit pictures of Mars before release to the public to make them look red.
Do you trust me when I say that? Well it doesn't really matter whether you trust me or not, because they've admitted it.
People know mars as the red planet so they alter photos so as not to dissappoint, apparently red planet is more interesting than brown planet.
When the US government release statistics about the economy they mulitply the quarterly growth rate by four. They say its to make it easier to understand by putting it in terms of a year, but when it comes to getting the years figures they add up each quarter figure they've released ad end up with a Chinese level of growth, Except its all bullshit and to get the true figure you have to divide it by four.
They are just two of the many many reasons why I would not trust CNN or Fox or BBC or Al jazeera or any news station you care to name.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:37:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Right now the CNN
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ah, i see. well the whole atmosphere sounds tight. i plan to make my way there some day to catch as many epl games as i can in a week or so.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:10:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A lot of people would consider Reading to be part of London now I guess.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:08:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess its because the US is such a new country, most cities in Britain used to be seperate settlements which have grown and joined together, but each settlement still has a seperate identity.
Take Yeovil Town, used to be a town, called Yeovil, now its a part of London and its football team is technically from London, cos Yeovil doesn't exist anymore really, you point to it on a map and people say 'Oh, you mean London'.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:04:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In scotland particulary its divided on religious grounds, every major scottish city (two) has at least two teams, one for protestants and one for catholics.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 07:01:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ah, yeah i just meant pro club teams. like in america for football or basketball it's just one, and on some rare occasions two. even counting semi-pro and stuff like that i don't think you'd get over four or five, maybe.
i think it's cool that there's so many teams. i wish i lived in england just for that, but for now i'll just have to settle for my shitty economy and the mls. woe is me...
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:52:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone thinks of Arsenal and Chelsea as londons teams, but they also have CHarlton, Westham, Fulham and Spurs.
And thats just in the Premiership
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:47:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Erm depends on what you mean.
London has like...30ish. Birmingham about 7 I think. Leicester has 1. Depends how far down you go, count the conference? pub team leagues?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:45:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
indeed. yeah, i couldn't remember where reading was at, but i did know they were doing pretty well.
so i've never been to england, but how many clubs are there per city? i mean, it seems like there are five hundred professional clubs throughout the ranks, and the games are always packed...
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:38:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're right, its even Henry on arsenals website.
Strange
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:37:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
They're 16 points clear at the top.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:35:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
actually, it's henry. at least that's how they spell it on the tv in the united states, and on the back of his jersey.
oh, and i'd love to see reading move out of the championship league, but won't they have to be a bit higher than 6th? 7th? not sure what it is right now, but i think they'll have to.
aren't a few american's on that squad? bobby convey, maybe?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:31:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Its Henri fool.
And Reading are gonna slaughter Arsenal next season.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:25:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i didn't mean based on that link. and i guess i didn't really mean economy, moreso standard of living. i get all hot and bothered sometimes and say things i don't mean and mean things i don't say, so sorry about the confusion. i was not trying to say we had the world's best economy right now. i'm still love arsenal.
henry! woo!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:17:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My main point was that you said
"woody -- go here. by not bad i mean that we're still doing better than most of the world. http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/index.html"
You told me that the US is doing better than most of the world and told me to look at that link
My point is that linking to CNN doesn't proove that the US is doing better than the majority of the world.
There is nothing on that page to say that the US is doing better than most of the world because the US is actually doing WORSE than most of the world.
I'll quote myself
"The US economy is NOT doing better than most of the world.
Linking to CNNs economy section doesn't actually proove anything.
US% of world economy in 1999 was 21.885
It is now 20.570"
I think thats pretty clear.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:12:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wanna bet?
I am very paranoid and it rubs off.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 06:05:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
dcwoody -- i will trust cnn. you can do nothing about it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-20 05:56:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't trust anyone.
Anyone includes CNN.
I will write a more detailed explanation later.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 05:23:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/19/un.iran.nuclear.ap/index.html -- looks like we're doing what we can diplomatically, right?
Submitted by Davros (user info) at 2006-03-20 03:19:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
An interesting point of view, but for every source you can produce that supports the theory there will be one that opposes it.
Also, you are not really saying anything that anyone with half a brain, who follows the news,(Independently and from a variety of sources), didn't already know.
-Dave
Submitted by moray (user info) at 2006-03-20 03:04:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes I would speak up...
I'd say, watch out all allies of the United States, they are going to war again and this represents a "clear and present danger" to everybody, whether you are an enemy or an ally..
Why don't youse just stop fucking around - everybody knows that you're the biggest kid on the block - everybody knows you are just dying to nuke somebody else... So, after the dollars are gone and another kid owns the ball that is being played with, just burst the ball... Nuke the oil, if youse can't have it then no other fucker should get it - right ?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 02:09:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
right, okay i see your point. sorry. but i was looking at it from the angle of him being the commander in chief and being able to give these orders in regard to national security. i wouldn't be surprised if that's what a lawyer would argue if it ever went before a court, but i doubt that will happen. don't get me wrong, i'm hesitant on the whole wire-tapping thing, like i said earlier. but i also still think that it's a good thing, just so long as it is done with the proper checks and balances in place. i'm pretty sure that will be happening from now on, like i also said.
that, and the fact that i heard once the nsa pretty much tapes everyone's conversations, just because they can.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:59:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why does this feel like an intellectual version of http://www.ubersite.com/m/73335 .
Seriously.
It's almost like these people earned degrees in PolySci or something from CrackerJack U.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:56:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:47:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
you mean to tell me that if there's a terrorist in say, jordan, and he calls his friend up in boston and says, "Hey man, i've got this sweet nuclear bomb i want to bring over and show to like a million people, is that cool?" and the president and federal government has the means to intercept this type of phone call, that's not a matter of national security? what is?
--------------------
He CAN tap the call, he just has to get a warrant! Jesus, how many times can you beat this into someone's head before he'll get it?!
I feel like I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here!
Read the fucking law if you don't believe me. There's more to it than just that section..
Here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
Read it.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:52:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i got the euro thing.
so I should invest in the euro then?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:50:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | Next
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
---------------------
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
----------------------
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section
------------------
unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.
------------------
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:49:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-03-19 11:19:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
http://graphix4change.com/portfolio_PA_game.html
-----------
Aaaaaah, now it's in the correct post.
<damn new connection>
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:47:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you mean to tell me that if there's a terrorist in say, jordan, and he calls his friend up in boston and says, "Hey man, i've got this sweet nuclear bomb i want to bring over and show to like a million people, is that cool?" and the president and federal government has the means to intercept this type of phone call, that's not a matter of national security? what is?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:41:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:38:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
clinton did it. reagan did it. carter did it.
not to the same extent, but they did it. he was in his legal right because it's pretty easy to show that there was a plausible national security threat that could be curtailed by him conducting the wire taps. yeah, it sucks but that's one of the privledges that comes with being commander in chief.
---------------------
ummmmm..... NO IT'S NOT!
Goddamn you're fucking stupid.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:38:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
clinton did it. reagan did it. carter did it.
not to the same extent, but they did it. he was in his legal right because it's pretty easy to show that there was a plausible national security threat that could be curtailed by him conducting the wire taps. yeah, it sucks but that's one of the privledges that comes with being commander in chief.
of course, he also has to put up with citizens that hate the very ground he walks on, no matter what he does. do you really think he's purposefully making your life worse? do you really think he wakes up in the morning and says, "awww fuck! how can i fuck over some more people today?" no, i'm pretty sure he wakes up and meets with his advisors and lays out the best plan of action for the next three months, and then somebody bombs somebody and he has to say fuck it so that the US can try and help resolve the situation peacefully. ever see the West Wing? yeah, that's pretty accurate, for the most part.
also, you neglected to answer my response on that article you gave me. you can just tell me that i'm right, i know i am. but i'd like to hear you actually say it.
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:32:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If I went back to 1930s Germany I'd stick a star of David on your back while you weren't looking.
Next stop Auschwitz.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:27:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Of course I don't like the precedent the wire-tapping set, but it looks like every other president did it."
-------------------
Oh REAAAAALLLY? Like who? When? When did they do it without warrants from a FISA court?
Dude, look, you are not even CLOSE to being on the level here. How many times do people have to SAY it!?!?
It's not the fact that he spied, it's the fact that he's DOING IT NOW with at least one American on the line WITHOUT even attempting to get a warrant after the fact, as is required by law!
He's blatantly breaking the fucking law!
You tell me which president did that.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:26:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck. fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. goddammit you got me. no seriously, you got me.
yeah, they cut the program. of course that's one way of looking at it. of course, they had to do that because it was the law, and the reason it looked so ridiculous is because it hadn't been reevaluated for fifteen years. they were still giving out more money than they had ever before, just to less people because get this -- FAMILIES HAD MORE MONEY!!!! WHOOOOOOPEEEEEEE!!!!!
honestly, i'd like to live in a sugar coated reality, too. don't think that i don't want the government to pay for all my shit, i do. college is expensive. but whatever, i guess you can interpret that article your way too, like most conspiracy theorists would. you can read the first paragraph in bold and your eyes can widen. you can get all excited and say "OH MY GOSH! BUSH DOESN'T WANT TO EDUCATE THE POOR NO MORES!!!!@@!#$!!!!"
But then you could read the rest of the article and realize thy were doing what was required by law, and that in all actuality they weren't cutting spending by doing it because they were still spending more money than ever before on the program. yeah, i hate bush and his huge budget, thanks for helping prove my point.
and yes, i guess we could argue all day about reaganomics, but i really don't think we're the two people to be doing that. point of fact, you say that reagan's economy was affected by the recession of the seventies, that would mean that his policies affected the following decade, by this same logic. it's okay, go with me here, i know this is something you don't want to hear. that would mean that the economy of the nineties was a direct result of reagan's economic policies.
did that work for you?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:14:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:01:38 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, did you actually read that article from cnn that you just gave me? i don't see how that helps prove your point, and if anything it does nothing but make the current administration look better.
---------------------
And just how the fuck do you figure that? Are you saying it's good that the program was cut? Are you calling that 'fiscally responsible'?
I sure as hell hope not.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:11:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, Wardy, you mentioned Reagan and his economics...
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/images/edwards-040608-chart.gif
The interesting thing about 'Reaganomics' is that, while he lowered taxes in 1981, advocated cutting the size of government, and promoted a free market economic philosophy, the annual deficit when he left office was up by 4% over when he took office.
Revenue was up 65%, due in part to the the fact that the economy recovered from the 70s recession and tax increases - which all but reversed his initial tax cut - in 1982, 1984, and 1987, but spending was up by 69%.
Reagan, like Bush today, was unable to control spending and offset that spending by increasing taxes. These men take half of one philosophy and half of another and try to combine them in the worst possible way. But for all Reagan's failure to bring the budget into surplus, no one in HISTORY has even approached the kind of irresponsibility displayed by the administration of G.W. Bush.
Reagan's economics are highly debated by economists, but when I look at them, I see 8 consecutive years of borrowing and deficit.
There are times when borrowing is probably necessary (as in the New Deal) to stimulate a stagnant economy, but there is no excuse for the rampant spending and borrowing in the hundreds of BILLIONS we're seeing now.
This WILL bite us on the ass. Mark my words. Hell, on second thought, don't take my word for it (I know you won't anyway). Instead, ask an economist what might happen if our investors suddenly stopped buying our bonds, or suddenly came to collect on existing bonds.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 01:01:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, did you actually read that article from cnn that you just gave me? i don't see how that helps prove your point, and if anything it does nothing but make the current administration look better.
go ahead, read it again, this time without skipping over the entire thing.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:56:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you really have lost it. i did respond to that, remember me talking about how reagan had massive debts and he still is credited with our economic boom? oh, that's right, you said that the boom wasn't real and that it was just going to catch up to us anyways, but then you credit clinton with his strong economy. don't tell me clinton caused the economy to boom in three years, economies don't do that. but i suppose you know that because of your extensive research and academic excellence in that field.
in regards to.....
-------------------------------------------
Our government is SUPPOSED to represent ALL its people equally, not just the ones with the money and influence to entice our leaders and line their pockets in secret. Our government is not meant to be a conduit to more riches for the rich and more sleepless nights wondering how they're gonna pay their medical bills for the poor and middle class.
--------- If they are secretly lining their pockets, how do you know about it? Think about that one, and then get back to me.
Our government is SUPPOSED to be there to uphold the constitution of the United States, not shitting all over it by breaking the fucking law simply because they claim the law was 'unrealistic'.
--------- Law enforcement is always trying to keep pace with the criminals. The same internet you use as a pundit to profess your beliefs is the same internet that people now use for credit fraud, scams, and everything else illegal that you can possibly imagine. And that's just domestic threats, we haven't even hit the tip of the iceberg in terms of national security. Of course I don't like the precedent the wire-tapping set, but it looks like every other president did it, and it looks like this on is the only one that is seeking to have it made legal.
Our government is SUPPOSED to be responsible and not get us into wars under false pretenses - throwing our military weight around the world like it's an extra limb while people HERE could use the $2 TRILLION we've spent in execution of said 'wars'.
--------- We had intelligence that we believed to be correct that said Iraq had WMD's. Not to mention he wouldn't let inspectors in to do their job, which is generally a sign of guilt, and also against international sanctions after the Gulf War. There is also no way of knowing whether or not he did have them, as by the time we'd exhausted diplomatic attempts at resolution, he likely had them removed. And that still doesn't account for the fact that Iraq is a big fucking country, so there still could be weapons somewhere.
Our government is NOT supposed to forsake AMERICANS when there is a natural disaster because they are too busy dicking around overseas in some war for oil and the preservation of dollar dominance. The president of our country has the DUTY to take the lead and get things done - reassuring people that the government is doing everything it was elected to do to help them get out of this terrible situation.
---------- They weren't, and you are a real asshole for suggesting something like this, just like the rest of the misinformed. Talk about being spoon fed information from the media, did you ever think about the situation objectively? Here we have one of the worst national disasters in history, and it very quickly turns into a hostile environment (remember the people looting televisions and guns, shooting at helicopters and hospitals?). It takes a few days to mobilize the National Guard in such a manner that they are prepared for what they are going into, so that they have the supplies and a plan of action so that they just aren't running around ducking gunfire and throwing out water bottles. But this topic is pretty exhausted, and I'm sure you'll claim something about the government not spending money to build up the levies. Of course they did that just to fuck over thousands of people, right? Because that's what these people do.
Our government should be responsible for identifying our strengths of natural resources, (which includes a skilled and well-educated workforce), and finding ways to be more environmentally and fiscally responsible while at the same time being more self-sufficient.
---------- It's a bit pretentious of you to assume that our work force is more skilled and educated than that of say India. Fiscally responsible? I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if it has to do with honest earnings reports and the whole corrupt CEO's ordeal, just look at the number of federal cases against big businesses like WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron. And the penalties for these white-collar crimes has gotten a lot worse than they were fifteen years ago.
Our government is NOT there to trample on the poor of other countries for our own benefit - keeping them fighting amonst themselves by selling them weaponry while we steal the only things of worth they have from under their noses.
----------- Our humanitarian aid across the world is unrivaled. And yes, we do give weapons to certain governments that we feel would make good allies. That's what governments do. They try to make the world a safer place by having more power structures that aren't going to bomb them. That's just how it works, I don't know what to tell you.
What our government SHOULD and COULD do is far from what they ARE doing...which over the past 5 years has been carry us headlong down the road to economic ruin behind a pied piper of war and incompetance.
----------- I wish I lived in the dream world that you do, ets. I think I've pretty much answered everything here. If you have any more brainbusters, go ahead and fire away. Also, if you disagree with me, feel free to tell me so.
*kisses*
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:39:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:27:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
when some disagrees with you you turn to murder yourself.
---------------------
I've never murdered anyone. Saying the world would be better off without assholes like you and carrying through to murder are two different things.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:36:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/23/pell.grants/
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:33:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:19:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
mr. jay peg man, sure defense spending goes for things like that. but it also goes for a ton of technological developments that better civilians lives. it also goes to educating a lot of people that wouldn't have been able to get into a college,
------------------------------
Well that's funny, because I seem to recall the 1990s when we were given Pell Grants to go to college under Clinton - when poor people had better OPTIONS than the vampiric military to get an education.
If you think that the military betters people's lives overall, you're insane. As far as I'm concerned, our over-militarization is a sign of the apathy and demise of a society that's lost the balls to stand up to its government and say "enough is enough".
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:28:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I noticed you had nothing to say about this, Wardy. That doesn't surprise me.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:58:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok Wardy, et al...
Please pay attention here...
I'm going to break this down for you all like a street dancer on a gym mat...
How about no pundits...no blogs...no interviews or opinions...just COLD, HARD numbers.
http://tse.export.gov/MapFrameset.aspx?MapPage=NTDMapDisplay.aspx&UniqueURL=rf3z4j5553tv51j0njv1be55-2006-2-12-20-57-56
>Go to that site.
>Set the flow to "balance".
>Set the display years to 1992-2005 so you can see Clinton's years vs. Bush's side by side, or go back even further if you like to the Reagan and Carter years.
>Look at all the RED...especially the BIG $766bn trade deficit of 2005.
>Note how Americans are consuming more and not producing ENOUGH more to keep up with that growth in consumsion. (This is my rebuttal to your 'growth' argument, and this is why 'growth' means nothing unless it's exceeding the rate of spending.)
>Now keep in mind that Bush is about to sell 300,000 acres of National Forest land for $380mil because we are so fucking broke we can't pay the bills.
>Attempt to argue with me further on some point involving Bush's ability to lead based on his economics.
Now, if that wasn't enough, look at the budget deficits since the early 1990s. (The budget deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and how much it takes in from taxes, whereas the trade deficit is a measure of the difference between imports and exports.)
http://www.bcmanning.com/wordpress/images/Budget2005.gif
(The budget deficit projected for 2006 is $423bn)
Note that Bush's budget deficits are AT FACE VALUE the worst in the nation's HISTORY, nevermind the fact that much of his defense spending is NOT EVEN INCLUDED in the actual budget, but on a 'separate' little side budget that allows him the flexibility to perform number twisting gymnastics like the what can be found on the White House's website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050713.html
Trying to FOOL people outright by publishing information that is more fallacious and irresponsible than anything I've ever THOUGHT about posting cannot last for long, but has lasted long enough to have done massive, and maybe even irrepairable, damage to our country.
While in office, Bush has cut taxes an astounding $2 TRILLION. And now...as if we didn't alreayd have enough topping on this little shit pie, Congress has just given the thumbs up to another....take a deep breath.......
$800 BILLION FEDERAL DEBT LIMIT! This will raise the federal borrowing cap to $8.18 trillion. That is 70 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6515282/
This means that by the time Bush is out of office, we will most likely have federal annual deficits of well over $1 TRILLION!!!
You wanted the 'WOW' factor. There you have it. If that doesn't WOW you, you either have no pulse or no understanding of what I'm talking about.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188109,00.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aDJ__YZlY8L0&refer=news_index
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P147633.asp
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14118285.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/usde-m16.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060315-1653-congress-budget.html
There. You've got a little of everyone from socialist websites to Fox News all saying the same thing.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:27:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Fuck him and anyone who thinks like him. It's assholes like that that are the reason we're in this fucking predicament to begin with. If I had my way, I'd see them all dead. And the world would be better for it. "
you typify everything thats wrong with 'zealots'. youre under-informed and poorly sourced and you sit here and cry about the unfortunate jewish people who were murdered, about the iraqis and soon the iranians that will die needlessly and claim youre a big humanitarian, yet when some disagrees with you you turn to murder yourself.
you are no better than those prolifer morons that murder doctors. your opinions are entirley worthless and and your actions even less so. keep sitting on this shitty website and preaching to your small, small choir, dickhead. you will never effect change. you are nothing but an armchair activist.
btw, you completely misunderstood my post because you are unable to widen yuor perspective. im done smacking you down here. i wont be responding again.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:27:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:00:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
you know who also had huge budget increases? reagan. he's credited by many economists as ushering in the greatest economic boom in our nation's history.
-------------------
The 'boom' is a farce if we're not making any money as a COUNTRY.
Sure a lot of people got filthy rich off our excesses and government irresponsibility in the 80s, just like they are now, but wait till the day we start paying for that $8.3 TRILLION in mistakes.
Corporation like Exxon, BP, the healthcare industry...they're all making record profits in a time of record deficit. That still does NOT an 'economic boom' make.
"also, tell me what the government is supposed to do?"
I'll tell you what our government is SUPPOSED to do...
Our government is SUPPOSED to represent ALL its people equally, not just the ones with the money and influence to entice our leaders and line their pockets in secret. Our government is not meant to be a conduit to more riches for the rich and more sleepless nights wondering how they're gonna pay their medical bills for the poor and middle class.
Our government is SUPPOSED to be there to uphold the constitution of the United States, not shitting all over it by breaking the fucking law simply because they claim the law was 'unrealistic'.
Our government is SUPPOSED to be responsible and not get us into wars under false pretenses - throwing our military weight around the world like it's an extra limb while people HERE could use the $2 TRILLION we've spent in execution of said 'wars'.
Our government is NOT supposed to forsake AMERICANS when there is a natural disaster because they are too busy dicking around overseas in some war for oil and the preservation of dollar dominance. The president of our country has the DUTY to take the lead and get things done - reassuring people that the government is doing everything it was elected to do to help them get out of this terrible situation.
Our government should be responsible for identifying our strengths of natural resources, (which includes a skilled and well-educated workforce), and finding ways to be more environmentally and fiscally responsible while at the same time being more self-sufficient.
Our government is NOT there to trample on the poor of other countries for our own benefit - keeping them fighting amonst themselves by selling them weaponry while we steal the only things of worth they have from under their noses.
What our government SHOULD and COULD do is far from what they ARE doing...which over the past 5 years has been carry us headlong down the road to economic ruin behind a pied piper of war and incompetance.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:19:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
mr. jay peg man, sure defense spending goes for things like that. but it also goes for a ton of technological developments that better civilians lives. it also goes to educating a lot of people that wouldn't have been able to get into a college, and it also pays them while it educates them.
and you can argue all you want about not needing those fifteen fighter jets, but i'd rather have them in the rare event that we need them, than not have them. as far as the metal detectors go, i've never heard about that before so i guess i can't say much about it. i mean, i'm sure major benjamin made it clear to ms. spencer that he wanted the telcomm brand of metal detectors because they were the best value and had a great fit in the hand, but of course she got the sony ones.
damn her.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:08:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Cheers.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:05:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All I can say is, the comment wasn't called for and I apologise to the other Australians who have to share their country with little cunt bitches like iddqd.
I consider most of the Aussie uberers friends. Saxon, Circe, etc....good people. My apologies to them for insulting their country. I didn't mean it as that kind of insult.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:04:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and don't even think about giving me the defense spending bullshit answer, because you and i both know defense spending is integral for our nation's development on every level.
-----------
I'm sure we could have done OK without building the 15 jet fighters that are currently sitting at Denver International Airport that haven't been flown in 8 months.
I'm also sure that the fifty-five metal detectors for Air Force Academy sport sites that were bought at 4 times the market rate were a bit excessive.
Small stuff like that, you know.
And I don't like backing up ETS on anything political, because the whackjobiness rubs off, but there is a difference between defense spending, and defense overspending.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-20 00:00:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you know who also had huge budget increases? reagan. he's credited by many economists as ushering in the greatest economic boom in our nation's history.
also, tell me what the government is supposed to do? tell me how the government should decrease the debt overnight. and don't even think about giving me the defense spending bullshit answer, because you and i both know defense spending is integral for our nation's development on every level.
and doom code was right about you.
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:55:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:33:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
If you want to defend yourself to assholes like iddqd (foreign or domestic), you have at it, but personally I don't give a fuck where you're from, if you deserve to be punched in the fucking nose, I'm gonna punch you in the fucking nose...unless, of course, you're on another continent, then it'll have to suffice me telling you you deserve it.
That's not because I think I'm better than someone else, but because they just fucking insulted me in a completely uncalled-for manner.
Read his comments, then go back and read his latest post. You'll see what I mean.
Besides, most of the foreigners you are trying to suck up to would probably appreciate the things I've said in this post as a refreshing perspective coming from an American, doncha think?
--
I don't give a shit what iddqd said to you.
You just insulted an entire country in a completely uncalled for manner, you fucking jackass. By your own admission, you've never been to Australia and you don't even know them. Yet somehow you know enough to label them as b-class.
And I don't "suck up to foreigners", asshole. I defend America to the people in my country because I used to live in the United States and I still see it for the great land that it is. That being said, those "foreigners" probably wouldn't see it as a refreshing perspective because people here don't evaluate opinions based on the nationality of those holding them.
Submitted by mono_blanco (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:41:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
+2 just for caring so much, and for accepting that you (like anyone who cares) could do way more, but that the potential for more does not take away from the positives of the efforts you do make (i.e. living middle-class in America still does less harm than living like a millionaire).
-1 for using a racial slur. Not to be a moral barometer, but you seem to be aware enough of historical and present oppression to be more considerate of the issues of race and injustice that are so intertwined with issues of class and international inequality.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:33:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:23:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:08:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
If only people would take me this seriously when I actually MEAN it....
That was a direct insult to iddqd and had nothing to do with what I think of Australia. Never been there.
But that's precisely why I don't try to tell them how to run their fucking country or they're "not doing enough" about the problems in the world when I don't even KNOW them.
--
It was a direct insult and had nothing to do with Australia yet you think the entire country is "b-class?" You're posting in an international forum here, and you're only doing yourself and your country a disservice by running your mouth like this. I'm constantly trying to defend America and Americans where I live, and concieted Yankee additudes like yours don't help. Knock it off.
------------------------
If you want to defend yourself to assholes like iddqd (foreign or domestic), you have at it, but personally I don't give a fuck where you're from, if you deserve to be punched in the fucking nose, I'm gonna punch you in the fucking nose...unless, of course, you're on another continent, then it'll have to suffice me telling you you deserve it.
That's not because I think I'm better than someone else, but because they just fucking insulted me in a completely uncalled-for manner.
Read his comments, then go back and read his latest post. You'll see what I mean.
Besides, most of the foreigners you are trying to suck up to would probably appreciate the things I've said in this post as a refreshing perspective coming from an American, doncha think?
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:23:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:08:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
If only people would take me this seriously when I actually MEAN it....
That was a direct insult to iddqd and had nothing to do with what I think of Australia. Never been there.
But that's precisely why I don't try to tell them how to run their fucking country or they're "not doing enough" about the problems in the world when I don't even KNOW them.
--
It was a direct insult and had nothing to do with Australia yet you think the entire country is "b-class?" You're posting in an international forum here, and you're only doing yourself and your country a disservice by running your mouth like this. I'm constantly trying to defend America and Americans where I live, and concieted Yankee additudes like yours don't help. Knock it off.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:08:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:55:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
Tomorrow: ETS outlines some hackneyed theory as to why people from other countries (The b-class ones) hate Americans. Needless to say, the obvious reasons will be left unaddressed in a show of typical American arrogance.
----------------------
If only people would take me this seriously when I actually MEAN it....
That was a direct insult to iddqd and had nothing to do with what I think of Australia. Never been there.
But that's precisely why I don't try to tell them how to run their fucking country or they're "not doing enough" about the problems in the world when I don't even KNOW them.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 23:05:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah Bubba, I'm cool. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate you going against the grain in seeing through uber's little popularity contest. I can't tell you how much it means to know that I'm not the only one here who feels this way about our situation both here in America and around the world, and wants to say something about it.
Sometimes I feel a bit like a Shakespearian sooth-sayer telling the hero he's going to die and having manure thrown at me by the townsfolk. And there are times when, because of my temperament, you bet your ass I'm gonna pick that fucking manure up and shove it down someone's fucking throat!
Right now, that person is iddqd. Because I'll be fucking DAMNED if I'm gonna sit here quiet and let some little turd muncher who just got through posting about how the demise of our natural environment is inevitable and how we should essentially just kick back, accept it, and be merry while the whole goddamn world goes to hell tell me I'M not doing enough to help the world. NOR am I gonna sit here and let some Aussie tell me I'm not doing enough about the problems in the country I was born and raised in, when I've already said on numerous occasions I'm doing about all I reasonably can outside leaving my life, picking up a gun, and going after some high level mark in Washington.
Fuck him and anyone who thinks like him. It's assholes like that that are the reason we're in this fucking predicament to begin with. If I had my way, I'd see them all dead. And the world would be better for it.
But yea...besides that, I'm peaches and cream. ;)
Submitted by Genko (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:55:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:27:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Look here you fucking little turd, you're not even a goddamn American, so as far as I'm concerned, this post has nothing to do with you anyway.
Shut your crocodile-fucking face, nigger.
Take your little bullshit, schoolboy opinions and shove them up your scrawny, upside-down ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:22:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
You know...I can't even fucking COUNT the number of posts I've written that call for a move toward hydrogen and nuclear energy even before Bush was fucking doing it, and now I've got fucking assholes like this little pretentious FUCK, iddqd, telling me I'm not doing enough...
FUCK YOU, YOU RED-FACED, SKINNY LITTLE CROCODILE FUCKER!
Why don't you tell me what YOU'VE done lately in terms of trying to help anything in the world in even a LIMITED capacity, you know...instead of making bullshit posts about how it doesn't matter what we do to the environment, or whether we kill ourselves off as a species because that's just "nature's way".
KISS MY SHINY WHITE ASS, YOU SPINELESS, GUTLESS, B-CLASS-COUNTRY-LIVING SON OF A BASTARD, STAND-FOR-NOTHING CRIMINAL!
---
Tomorrow: ETS outlines some hackneyed theory as to why people from other countries (The b-class ones) hate Americans. Needless to say, the obvious reasons will be left unaddressed in a show of typical American arrogance.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:42:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I understand the difference between a discussion and an attack.
However, I think the discussion has become more of an argument.
ETS is somewhat vitriolic in his beliefs, but he always means
well. The majority of the time he is correct, regardless of the
feedback he receives on this site. He is considered a whiner by
those who are content to bask in the glory of their own ignorance.
ETS, take some downers and call me in the morning... :)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:40:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:30:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Where the fuck were you two years ago? Nevermind, I just checked. You were busy posting retarded brain teasers while I was trying to fucking educate you, dipshit. PS. you forgot to vote.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/29333
--------------------
Yea, I'm sorry.
I should have been saying something all along. I was just in a different place then. I was looking for an escape. Ironic huh?
I've tried to post a little bit of everything on this site. I've tried to share my thoughts on every subject I can think of. I have tried to share my art, my music, my writing... But none of that matters to me right now.
Art is secondary to practical problems that extend to the entire world. I can't sit and be creative, like Iddqd said, while the world is going down the fucking tubes.
Right now, I'm stuck here. I can't leave where I am right now. I'm in a lease on my apartment I can't afford to break. I have debts I have to pay. I have other things in my imminent future preventing me from leaving for the peace corps, or leaving the grid of humanity altogether.
Something has happened to me in the last year or so, and I don't think I'll ever think the same way again.
I apologise for not standing up beside you back when you posted that. If you had posted that today, I would have.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:37:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:31:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
youre not doing enough. how can i tell you that with such certainty?
because you write posts about it on uber, you total fucking loser. youre sitting in your house spewing your tired, 15th-hand views on the very small, largely non-receptive audience of uber and you think that youre doing something.
scuse me while i kiss the sky.
i dont do anything, because im perfectly happy with the way things are. maybe thats a cop out, or maybe its just being smart enough to know when youre on to a good thing.
im not the one who is spineless. you are the one who is spineless because you claim that youre some big eco-warrior, yet all you do is write the same post about it over and over and over again on this shitty LITTLE site. way to stick it to the man, there.
thanks for getting all pissed off and irrational, you just vindicated me.
____________________________________________________________________
"All hurricanes start with a gentle breeze."
-Bubba2341- 2006
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:35:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Everyone wants something better in life, which is part of the reason
Marx and Ingalls were full of shit. Human greed is inbred, but it need
not exhibit itself in the form of killing."
bubba, i want to visit this land of milk and honey with ranibow roads and fairies that bring you lemonade whenever you want, that you live in, i really do.
ps, be aware (unlike poor old ets) that this is a discussion, and not a personal attack upon you.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:31:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
youre not doing enough. how can i tell you that with such certainty?
because you write posts about it on uber, you total fucking loser. youre sitting in your house spewing your tired, 15th-hand views on the very small, largely non-receptive audience of uber and you think that youre doing something.
scuse me while i kiss the sky.
i dont do anything, because im perfectly happy with the way things are. maybe thats a cop out, or maybe its just being smart enough to know when youre on to a good thing.
im not the one who is spineless. you are the one who is spineless because you claim that youre some big eco-warrior, yet all you do is write the same post about it over and over and over again on this shitty LITTLE site. way to stick it to the man, there.
thanks for getting all pissed off and irrational, you just vindicated me.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:31:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"It's nature's way of telling us something's wrong"
-Spirit-
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:30:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Where the fuck were you two years ago? Nevermind, I just checked. You were busy posting retarded brain teasers while I was trying to fucking educate you, dipshit. PS. you forgot to vote.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/29333
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:28:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Iddqd, the fact you cannot "mold as the softest clay" is that Bush
has stated an intention to attach Iran for no other reason than that
they "might" attack us.
Everyone wants something better in life, which is part of the reason
Marx and Ingalls were full of shit. Human greed is inbred, but it need
not exhibit itself in the form of killing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:27:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Look here you fucking little turd, you're not even a goddamn American, so as far as I'm concerned, this post has nothing to do with you anyway.
Shut your crocodile-fucking face, nigger.
Take your little bullshit, schoolboy opinions and shove them up your scrawny, upside-down ass.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:22:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You know...I can't even fucking COUNT the number of posts I've written that call for a move toward hydrogen and nuclear energy even before Bush was fucking doing it, and now I've got fucking assholes like this little pretentious FUCK, iddqd, telling me I'm not doing enough...
FUCK YOU, YOU RED-FACED, SKINNY LITTLE CROCODILE FUCKER!
Why don't you tell me what YOU'VE done lately in terms of trying to help anything in the world in even a LIMITED capacity, you know...instead of making bullshit posts about how it doesn't matter what we do to the environment, or whether we kill ourselves off as a species because that's just "nature's way".
KISS MY SHINY WHITE ASS, YOU SPINELESS, GUTLESS, B-CLASS-COUNTRY-LIVING SON OF A BASTARD, STAND-FOR-NOTHING CRIMINAL!
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:19:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
bubba, truth is a whore and facts can be moulded like the softest clay.
ets, i wonder what it is exactly that you think youre 'TRYING' to do. other than take a lot of words (for uber, at least) to say not very much at all.
are you trying to fix 'the system'? who do you think you are to think it needs fixing?
im glad you feel guilty for your equal role in the rape and pillage of other nations and eco-systems for your own comfort. im sure the guys that led the jews into the 'showers' at the death camps had the odd pang or too, also. what swell guys we all are.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:13:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the technology isnt the cause of the corrution, its the desire for ever more and more clever gadgets and toys. more cushions for our consciousness.
anyway, im not saying we should give them up, im saying people need ot reaise that to condemn a system that rapes and pillages to provide them with all these comforts that they obviously take for granted is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
youre flipping the bird with one hand, and holding our the other for alms
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:09:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
iddqd: You think I'm not aware of that? You think that I don't feel a little more guilty every day because of it? The catch-22 is, there is now no way to escape it. There are really few places in this country you can go and live off the grid. We have property laws that prevent me from following game and hunting laws that demand that I pay a tax, and property taxes...
All of what you said is easier said than done. Besides, if I can get 20 people to just replace their light bulbs with fluorescent, or if I can convince one other person to buy a hybrid next time they go car shopping, I will still be doing SOMETHING.
I feel guilty enough every day without you reminding me. And I post about it nearly every fucking day. The difference is, you don't give a fuck either way, and you can sit there all smug and judge me - who is at least TRYING.
But I'M the fucking hypocrite.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:02:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Now you sound like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what your definition of "is" is. . .
Define truth, then, moron.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 22:00:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
OK, iddqd, we will all give up our computers and go back to living in caves,
simply because the technology is the cause of government corruption. Are you
for real? The bad comes with the good every time Man makes advances, but his
inherent nature to be selfish, greedy, and assholish to his fellows has
nothing to do with science. Government in ALL forms has become way too large
to be starting wars for personal gain.
The good things Hitler did for Germany are recorded fact, but the bad far
outweighs the good. . .
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 21:57:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
whoever said 'the truth is the truth. no matter who says it' has a total misunderstanding of the word 'truth'.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-03-19 21:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I'd like for each of you to ask yourselves something... If you had a chance to go back to Nazi Germany in the early 1930s and tell the people what their beloved Adolph Hitler was about to do to their country, would you do it? Would you yell out in the street or try to rouse your fellow citizens to break the spell of popular opinion and see what was happening before their very eyes? Or would you sit on your hands and do nothing? "
what, you mean would i tell the people of post-WWI germany that this dude is going to turn your country from a poorly-led virtual third-world nation into one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than a decade? would i tell the people of pst-WWI germany that no longer will they have to take a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread, or paper their houses with their worthless money because it is cheaper than to use wallpaper? would i tell the people of post-WWI germany that no longer with they be led by a deeply fractured government with no direction or capability of giving the nation the leadership it so desperately needs, instead by a strong, cohesive, pro-active government?
theres more to that issue than (jewish agenda'd, might i add) hollywood films you fucking douchebag. yeah the holocaust was a stain upon human history, but you know what, no average german person would have seen that coming. they have some dude come along, promising to do all these things for them, to give them back their lives and their dignity, and wow, he actually does it. do you really think all of germany truly bought into the whole nazi ideology? they jsut wanted to not have to worry about their next fucking meal. germany was so screwed by france and other nations through war reparations that they got backed into a corner. they had little to no choice other than to become the terror that they did.
your souces suck, your overly empotive bullshit sucks and you are not the genius you think you are. i can go walk along the street in my area of town and get this exact same dribble.
the very comfortable life you lead is paid for with other peoples blood, whether you think so or not. the US is, like pretty much every other 'great power' through histoy, a nation fuelled by war. the oil and the resouces secured by the military and pludered by corporations provide you with the standard of living that gives your the time and toys to sit at home and think youre being groundbreaking with this crap. your shitty, overwrought point:
"A man cannot be blamed for valuing self-preservation. He cannot be blamed for wanting to shy away from trouble and just go about his own business without being abrasive. Yet, a man who sits idly by while women and children suffer in his name, propped up with HIS vote, surely there is no sin greater under heaven"
is the heighth of hypocrisy. do you like having a computer? internet access? the tools to play and record your own music? do you drive, use buses, taxis or trains? do you like electricity? do you like every facet of your comfortable little life?
because with every product or service you consume, with every priveleged breath that you take you give your heartfelt and eternal consent for these governments to do what they like.
theyre doing it for you.
wake the fuck up to yourself.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 21:00:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bubba, you're a sight for sore eyes. Thanks for helping out with your input.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:58:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok Wardy, et al...
Please pay attention here...
I'm going to break this down for you all like a street dancer on a gym mat...
How about no pundits...no blogs...no interviews or opinions...just COLD, HARD numbers.
http://tse.export.gov/MapFrameset.aspx?MapPage=NTDMapDisplay.aspx&UniqueURL=rf3z4j5553tv51j0njv1be55-2006-2-12-20-57-56
>Go to that site.
>Set the flow to "balance".
>Set the display years to 1992-2005 so you can see Clinton's years vs. Bush's side by side, or go back even further if you like to the Reagan and Carter years.
>Look at all the RED...especially the BIG $766bn trade deficit of 2005.
>Note how Americans are consuming more and not producing ENOUGH more to keep up with that growth in consumsion. (This is my rebuttal to your 'growth' argument, and this is why 'growth' means nothing unless it's exceeding the rate of spending.)
>Now keep in mind that Bush is about to sell 300,000 acres of National Forest land for $380mil because we are so fucking broke we can't pay the bills.
>Attempt to argue with me further on some point involving Bush's ability to lead based on his economics.
Now, if that wasn't enough, look at the budget deficits since the early 1990s. (The budget deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and how much it takes in from taxes, whereas the trade deficit is a measure of the difference between imports and exports.)
http://www.bcmanning.com/wordpress/images/Budget2005.gif
(The budget deficit projected for 2006 is $423bn)
Note that Bush's budget deficits are AT FACE VALUE the worst in the nation's HISTORY, nevermind the fact that much of his defense spending is NOT EVEN INCLUDED in the actual budget, but on a 'separate' little side budget that allows him the flexibility to perform number twisting gymnastics like the what can be found on the White House's website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050713.html
Trying to FOOL people outright by publishing information that is more fallacious and irresponsible than anything I've ever THOUGHT about posting cannot last for long, but has lasted long enough to have done massive, and maybe even irrepairable, damage to our country.
While in office, Bush has cut taxes an astounding $2 TRILLION. And now...as if we didn't alreayd have enough topping on this little shit pie, Congress has just given the thumbs up to another....take a deep breath.......
$800 BILLION FEDERAL DEBT LIMIT! This will raise the federal borrowing cap to $8.18 trillion. That is 70 percent the size of the entire U.S. economy! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6515282/
This means that by the time Bush is out of office, we will most likely have federal annual deficits of well over $1 TRILLION!!!
You wanted the 'WOW' factor. There you have it. If that doesn't WOW you, you either have no pulse or no understanding of what I'm talking about.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188109,00.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aDJ__YZlY8L0&refer=news_index
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P147633.asp
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14118285.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/usde-m16.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060315-1653-congress-budget.html
There. You've got a little of everyone from socialist websites to Fox News all saying the same thing.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:47:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
HEY ETS!! I'm slinging shit here and pretending to stick up
for your sorry ass. Where the fuck are you? :)
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:43:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:35:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
bubba -- of course the truth is the truth no matter who says it. but there are certain sources that i would consider credible and more likely to purport the unbiased truth than others.
and yes, i'm well aware that some college degrees are worthless. i am also aware that a college degree is better than no college degree, and that academic websites versus blogs are generally more credible.
________________________________________________________________
G.W. Bush has a college degree, and that is a travesty. Ward Churchill is
considered an academic, and he's a total moron. The truth is ascertained
by study and introspection, not by the source.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:35:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
bubba -- of course the truth is the truth no matter who says it. but there are certain sources that i would consider credible and more likely to purport the unbiased truth than others.
and yes, i'm well aware that some college degrees are worthless. i am also aware that a college degree is better than no college degree, and that academic websites versus blogs are generally more credible.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:29:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:50:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
there's always been a disparity in wealth distribution -- believe it or not, it used to be a lot greater. there was also this one guy, i can't remember his name, but he went from being an average college student to being the world's richest man.
showing me a chart that shows the distribution of wealth does nothing for your argument, ets. in terms of 3% of americans making only minimum wage, where's the statistic telling me how many of those 3% are actually trying to support themselves and/or a family? then, how many of those are the primary bread winners in their family? your number should drop dramatically, i'm only assuming this based on the standard of living i witness on an every day basis, but if you've got some mind blowing facts, i'd be more than willing to listen to them.
woody -- i wasn't refuting the fact that britain has a strong economy, i was just saying that you suck. that's what my argument resorted to because i was making dinner with my girlfriend. yeah, i know britain has a strong, steady economy. that's why they didn't want to get involved with the euro. but you can't deny that the us economy has been pretty much a world mover for the last twenty years or so, and that's what i mean by our economy having strength.
and i still don't understand why i can't use cnn as a reputable source.
that's all for now, guys. the sopranos is going to be on in a little over an hour, and i have a piece of chicken caught in my teeth. i'll check back on this in a few hours. ets, get researching. blow my mind. criteria for search:
1) source cannot be a blog
2) editors and authors of said source must hold high degrees from reputable institutions
3) naked pictures of hot female porn stars is a plus
thanks,
wardy.
____________________________________________________________________
Wardy, criteria 1 and 2 are utter horseshit. The truth is the truth
regardless of WHO says it. Most modern college degrees are worthless,
too rough even for toilet paper.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I didn't bother reading all of the reviews for the simple reason
that most of them are shit.
It was all over the news last week that Bush was making an ass of himself again.
He said (paraphrase), " We believe in a first-strike policy against terrorists,
even if we don't know the time, place, or severity of their intended attack."
Someone somewhere might think of doing something awful, so we're gonna
kick their asses before they start. What an idiot.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-19 20:10:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You might be one of the ten dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
I KNOW you're in the Top Ten crybabies of all time.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:50:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
there's always been a disparity in wealth distribution -- believe it or not, it used to be a lot greater. there was also this one guy, i can't remember his name, but he went from being an average college student to being the world's richest man.
showing me a chart that shows the distribution of wealth does nothing for your argument, ets. in terms of 3% of americans making only minimum wage, where's the statistic telling me how many of those 3% are actually trying to support themselves and/or a family? then, how many of those are the primary bread winners in their family? your number should drop dramatically, i'm only assuming this based on the standard of living i witness on an every day basis, but if you've got some mind blowing facts, i'd be more than willing to listen to them.
woody -- i wasn't refuting the fact that britain has a strong economy, i was just saying that you suck. that's what my argument resorted to because i was making dinner with my girlfriend. yeah, i know britain has a strong, steady economy. that's why they didn't want to get involved with the euro. but you can't deny that the us economy has been pretty much a world mover for the last twenty years or so, and that's what i mean by our economy having strength.
and i still don't understand why i can't use cnn as a reputable source.
that's all for now, guys. the sopranos is going to be on in a little over an hour, and i have a piece of chicken caught in my teeth. i'll check back on this in a few hours. ets, get researching. blow my mind. criteria for search:
1) source cannot be a blog
2) editors and authors of said source must hold high degrees from reputable institutions
3) naked pictures of hot female porn stars is a plus
thanks,
wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:48:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:21:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Uber is his pulpit!!!! He can proselytize to his heart's content and feel better in the knowledge that he is making as much of a difference as one man con, since he has rendered himself incapable of being a viable political candidate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:18:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
alright, I'll take your word that you're getting there. But what abouy my question concerning leaving uber?
------------------
Sadly, OCG is about right. I can only do so much right now because of some of the decisions I've made in the past. I haven't exactly set myself up for an easy way to go.
I am doing my best to just speak the things I think need to be spoken, it just so happened I was already fairly well known here when I started feeling the need to say this shit, so here I am.
You people aren't the only ones I bug. I talk to people in person about this sort of thing any chance I get. Speaking to people in person, and having a discussion about these issues is far easier than having to type everything out, and it's far less contentious for the most part because people can know where a person's coming from in an argument more when they can hear their vocal inflections and read their body language.
When it comes to statistics, there are a few key statistics that I have internalized that pretty much tell the story. The rest are secondary to the source of the problem.
I've thought about leaving uber several times because of the flac I get, but I've realized I am not a quitter. I will not retreat from arguing what I think is right simply because no one is rating my posts anymore except for people who hate me.
The way I figure it, if I can convince just one person of voting age what I already know to be wrong and how I think it could be fixed, then I have essentially doubled my voting power.
Two people - tripled it... And so on.
That's all I can do for the moment. So for now, you're all stuck with me.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:46:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I absolutely hate the policy we have on the lack of incentives on major corporations regarding outsourcing (GM, etc).
It's that bad that we have to give these huge corporations money, so they stay here to offset their profit margins if they did outsource.
And to the comment about having cheaper more efficient products and not having anything bad come from it, tell that to all the GM employees and the like laid off because Mexicans will work for fractions of their pay.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:36:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:15:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
how many people do you really know that are only capable of making minimum wage?
--------------------
It's about 3%.
But this is even more telling than that: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
Look at the distribution of wealth in this country. Yet we're giving corporate welfare to companies and allowing them to export jobs - effectively bypassing domestic labor laws and unionised work force - without proper tarrifs on their imports back into the country. Those figures are from 2001. I'm sure it's even worse by now.
I guess there's just too much money flying around in Washington these days to put a stop any of this, right?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:21:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Uber is his pulpit!!!! He can proselytize to his heart's content and feel better in the knowledge that he is making as much of a difference as one man con, since he has rendered himself incapable of being a viable political candidate.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:18:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
alright, I'll take your word that you're getting there. But what abouy my question concerning leaving uber?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:18:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought it might be somehow
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:16:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:07:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Woody: I can't right now or I'll default on my lease.
I'm getting there though.
There is enough work to be done here in America anyway, but none of it can be done if our leaders keep fucking us up.
-------------------
Sorry, that was supposed to be directed at G-Prime.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:16:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"do you have a source proclaiming this remarkable feat?"
Are you seriously say that the UK hasn't had so many quarters in a row, I was just guessing at the number 60, but there were a fair few headline when we reached 50 and that was a couple of years ago and we havent missed any since.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Britain+economic+growth+consecutive+quarters&spell=
The US economy is NOT doing better than most of the world.
Linking to CNNs economy section doesn't actually proove anything.
US% of world economy in 1999 was 21.885
It is now 20.570
Argue with the facts why don't you.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:15:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
don't give me the minimum wage argument, you fucking asshole. when i was fourteen i was making eight dollars an hour at a restaurant as a bus boy. how many people do you really know that are only capable of making minimum wage? oh, okay. also, circumstances sometimes mean that more than just the dad has to be the bread winner in a family. oh dear god, the sky must be falling. oh, and now both the mother and father are making minimum wage, and they have a family to support! well, if you aren't with me on the theory that these two dunces shouldn't be procreating, at least feel warmth in the fact that there would have to be some sort of raise in the near future, most companies require a raise every nine months or so.
all that pretty much adds up to the rarity of people actually trying to "make it" on minimum wage.
leave the bunker, there are tits and pussy to fuck.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:10:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Heard it.
You're not Joan of Arc, man.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:09:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
don't get my facts from a reputable source? don't tell me i need to start surfing the blogs like ets, i don't know if that'd help matters at all.
oh, and congrats on the sixty quarters of consecutive growth. do you have a source proclaiming this remarkable feat, or is it just marked on your wall calender? i'm really happy for you guys, really. but tell me, in comparison to the us economy, how big is britain's?
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:09:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Are you intentionally avoiding that question every time I bring it up?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:07:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Woody: I can't right now or I'll default on my lease.
I'm getting there though.
There is enough work to be done here in America anyway, but none of it can be done if our leaders keep fucking us up.
Wardy: that link is nothing but projections based on SURVEYS of CEOs. I gave you concrete numbers of past performace. The main basis for the argument being put forth on that website is that unemployment rate is still low. What they don't account for is that more and more people are having to work 2 and 3 jobs just to make ends meet.
There is not one state in this nation that a minimum wage job will support a person on their own without rendering them homeless. They certainly couldn't afford to drive a car.
http://www.kltprc.net/books/women/Gifs/Fig_23.gif
Look at that graph. That shows you the annual minimum wage federal salary along with the poverty level of a family of three, and the cost of living in one of the cheapest states in the union to live in, Kentucky. It's impossible to live even in Kentucky on that amount, yet many people in this country only make minimum wage. It now requires multiple people working multiple jobs to raise an average sized family.
Couple this with the fact that Bush's cited 'unemployment rate' doesn't account for discrete, non-government aided job seekers, which really makes the unemployment rate around 8.7% or about 276,200 people unemployed and you can begin to see, (hopefully), where I'm coming from.
It's no wonder so many at or below the poverty line in this country resort to alternate means such as selling drugs - furthering the burdon on taxpayers.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:05:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and heres a hint, don't get your facts from CNN.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:04:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
consecutive
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 19:03:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy the US has lost the equivalent of more than 1% of the worlds GDP in the last 5 years.
How can that possibly 'doing better than most of the world'
On closer inspection Britian isn't even keeping pace and we've had like 60 quarters of consecuive economic growth or sumin like that.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:55:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
woody -- go here. by not bad i mean that we're still doing better than most of the world. http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/index.html
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:48:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is no way you can maintain the claim of the most powerful coutnry on earth with an economy which can be at best described as not bad.
Britain is barely keeping place in real terms and our economys doin flipin great.
Not bad is not good enough, if things don't improve a whole lot, and it does't look like they're gonna, then pretty soon not even dumbarse bible belters are gonna beleive you're still the world leader.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:43:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:27:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:05:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:35:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's because you're a hedonist, not a nihilist.
You want to have your cake and not worry with any of the details in what it took to procure it, or whole it was stolen from so that you would have it.
That's what I hear when you say that.
================
I'm no fucking hedonist, take that back you jerk. And I have my nice little cake, and I appreciate that I have it, and I would much rather share it with the person from which it was stolen, but I wouldn't mind so much if somebody took it away from me right this instant. life = meaningless. It ends there. Would you say Ghandi is a hedonist? How about Jesus? Moses? They were all bong smoking hippies by the way.
--------------------------
Let me introduce you to what it feels like to be me around here...
SO WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY, G-PRIME!?!?! NOW YOU'RE COMPARING YOURSELF TO GHANDI AND JESUS?!?! YOU ARROGANT MOTHERFUCKER!!!! BLUUUUUURRRRRB!!!!
--------------------------
Well, you see Brad, I WAS comparing myself to Ghandi and Jesus. And if you hate the way uber treats you, why not just leave? I've asked you this many times, yet you never answer. Your posts aren't going to change the way anybody thinks, and if they do, then I would have to say those people have weak enough opinions in the first place. Either people agree with what you're saying, and they will kiss your ass, or they disagree, and you will get called "holier-than-thou" and other such stuff. Either way, your posts on uber make no difference to the world. And you obviously don't like the way it feels "to be me around here" so why do you stay?
If you really want to make a difference, visit this site, and sign up right now. http://www.hivafrica.org/volunteer.php Right fucking now. These people can't wait. Right now. Quit your internet support phone line whatever it is you do that only feeds the machine you profess to hate so much, and go help some people who really need it. If you are in the least bit enlightened and unattached to your proberbial cake, do it. There is no good reason not to.
http://www.hivafrica.org/volunteer.php
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:37:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
it's not bad, either.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:34:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy, seriously the US economy isn't exactly fit as a fiddle.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:31:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/news/economy/jobs_bluecollar/index.htm -- that's current. it also is from a reputable source, not a blog.
it also took me three minutes to find. better luck next time, chucko.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If we don't feed the drama queen, do you think he'll die from the trolling equivalent of anorexia? I sure hope so.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:26:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
so we're sending jobs overseas because that allows us to give americans better, cheaper products? i don't see this as being a bad thing.
also, while i appreciate the article from 2003, i would hardly consider it to be a great source of information, especially considering the editor of the site, and the fact that the economy has improved since 2003, so maybe his predictions, along with yours, are completely baseless.
does that count?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:20:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I fucking DARE you to refute on stitch of information I just gave you, Wardy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:17:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy, that seals it.
YOU. ARE. A. MORON.
All our high-paying jobs are going overseas! At this rate, we're all going to be fucking McDonald's workers! The minimum wage hasn't risen in like 10 FUCKING YEARS!
The ONLY reason we are allowed to float by for the moment is our military power - which is growing increasingly thin in Iraq.
Our nation is $8.2 TRILLION in the fucking hole!
We don't even own the money we DO make at this point.
(Taken from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-07.htm)
"Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict as many as two million U.S. white-collar jobs such as programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift to low cost centers by 2014.
But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to cut costs, such as Microsoft Corp. , International Business Machines Corp. and AT&T Wireless, are reluctant to attract attention for political reasons, observers said this week."
GM is cutting 38,000-50,000 American jobs.
Ford has cut thousands of US WHITE COLLAR jobs: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/05/A01-140114.htm
And is shutting down 14 plants, to lay off 30,000 workers: http://www.partstrain.com/blog/?p=26
This list is virtually endless...
Check it out: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html
There is an actual list of American based companies who are outsourcing jobs overseas while our own wages are decreased and our trade deficits increase.
And you call this good economics. Idiot. Stay in school, fool. Just don't go to Yale. Apparently it didn't do Bush any good.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:10:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
woody -- i don't think the us economy is failing. maybe stabalizing is a better word for it, but i don't really think it's failing.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:03:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm curious, how much lower can Bush's approval ratings go? 37-40% is pretty dire but is it possible for them to fall further?
what I'm trying to say is, how many true believers are out there?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 18:02:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
jesus... okay, i'm not sure if i can remember all you wrote, but here it goes. 4.8% unemployment is a very, very good rate. most industrialized countries shoot to be below 6%. During our "boom" years, we were around 3.5%. If you're going to give me average wages that are adjusted for inflation, that's great. but don't expect me to give a shit when they drop five cents or go up seven cents. because they are adjusted for inflation, that means that they are adjusted period and if there are dips and peaks in that number that's only to be expected in a mobile market. i would've been surprised if they dipped three dollars, but not five cents. you also have to realize taht because of the boom in the economy in the late nineties, many more jobs were created, and obviously not all of these were high-paying jobs, perhaps lowering the average wage but also lowering unemployment.
therefore, your argument about the economy is flawed at best. next time try not taking your info from a playwrite's website and if you do, interpret the data for what it means before you regurgitate it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:56:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hes got a point, the US economy is failing. Whether you blame that on Bush or you just think its the end of the line for the new world boom you can't argue with the fact that the US is developing an 70s/80s Britain kinda feel.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:53:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy I don't beleive anyone controlls the media in the US it just wants exciting news, if the station has a stupid conservative viewer base it'll go on about hippieliberalqueers ruining the country, if its watched by the ETSs of the world it'll be huge oil conspiracies and government corruption.
Though they seem to have a point about government corruption over there.
Saying george bush tries to do the right thing but is just generally a failure and that did you kow the temperature world wide is gonna rise about 0.5C over the next decade or two jus isn't as geed news as Evil Bush and the oil companies causig the extinction of the huma race.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:52:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:36:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
ets, the economy is improving.
----------------------
You really didn't read this or watch that video I linked to did you? Because if you did, you'd realize that the only reason the economy continues to....ahem....'grow' is because foreign investors are allowing us to keep spending more than we take in. The minute that's taken away, it will all be over.
Do you even know what 'growth' means?
ALL 'growth' means is that the money we make off our exports is increasing in terms of dollars. Unfortunately for us, our trade deficit was upwards of $725 BILLION, meaning we SPENT that much more than we took in.
In simple terms, it doesn't help you to get a $1 an hour raise at your job if you're going to go out and buy a fucking yacht and a Corvette.
All you're doing is parroting crap you've read from your 'reputable sources' right now.
Try another angle...
Ok, let me do it FOR you...
"The economy created 243,000 jobs in February and has created about 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months - and almost 5 million since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent - lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s." (Taken from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/)
Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, average wages are THROUGH THE FUCKING SHITTER:
(Taken from http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html)
"In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.
But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.
The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further."
If you want to get into economy, you're unfortunately on the WRONG side of the fence if you're a Bush supporter, because he is the WORST president in history in terms of economy.
That's not just lip service either. That, I CAN prove.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:47:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The more I look at this post the more suprised I am at its relatively good rating, its just a huge cut and paste with some retarded pondering about Nazis.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:46:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
woody -- i had used the term "liberally biased media" because ets had basically implied the media was controlled by conservatives and purported mistrust of it therein. i've heard a lot of talk from proffessors about this "liberal media", so i wouldn't say the claim is unfounded, but i agree there is just as much from either wing.
either way, sorry if i offended you with the term.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:43:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I only read the first 20 reviews or so, and you seemed to mention it quite a bit. Well twice anyway.
I was just saying it to anyone who used the phrase 'liberal media' goes on about rich billionaires (as a pose to poor billionaires, obviously) controling the media, or insults/dsiparages people or their opinions based on their political team.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:42:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:24:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
EXACTLY! Do you think you're going to read in the paper in black and white: "tomorrow, we will be going to war with Iran"?!?!
That was kinda the point of this post.
The ONLY reason we're being diplomatic in any sense with respect to Iran is because Iran would not be a pushover like Iraq. We can't go storming in there without considering repercussions, namely China and Russia's interests there and the possibility of a serious retaliation.
What it amounts to is this: we're in an almost impossible spot.
On the one hand, our dollar and world economy plummets.
On the other hand, WWIII.
THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THIS IS SO GODDAMN IMPORTANT!
----------------------------------------------
your review here sums up how ignorant you are. you tell me to open my eyes and mind, but here you recognize what i've been trying to point out, that we are trying to resolve things diplomatically with iran as best we can. yet, you cannot get past the idea that we must be doing this for reasons that support your claim, when you have yet to show any evidence that this is their intention.
and yes, i do expect to read something concrete about our plans to go to war before i get all up in arms about it. because we are attempting peaceful resolutions, why should i expect us to do anything of the contrary? you need to stop acting like you're the world's eye into the truth and start looking at what's really going on: we are trying to achieve everything we do diplomatically.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:38:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Look I don't recon there'll be a war unless the Iranian president does something pretty damn stupid, and he's held back by massive Cleric opposition.
China want Irans oil, so they wont let the US invade without hell of a good reason, and the US can't take on China by a long way.
It ain't gonna happen, relax.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:38:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I HOPE you weren't talking to me, Woody.
Search this page for those words and see who has brought them up. The only time I said anything about it was in mockery of it.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:36:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ets, the economy is improving.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:35:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:34:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you shut up with the liberal/conservative stuff already.
--------------------
WHOA!!!!!!
Where the hell are you getting that?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:34:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Would you shut up with the liberal/conservative stuff already.
And Blair won't be having any more wars if I have anything to do with it. Which unfortunately I don't.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:27:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:05:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:35:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's because you're a hedonist, not a nihilist.
You want to have your cake and not worry with any of the details in what it took to procure it, or whole it was stolen from so that you would have it.
That's what I hear when you say that.
================
I'm no fucking hedonist, take that back you jerk. And I have my nice little cake, and I appreciate that I have it, and I would much rather share it with the person from which it was stolen, but I wouldn't mind so much if somebody took it away from me right this instant. life = meaningless. It ends there. Would you say Ghandi is a hedonist? How about Jesus? Moses? They were all bong smoking hippies by the way.
--------------------------
Let me introduce you to what it feels like to be me around here...
SO WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY, G-PRIME!?!?! NOW YOU'RE COMPARING YOURSELF TO GHANDI AND JESUS?!?! YOU ARROGANT MOTHERFUCKER!!!! BLUUUUUURRRRRB!!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:24:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:58:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, and ets i haven't found anything so far that says we will go to war with iran... pretty much everything says it's a last resort that probably wouldn't happen anyways because countries like russia probably wouldn't support it.... so yeah...
---------------------
EXACTLY! Do you think you're going to read in the paper in black and white: "tomorrow, we will be going to war with Iran"?!?!
That was kinda the point of this post.
The ONLY reason we're being diplomatic in any sense with respect to Iran is because Iran would not be a pushover like Iraq. We can't go storming in there without considering repercussions, namely China and Russia's interests there and the possibility of a serious retaliation.
What it amounts to is this: we're in an almost impossible spot.
On the one hand, our dollar and world economy plummets.
On the other hand, WWIII.
THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THIS IS SO GODDAMN IMPORTANT!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:18:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy,
I'm fully aware of Miss Rice's and others in the Bush administration's rhetoric on the subject of Iran and diplomacy:
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic." - President Bush, 2002 State of the Union
"While telling Iran not to make Nukes, U.S. still develops more"
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3613966
How about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4186241.stm
Now let's talk about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty:
**Three states - India, Pakistan, and Israel - have declined to sign the treaty. All three either HAVE, or are suspected to have nuclear weapons. All three are considered U.S. allies.
**North Korea ratified the treaty, but withdrew from the treaty on January 10, 2003, declaring it already HAD nuclear weapons.
**Iran is a signatory state of the NPT.
If you define 'diplomacy' as 'placing restrictive demands on a sovereign nation that you have not placed on your own allies or yourself', then I guess you're right...we're being VERY diplomatic.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:10:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I actually can't wait for an ETS Special-Edition on bird flu.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:07:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:04:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
wardy, I just hate the fact that we can all sit here in our own little world, and speak so cavalier of war - for whatever the reason.
It's not as simple as declaring war on a nation anymore. It's not even as simple as the World Wars, were everyone divied up sides and went at it.
Everyone is so interconnected now (I really have no fucking idea about global commerce, the dollar, the euro, etc) that another Middle East "Conflict" is exactly what the WORLD doesn't need.
=====
No, no, the world needs a war. Thin out the population. Let the bird flu take care of the rest.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:05:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:35:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
That's because you're a hedonist, not a nihilist.
You want to have your cake and not worry with any of the details in what it took to procure it, or whole it was stolen from so that you would have it.
That's what I hear when you say that.
================
I'm no fucking hedonist, take that back you jerk. And I have my nice little cake, and I appreciate that I have it, and I would much rather share it with the person from which it was stolen, but I wouldn't mind so much if somebody took it away from me right this instant. life = meaningless. It ends there. Would you say Ghandi is a hedonist? How about Jesus? Moses? They were all bong smoking hippies by the way.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 17:04:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wardy, I just hate the fact that we can all sit here in our own little world, and speak so cavalier of war - for whatever the reason.
It's not as simple as declaring war on a nation anymore. It's not even as simple as the World Wars, were everyone divied up sides and went at it.
Everyone is so interconnected now (I really have no fucking idea about global commerce, the dollar, the euro, etc) that another Middle East "Conflict" is exactly what the WORLD doesn't need.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:58:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
rofl, i don't think we're going to go to war. i'm saying that we're doing everything we can so that it doesn't happen, and even if they do enrich uranium (i think they already have started or something), we still won't go to war. we'll just want a team of inspectors to keep an eye on Iran's projects, just like they do with every other nation, including ours. i wish i could remember the name of the group... they're commissioned by the U.N.... i think it's like nsea or something... whatever...
oh, and ets i haven't found anything so far that says we will go to war with iran... pretty much everything says it's a last resort that probably wouldn't happen anyways because countries like russia probably wouldn't support it.... so yeah...
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:51:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:39:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
"to ensure that we don't go to war with iran."
I love how its evolved from, "Hey, don't enrich Uranium, you're not allowed to do that," to "Legitimate threat," to "Going to war."
Now, I don't want "Rogue nations" running around with nuclear capabilities and whatnot, but I am getting tired of us being the police of everything on this planet.
I wouldn't like it if our country was trying to find new ways to power our cities and having a world super-power say we couldn't develop these technologies for peaceful use.
I'm not an expert in Uranium and nuclear power, but at some point I'd love to take care of some problems over here too.
Submitted by psychodude98 (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:42:08 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
There IS another war on the horizon, a JUSTIFIED war, just like the Iraq war. This is not disturbing at all.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:39:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/0103/rice/rice_georgetown.html
here's a speech given by secretary of state condoleeza rice on the United States' diplomatic policies. you can't deny that we're doing all we can diplomatically to ensure that we don't go to war with iran.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:35:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's because you're a hedonist, not a nihilist.
You want to have your cake and not worry with any of the details in what it took to procure it, or whole it was stolen from so that you would have it.
That's what I hear when you say that.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:32:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:46:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not something to be taken lightly.
===========
I disagree. I believe life in general is meant to be taken lightly. Chalk one up for nihilism.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:31:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote,
Motivations for taking on Iran are going to vary according to who you ask. I'm not wanting to give a false or naive impression of Iran as a completely innocent victim any more than you, but the simple fact that we HAVEN'T gone into Iran before now, despite all the talk, indicates to me that this oil boarse, coupled with the nuclear 'fears' are what have pushed us to the brink...
Nevermind the fact that opinion tends to rally, and poll numbers tend to rally, and incumbants tend to WIN ELECTIONS when there is a crisis.
Submitted by COMountain (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:19:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good question I suppose...
But they killed the people that tried to 'remove the wool.' So you wouldn't be putting your life at risk, rather forfeiting it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:18:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not twisting anyone's arm to read this article, I'm simply making you aware of it in case it might be something you'd like to read about.
If you'd rather not have to read all of it, perhaps you'd prefer watching a speech about the topic:
Click here: http://www.house.gov/paul/
Then click "play" to the right of the screen.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:15:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I summarized the article, it would be the equivalent of what news stations do to the news. It's the reason I'd rather just watch C-SPAN and see the WHOLE thing FIRST hand.
Why do you insist on being lazy?
You should ask yourself that.
If knowing the truth about your country's war proctices isn't worth the 15 minutes it would take to read this article, then no amount of pleasantly abridged news is going to do it for you.
Yes, I contribute original material to this website all the time, it gets the exact same treatment...brushed aside.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-03-19 16:10:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Ugh, for FUCKS sake, try actually summarizing an article or letter some time. You really don't contribute any new thoughts here.
ANd it's not Iraq Iran war, it's irANWAR, like arctic national wildlife refuge, abreviated ANWR, sometimes spelled Anwar. Oil? Alaska? Iran? Getting it?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:56:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wardy, I suggest if you want to refute this post and its contents, you start, not with trying to refute ME or the sources behind it, but instead look at the CONTENT itself.
Start with some facts and then we'll talk. Until then, I don't understand why you keep -2ing me unless you have an emotional reason to do so.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:46:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"2) I don't see how either of those quotes compare the Bush administration to the Nazis."
-------
The African American contingent would refer to it as 'flippin' the script'. You said you were tired of people comparing the Bush admin. to Hitler, so I was merely giving you two of the MANY examples of them doing the exact same thing to their enemies where the comparison is, in my mind, even LESS sound.
I wasn't comparing the Bush admin. to the Nazis...at least not in this post. Maybe another day.
I was merely trying to ask everyone a moral question and then juxtaposing it on the present because we are probably about to enter into yet another unjust war under false pretenses that could have a devastating effect on our country and the rest of the world.
It's not something to be taken lightly, and all I'm trying to do is cause people in this country to question and consider the things our leaders are telling us.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:41:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You really are tedious.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:39:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"ETS is delusional and I won't be surprised in the least when we see him one day on TV in handcuffs for trying to blow up a federal building because he thinks he's the "chosen one" sent here to save the world. If you don't you're just as fucked in the head as he is. "
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:31:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:24:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:17:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm really starting to get sick of people comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis, and Bush himself to Hitler. BIG fucking difference, and when everybody always compares them, it plays down what the Nazis did.
----------------------
What, you mean like this:
Donald Rumsfeld: "I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/politics/main1279205.shtml
or this:
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld answered critics of the war in a guest column in Sunday's editions of The Washington Post, saying that turning away from Iraq would be "the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/19/war.protests.ap/index.html
===========
1) Hitler WAS elected legally.
2) I don't see how either of those quotes compare the Bush administration to the Nazis.
3) By asking whether the reader would stand up and speak out against Hitler, then continuing to talk about standing up and speaking out against the war in Iraq, you're making a comparison. Not exactly the kind I was referring to, but you asked where you compared, so there it is.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:31:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:25:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:19:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:13:45 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, just because they are research sources used through the school library, does not mean that they aren't credible.
---------------------
Yet, you're using the SAME logic in trying to discredit sources found on the open and free internet, including sources such as the Ron Paul speech, which was played in its entirety on C-SPAN on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Surely you can find the hypocracy in that.
-------------------------------------------
did you read the rest of what i said? about how their work is required to be checked over, not to mention that they have a job doing the reporting that they do. some guy with a blog is not credible information. and yes, you have a congressman with your views, you are right. i will take his one view into consideration when i'm looking over all the facts and the likelihood in general of an iran invasion.
---------------------
I am pleased you are considering taking the time to look into this further. That's really all I've asked.
Thanks, dude. I appreciate that you at least want to find out for yourself. That's admirable in my book.
For fairness' sake, you should also consider what Coyote is saying since he disagrees with me on the dollar hegemony issue and he usually has intelligible arguments.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:26:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:23:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
You have that legendary ability to generate instant heat. You're one of the few that are cursed/blessed with it.
Now, please tell me exactly how the Bush admin. and the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany resemble each other.
-----------------------
I don't see where I have to considering I never made the comparison.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:25:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:19:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:13:45 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, just because they are research sources used through the school library, does not mean that they aren't credible.
---------------------
Yet, you're using the SAME logic in trying to discredit sources found on the open and free internet, including sources such as the Ron Paul speech, which was played in its entirety on C-SPAN on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Surely you can find the hypocracy in that.
-------------------------------------------
did you read the rest of what i said? about how their work is required to be checked over, not to mention that they have a job doing the reporting that they do. some guy with a blog is not credible information. and yes, you have a congressman with your views, you are right. i will take his one view into consideration when i'm looking over all the facts and the likelihood in general of an iran invasion.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:24:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:17:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm really starting to get sick of people comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis, and Bush himself to Hitler. BIG fucking difference, and when everybody always compares them, it plays down what the Nazis did.
----------------------
What, you mean like this:
Donald Rumsfeld: "I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/politics/main1279205.shtml
or this:
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld answered critics of the war in a guest column in Sunday's editions of The Washington Post, saying that turning away from Iraq would be "the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/19/war.protests.ap/index.html
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:23:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You have that legendary ability to generate instant heat. You're one of the few that are cursed/blessed with it.
Now, please tell me exactly how the Bush admin. and the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany resemble each other.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:19:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:13:45 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, just because they are research sources used through the school library, does not mean that they aren't credible.
---------------------
Yet, you're using the SAME logic in trying to discredit sources found on the open and free internet, including sources such as the Ron Paul speech, which was played in its entirety on C-SPAN on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Surely you can find the hypocracy in that.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:18:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:49:27 (#)
Coyote, please elaborate.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On which point?
The hawks/neocons are completely fucking out to lunch. This likely doesn't require any elaboration... they've been wanting to invade Iran forever. Since they've wanted to go for it since before there was any consideration of a new Iranian oil exchange, it can't be the main reason they want to do it.
Europe doesn't *want* to make the euro the new worldwide reserve currency. Even if most Europeans *did* want to, the European Central Bank is an extremely conservative organization that is not democratically elected, and doesn't show any tendency to want to antagonize the US. Even if the makeup of the ECB changed, EU rules about countries running deficits would prevent them from running the same kind of arrangement the US has been balancing with since the 70s. I think this scenario *could* play out, in the future, if we lose our military hegemony and we reach a world situation in which many many countries no longer have lots to lose if the dollar collapses, but that's a long, long way away.
We're invading or attacking Iran because a cadre of failed academics think that America only works and only is a healthy society when we're united against a common and alien enemy. At the moment they have this nice potent alliance with the kind of religiously motivated assholes who should be sent to the Bering Sea to work the gutting line of a factory ship processing herring as punishment for their depraved indifference to the tangible well-being of this country.
...
I don't want to give the impression that Iran is an innocent victim of US and Israeli machinations here. Like Iraq, an Iran war is something that requires active participation on all sides. It's a game of chicken, and the lunatics in central Asia are certainly no more likely to back down than the guys in Washington. Saddam made all the exact right moves to *ensure* an invasion, and the Iranians seem to want to play the same game.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:17:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm really starting to get sick of people comparing the Bush administration to the Nazis, and Bush himself to Hitler. BIG fucking difference, and when everybody always compares them, it plays down what the Nazis did.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 15:13:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, just because they are research sources used through the school library, does not mean that they aren't credible. they are credible because of the venues in which they are published demand a certain standard of journalism. the authors are scholars in their fields and their statements are put before teams of fact checkers so that their articles hold water when someone seeks to discredit them.
i'm not saying that there isn't a plausible threat of violence against iran, mr. ets. i'm saying that using shite sources doesn't help your argument at all, and it just makes you look like an idiot for thinking they do. now go to your library and do some real research.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:59:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
While this is somewhat off topic, I found it interesting.
After the US invaded Iraq, the country has moved closer and closer to a civil war, which makes you wonder if the same thing could happen in Iran, and eventually lead to the entire region erupting in violence.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:49:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote, please elaborate.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:46:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
there are a plethora of reasons we invaded iraq, and yes weapons of mass destruction was a major one. remember them not letting inspectors in to search plants? remember the testimony a few months ago from one of hussein's chief of staff saying they knew where the inspectors were going to be and that they could move stuff around as much as they wanted?
yes, we ar worried about another country becoming a nuclear power, it was the same way with india and pakistan. we have nothing against iran having nuclear energy plants, russia has offered to enrich the uranium for iran so that there isn't the threat of terrorists getting ahold of it.
don't fucking tell me i can't be reasonable when i'm the one that is remembering more than two days ago.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:43:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:28:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't use google for research, ets. neither should you. go to your local library and find credible sources from credible journals. i have the luxury of being in college so i can do it from my home computer. i will research this topic now, for you, and i'll get back to you and let you know how valid your fears and claims are.
------------------------
Good.
You be sure to let me know what Rupert Murdoch has to say about it.
This is why you read MULTIPLE SOURCES of the news. The world wide web is about the last bastian of real news there is. Sure you have to sort through some crap, but it's the same with ANY media.
I can't believe you're dismissing the internet as a useful research tool in favor of your 'SCHOOL SANTIONED' publications.
That is incredibly naive.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:43:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, the hawks in the think-tanks and the Pentagon, like Perle and Feith, have been lobbying hard for an Iran war for at least a decade now-- the neoconservative push to take on Iran long predates any suggestion of a new oil exchange denominated in euros.
The spectre of the petro-euro is a red herring.
The Iran war is being sold to you by the same assholes who are behind the censorship of NASA scientists, the publication of false and/or misleading information on CDC and HHS websites, and the push to deny approval for cancer vaccines.
As nice as it would be to believe that the hawks are being driven by some real-world logic and defensible national strategy (no matter how self-interested), it simply ain't so. The logic train left the station a long time ago, and our wonderful administration has been left standing on the platform scratching its head.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:40:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:22:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:15:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy...
What are you fighting for?
Why are you dismissing this on the basis of nothing more than its source(s)?
Haven't you got a mind to read the information and formulate SPECIFIC arguments on SPECIFIC details, or are you just going to assume it's wrong and close your mind off like the rest of the people in your Republican Party?
---------------------------------------
dude, i'm not a republican or a democrat. i vote for the candidate who i agree most with at the time. russ feingold, our senator, i've voted for every election that i could. you'd like him, he's a good guy, against the patriot act. possible presidential candidate.
i'm fighting this because you've shown me no proof that we are going to invade iran. yes, i watch the news. and you know what we're doing? we're negotiating with iran to try and see if we can go about this process peacefullly. other countries are negotiating too, russia, the eu, and china. nobody wants another country with nuclear weapons capabilities. just because we're talking doesn't mean that the next step is war, so don't start digging your bunker yet.
keep in mind that we are currently disposing of our nuclear arsenal, along with our biological and chemical weapons, so we don't want another country just building a bunch of weapons when we're trying to get rid of ours. the last thing a government wants is a war.
--------------------
Wardy, how am I supposed to PROVE that which has yet to happen?
You're asking the impossible.
All I want people to realize is that THIS is the reason we invaded Iraq, (because in 2000, he had called for an oil boarse to trade in Euros, not dollars), and we're currently desinsitizing people to Iran in the EXACT SAME MANNER we did with Iraq. How? With the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION scare tactic.
Domenad is calling ME paranoid, but the irony is, I'm going to be the LEAST paranoid person on the planet with regard to what they're saying about Iran to justify their forthcoming military strikes.
The Iranian people have just as much right to nuclear energy as anyone else in the world...and the AMERICAN people have a right to know exactly why they're fighting a war!
We've already been fucking lied to once.
Now you're so ready to bend over and take it in the fucking ass again, and it's the gravest mistake our country will ever make - going to war with Iran under manufactured pretexts with the real agenda of securing dollar dominance in the world.
If China and Russia decide to do so, our dollar won't be the only thing that falls over this.
I wish I could get you to listen to reason. All my experience on this website has taught me that reason is a rare thing anymore.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:32:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Go eat some more cock.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:28:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't use google for research, ets. neither should you. go to your local library and find credible sources from credible journals. i have the luxury of being in college so i can do it from my home computer. i will research this topic now, for you, and i'll get back to you and let you know how valid your fears and claims are.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:25:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The most difficult thing these days is exactly that - distinguishing between fact and fiction.
These days, however, it is nearly impossible to do because no one person knows the whole story. I could easily make up a fake name, position, and blog and claim that the US has a plan to invade England.
As I think about this, I remember a day in world history where the teacher discussed the very first uses of the words liberal and conservative. Liberals wanted change, and conservatives wanted things to stay the same. With the evidence you've provided (the letter to Clinton), it has been shown that even liberals wanted to oust Saddam, but when a member of the opposite party does, liberals justify their name by wanting to change that.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:25:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
par·a·noi·a n.
i)0A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
ii)Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:22:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You guys want credible sources...
http://www.google.com
search for the following phrases:
"Iran Oil Boarse"
"Dollar Hegemony"
"Dollar Dominance"
"petrodollar"
I suggest you just take a few minutes and look around. There are plenty of people out there saying the same thing. The reason it's not in the mainstream news should be fucking obvious to you.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:22:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:15:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy...
What are you fighting for?
Why are you dismissing this on the basis of nothing more than its source(s)?
Haven't you got a mind to read the information and formulate SPECIFIC arguments on SPECIFIC details, or are you just going to assume it's wrong and close your mind off like the rest of the people in your Republican Party?
---------------------------------------
dude, i'm not a republican or a democrat. i vote for the candidate who i agree most with at the time. russ feingold, our senator, i've voted for every election that i could. you'd like him, he's a good guy, against the patriot act. possible presidential candidate.
i'm fighting this because you've shown me no proof that we are going to invade iran. yes, i watch the news. and you know what we're doing? we're negotiating with iran to try and see if we can go about this process peacefullly. other countries are negotiating too, russia, the eu, and china. nobody wants another country with nuclear weapons capabilities. just because we're talking doesn't mean that the next step is war, so don't start digging your bunker yet.
keep in mind that we are currently disposing of our nuclear arsenal, along with our biological and chemical weapons, so we don't want another country just building a bunch of weapons when we're trying to get rid of ours. the last thing a government wants is a war.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:18:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I actually read the whole thing. And it will happen, sooner or later. Is it 2008 yet?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:17:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:13:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:08:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
But ok...you want a more 'official' source saying the SAME EXACT THING?
How about REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul of TEXAS?
-------------------------------
Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with being credible, and shame on you for thinking it does. Beleive it or not there are other people in the world that can form his or her own opinion without following party guidelines.
-------------------
I hold no stock in parties, I only gave you his party affiliation so you would know that this is not only coming from your 'leftist liberal democrats', but is an idea shared by a WIDE RANGE of people from all political positions.
You're right, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with political parties, it has everything to do with distinguishing 'truth' from 'lies'.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:15:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy...
What are you fighting for?
Why are you dismissing this on the basis of nothing more than its source(s)?
Haven't you got a mind to read the information and formulate SPECIFIC arguments on SPECIFIC details, or are you just going to assume it's wrong and close your mind off like the rest of the people in your Republican Party?
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:13:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:08:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
But ok...you want a more 'official' source saying the SAME EXACT THING?
How about REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul of TEXAS?
-------------------------------
Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with being credible, and shame on you for thinking it does. Beleive it or not there are other people in the world that can form his or her own opinion without following party guidelines.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:10:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:01:37 (#)
Ranking: 1
I'll be waiting to see an article resembling this one from a more well-known and credible source than someones blog, where anything can be made up.
===
Official bodies can make stuff up too - it's pretty impossible to take anything as credible on face value these days. The internet has revolutionised communications precisely because you don't have to sit and wait for the information to be spoon fed to you. You can go and see what's out there for yourself - news reports from all over the globe, commentary from the man on the street to university lecturers to politicians themselves. At least that way you get to make your own judgement, rather than just sit and wait for the tv tell you what to think.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:09:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
oh noes! not the same news sources that are generally liberal biased? the one's that confront the presidency on a daily basis about things like wire taps and the iraq war? yeah, damn them for not keeping me informed over the years about what's going on. no, i'll take the guys that have a computer and internet access and a mail-in degree from harvoord university, that play risk like it's their job, and have nothing better to do than throw together pot-luck theories on where the world is headed.
when you go to college, your sources wouldn't hold up on an entry level poli-sci paper, much less anything else.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:09:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Disregard that review if you like, that was just a side note. I'm sharing with you things I'm reading myself as i'm reading them.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:08:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But ok...you want a more 'official' source saying the SAME EXACT THING?
How about REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul of TEXAS?
http://www.house.gov/paul/
CLick "Play" to the right of the screen.
Or read along here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/84205
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:06:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what's your point? everyone knew that hussein was a threat to america for the last fifteen years. clinton and madeline albright both have said consistently that they wish they would've gotten him out of power, and if you'll remember correctly clinton even tried to have him assasinated.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:06:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's all well and good, but I'm still looking for where it says Iran in there.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:05:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You people get your sources of information from state-sanctioned billionaries with massive corporate news conglomerates under their belt...
Shame on YOU, sir.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:03:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Letter to President Clinton from the Project for the New American Century
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
Read those signitaries.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:01:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
-2die loser
Now that that's out of the way, in all honesty you do make a good point. However, I'll be waiting to see an article resembling this one from a more well-known and credible source than someones blog, where anything can be made up.
Submitted by Lil_Darlin (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:01:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The government and the press rule the masses with fear, but, we all must stand up and hold on to our own beliefs and fight for what is right.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-19 14:00:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for thinking a good source of foreign relations and military tactics is some guy with a blog. shame on you.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-03-19 13:57:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"a man who sits idly by while women and children suffer in his name, propped up with HIS vote"
I don't like this part. People are people - whether someone deserves to suffer or not is not decided by their age or sex. If you're a true humanitarian you'll be motivated to help anyone, not just the ones you assume are naturally helpless.
I could babble on about women voting/fighting and governments that have been overthrown by bands of sixteen year olds with guns, but I've got to get back to the kitchen.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 13:47:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
There is not such thing as 'impartial'.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2006-03-19 13:45:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice impartial source you got there.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-19 13:42:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Brad Linzy
Evansville, Indiana
U.S.A.