The holocaust I referred to was that perpetrated by the ba'athists.
I stand corrected. The victims were, of course, the Kurds.
It's so much fun to watch someone like you get in such a snit over a subject, and then demonstrate such an appalling level of ignorance about it.
I misspoke. Don't get so excited.
That's because he killed people every day.
So, provide some kind of evidence of that. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked for that and all you do is tell me about mass graves. Mass graves are not evidence of daily killing. They are evidence of mass killings that took place over a short time period. Get it? All dead at once, which is why they could all be buried at once in one grave.
He ran a stalinist regieme[sic], killing anyone he regarded as a possible threat, and many people who hadn't even opposed him an any way, just to keep everyone else in terror of the state.
That's true. I don't dispute that at all.
The evidence is in mass graves all over Iraq.
The mass graves are evidence that he killed massive numbers of people at a time, not that he killed every day.
Sorry, but this jew doesn't give in so easily.
I did not know that you were Jewish since "Randolph" isn't obviously a Jewish surname. Also, your long record of hate speech against Mormons and Scientologists would have lead me guess that you were not Jewish. Most of my Jewish friends and colleagues are very tolerant of people of other faiths, having seen the horrifying results of religious intolerance and hatred.
I appreciate the support, but he's just going to claim that I posted what you wrote (since you did it anonymously). I don't see this going anywhere worthwhile and I may just drop it. He's not the type to admit to his errors and he'll just try to deflect the whole thing rather than admit that he made an unsupportable allegation.
You're way too much of a pussy to ever take this liberal on in person. You're just another anonymous coward hiding behind a monitor.
Just think, if we got rid of all of those useless fucks we'd be left with a culture of self-sufficient people who didn't perpetually try to use the government for ripping off other people and sticking their noses in other people's business.
When conservatives are polluting the air I breathe, it's my business. When conservatives are handing over public lands to Exxon so that they can sell our oil to China, it's my business.
Ripping other people off? I probably pay way more in taxes than you ever will and you don't see me whining about it. John Kerry pays more in taxes every year than you'll ever earn, and he's not whining about it. It's the conservatives who want all of the benefits of living in this society without shouldering any of the costs.
Conservatives, as a group, are the least self-sufficient people in the world. They are a bunch of impoverished, innumerate idiots who think that they can have everything from roads to safe food and medicine and not pay any taxes. Just look at these results from the last election if you doubt me:
Top ten states by income:
1 Connecticut - Gore
New Jersey - Gore
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
New York - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
Minnesota - Gore
Illinois - Gore
Colorado - Bush
California - Gore
Bottom ten states by income:
Louisiana - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Montana - Bush
Utah - Bush
New Mexico - Gore
West Virginia - Bush
Arkansas - Bush 50 Mississippi - Bush
Now lets look at education. These are the top ten states rated by percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher:
1 Colorado - Bush
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
Virginia - Bush
Connecticut - Gore
Minnesota - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
New Jersey - Gore
Vermont - Gore
New York - Gore
And now for the bottom ten states (those with the smallest percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher):
Wyoming - Bush
Kentucky - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Nevada - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Mississippi - Bush
Arkansas - Bush
Indiana - Bush 50 West Virginia - Bush
So it looks like Gore was the strong favorite in states where the population was educated and enjoyed a good income while Bush was the candidate of choice in states where education and income were low.
BFD: I've got the +1 karma bonus, and it doesn't look like you do.
How f*cking hard is it the math here? 0 = anonymous, 1 = no bonus, and 2 = +1 karma bonus (before other moderation). You never cease to amaze me.
I've got 96 fans, and only 13 freaks, so I'm not too impressed with your moderation record.
96? That's friggin' funny! I've got over 270 fans, and the "freaks" that I have are generally right-wing nut-cases, so feel free to add yourself to the list if you like.
Correction: you were attempting to counter that crack, and rather than doing so you simply showed yourself to be a pompous ass.
You're a jealous little man, aren't you?
I'm curious why you seem to want to be in the first wave of ba'athist holocaust deniers.. What did the Shi'a ever do to you?
I challenge you to show me anything that I've written in this thread or elsewhere in which I claimed that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the murder of thousands of ba'athists. You claim that I'm denying it happened, so prove that I denied it. Quote me, word for word, in context.
It's amazing how low you will sink just to avoid admitting that you were wrong. You claimed that Saddam killed, or had others kill, people every single day and you still have yet to show one shred of evidence to support that idiotic claim. Be a man, suck it up, and concede that the daily killing claim was unfounded hyperbole.
A bunch of avowed leftists/marxists who have no specilized exptertise in climatology write the president a letter whining about greenhouse gases, and the president roundfiles the letter... good, I would have too.
So you're no brighter than Bush is. No surprise there. Who the hell cares whether they are leftists or marxists? What does that have to do with whether they are correct? That's a typical right-winger ad-hominem attack. When someone as informed as the environmental editor of Time and someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking sign the letter, someone as stupid as George Bush should take it seriously.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or the Appeal to False Authority, I belive it's called... a rather large example of such, I'd say.
No, it's an appeal to intelligence. That's probably why you didn't find it appealing.
With the way people are blaming everything else in the world on Bush.. I'm surprised.
Bush is getting part of the blame for it, and rightfully so. President Bush and his advisers maintain that reducing emissions through costly near-term measures is unjustified. The White House argues that forecasting climate change is too imprecise to agree to long-term, international, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
In April of 2001, ten of the world's most prominent citizens wrote a letter (published in Time magazine) urging President George W. Bush to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced by the United States. Signatories included Stephen Hawking, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Senator John Glenn, Walter Cronkite, George Soros, and Jane Goodall. The letter was initiated by Charles Alexander, environment editor of "Time," while he was collaborating on the magazine's project to explore the scientific evidence for the existence and extent of global warming and the political furor over Bush's withdrawal of U.S. support for the Kyoto climate protocol after nine years of international negotiations.
Actor Harrison Ford, who is a board member of Conservation International, signed as did J. Craig Venter who decoded the human genome. Venerable zoologist, ecologist and Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward O. Wilson added the weight of his signature.
Bush apparently round-filed the letter.
Gee, doesn't that sound like he should be shouldering some of the blame?
Yes, I have, explaining why my comments are consistently moderated up. You, however, make it hard to hold an intelligent conversation as you can't even grasp the most rudimentary concepts (such as you can't divide total murders by number of days and determine whether someone murdered each and every day). As the old saying goes, it's hard to soar with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys.
Oh, gag me.
That does sound appealing at this point
I know a few real geniuses, and not one of them puts any weight on IQ test scores.
I was countering the "grow a brain" wisecrack, not stating that a genius-level IQ is proof that one is brilliant.
No, you just think you know more than you do. Read on. By the way, don't take that smug, superior attitude with me -- especially when I'm spending my time writing things like this to educate you.
Let me start with the basics. In some industries, the seller sets the price. Saudi Arabia can sell all the oil they want for $30/barrel, or $40/barrel.
In all industries, the price is either set by the seller or set by government regulation. The consumer does not set the price. If they did, they price would be $0 almost every time.
On the other hand, absent government intervention, an undertaker pretty much has to take whatever the heirs are willing to pay them (which is why undertakers are licensed).
That's just a completely nutty statement. Licensing of undertakers is done for reasons of public safety and consumer protection, and has nothing to do with their fees. Undertakers have to know how to tell if a person is truly dead (yes, mistakes, though rare, hapen). They have to know how to spot signs which are cause for suspicion of foul play so that they can alert the authorities. They have to know the laws governing the preparation, burial and disposal of dead human bodies, and the shipment of bodies dying from infectious or contagious diseases. They have to be familiar with local health and sanitary ordinances and regulations relating to funeral directing and embalming. They have to be trained in the art of embalming and body preparation.
An undertaker can charge whatever fee he/she wants and the heirs have to pay it or find a different undertaker. The consumer does not set the fee.
Taxis and hair-cutters are other examples.
They are other examples of professions licensed for reasons of public safety and consumer protection. Hairdressers (AKA "barbers" and "hair-cutters") need to know how to recognize and treat scalp problems like lice, seborrheic dermatitis, and rashes. They need to know how to properly clean and disinfect their hair cutting instruments to avoid transmission of disease or parasites from one client to another. They have to be trained in hair cutting so that clients are not put at risk of injury (cuts) and so that their haircut is not hideous, poorly done, and a source of embarassment.
Hairdressers can charge whatever they want to. If they want to give haircuts to actors and politicians for $150 each, more power to them. If Joe Average Consumer doesn't want to pay that much, he can go to "The Hair Cuttery" and spend less than $20.
Taxi drivers are licensed for the safety of their passengers and those with whom they share the roads. They are also licensed for reasons of consumer protection. Cabbies have to get licenses to show that they are skilled drivers with a good knowledge of traffic laws. The licensing process includes testing to see that they know how to transport handicapped passengers, that they understand laws regarding non-discrimination, and, in some cities, that they understand how to administer first aid and CPR. In many localities, they are also tested for their knowledge of the local landmarks and their ability to choose appropriate routes to destinations. That way, you can get into a cab at LAX and tell the driver "Stouffer Concourse Hotel" and they will take you to 5400 West Century Blvd without you having to give them directions and without driving you all over the city looking for it.
Taxi fares are regulated by the government. Neither the drivers nor the passengers get to set the fares.
Unfortunately, regulations don't lead to freedom. Regulations lead to more regulations.
That's better than having your drinking water contaminated by decomposing corpses, getting head lice, and being in a cab driven by someone who is an incompetent, dangerous driver.
I did, and this is the first message that either of us directed to the other. You will note that, in that message, you called me an "idiot."
So since you decided to start with insults in your initial post to me, insults are clearly not the real reason that you elected to stop debating. The real reason is that you can't show any reputable source that said that Saddam was committing murder, or having others commit murder, on a daily basis. Instead of being a man, sucking it up, and conceding that the daily killing claim was hyperbole, you feigned being in a huff because I insulted you.
I can't count the number of times the left-wing extremists have done it to Bush, so kindly step down from your self-righteous podium.
I didn't do anything of the kind to Bush, so I'll remain on my self-righteous podium. The actions of others are neither a reflection on me nor a license for you to behave as they did.
So much for any need to treat you as a serious opponent.
This is after you called me "jackass" and "idiot" so don't pretend that you've been taking the high road. You call me names, insult me, and then when I shoot holes in your argument, you pretend that my reply in kind justifies your failure to respond. You were never a serious opponent to me, so don't flatter yourself.
Bullshit. I quoted what he said. You quoted some tiny little piece of it in order to distort the meaning.
If he had such a fucking conscience he would not have done what he said he did in the first place. He would have disobeyed the orders and faced the results of his actions.
Yeah, it's real easy for you, sitting there in your swiveling office chair, to say that Kerry, as a young man just out of school, should have disobeyed direct orders in a foreign, hostile country after being brainwashed by the military boot camp experience. Come back when you have some actual combat experience in that kind of circumstance.
Both of his sons, for a start. Then, there was his whole secret police force, etc.
So show me the records of killing by these people. You claimed that at least one person was killed per day, so what were your sources for that statement? How many people were killed on July 14, 1997, to pick a random example? If you can't tell me, what evidence do you have that any were killed that day?
Tens of thousands of people are in his mass graves. Do the math, you jackass.
We killed 103,000+ people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but that does not mean that we killed 4-5 Japanese people per day since 1945. The claim was that Saddam was killing people every day, not that he averaged one or more murders per day.
No wonder your parents named you John, given how full of shit you are.
Perhaps an ignoramus like you just didn't understand those "right wing Bush supporters" like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc. who reported on Saddam's atrocities.
You could double your IQ and still not be in the triple digit range.
When did Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or *any* reputable source state that every day Saddam killed, or had other kill, one or more people? I never said that Saddam was a great guy. I disputed the absurd claim that Saddam killed someone every day.
Please come back when you either reach the age of 8, or grow a brain. It seems unlikely you'll ever manage both.
I'm an adult (both by age and maturity -- unlike you) and have a genius-level IQ. You, on the other hand, are just another anonymous troll who's too cowardly to even post with an identifiable ID.
Nobody said he did it *himself*, you idiot. He had his goons do it, just like Stalin, Mao, and any other tyrant would.
You calling someone an "idiot" is like Michael Jackson calling someone "weird."
Just who are these "goons"? Where did you get your information about them? Where are sources saying that Saddam killed, or had killed, at least one person per day? I want real sources, not just vague assertions from some little right-wing tool like you.
John Kerry "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages" Don't blame me, he said it.
And here's what immediately followed:
"All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."
You take a man of conscience who is speaking out against the people who ordered such war atrocities and make it sound like he was bragging about his involvement. You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions.
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
No one is complaining that Allawi didn't write his own speech. What they are complaining about is that it was written by Bush's campaign operatives.
Don't you see a difference between Allawi having his speech written by his own, independent speech writers and having it written by Bush campaign operatives? Allawi is supposed to be the leader of a sovereign nation, not a member of the Republican party giving stump speeches to promote Bush's reelection.
The simple fact that you asked this question means that any and all of your comments on the war, or world politics in general, are null, void, and unwanted.
No, it does not. You do speak for yourself. You may speak for your fellow idiots. But you do not speak for those of us who are capable of critical thought.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Saddam killed people on a daily basis. Even the loony Bush administration didn't try to claim that Saddam was rampaging around the country killing one or more people per day. If you disagree with that, then disprove what I said or, as right-wing nut-job Bill O'Reilly would say, "shut up!"
But yet you failed to address the basic question and its the question thats always avoided by those that front this as some point against Bush's character.
What could have been done that would have saved anymore lives in that 7 minutes?
Thankfully, nothing. And I say "thankfully" because "nothing" is exactly what Bush did. But it was pure, dumb luck. There could have been more hijacked planes. The military could have been waiting for shoot-down authority from the President. He didn't know what the whole situation was and did nothing to find out.
That Bush sat there, dazed and unresponsive, while our nation was under attack is a black mark against his character.
Let's try an analogy: Suppose that the town fire chief had been in that class talking to the children. Someone came in and quietly told him that there was a massive fire in town. Rather than getting up and excusing himself, he sat there for seven minutes as the children read aloud. It was later learned that the fire had already killed all of its victims by the time he was informed of it. Would you say that his inaction was a bad reflection on him or would you take the same "end justifies the means" attitude and say that his behavior was appropriate?
In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.
The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.
Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.
The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.
Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."
Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.
Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."
The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Ir
Slashdot Mirror
As I predicted, he has already accused you of being a "sock puppet." Thanks for trying.
Good start. You are half way there.
Now you need to admit that you really have no evidence that Saddam Hussein killed people every day, just that he killed huge numbers of people.
The holocaust I referred to was that perpetrated by the ba'athists.
I stand corrected. The victims were, of course, the Kurds.
It's so much fun to watch someone like you get in such a snit over a subject, and then demonstrate such an appalling level of ignorance about it.
I misspoke. Don't get so excited.
That's because he killed people every day.
So, provide some kind of evidence of that. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked for that and all you do is tell me about mass graves. Mass graves are not evidence of daily killing. They are evidence of mass killings that took place over a short time period. Get it? All dead at once, which is why they could all be buried at once in one grave.
He ran a stalinist regieme[sic], killing anyone he regarded as a possible threat, and many people who hadn't even opposed him an any way, just to keep everyone else in terror of the state.
That's true. I don't dispute that at all.
The evidence is in mass graves all over Iraq.
The mass graves are evidence that he killed massive numbers of people at a time, not that he killed every day.
Sorry, but this jew doesn't give in so easily.
I did not know that you were Jewish since "Randolph" isn't obviously a Jewish surname. Also, your long record of hate speech against Mormons and Scientologists would have lead me guess that you were not Jewish. Most of my Jewish friends and colleagues are very tolerant of people of other faiths, having seen the horrifying results of religious intolerance and hatred.
Tell me, were you and Matt Giwer separated at birth?
What in the hell are you talking about?
I appreciate the support, but he's just going to claim that I posted what you wrote (since you did it anonymously). I don't see this going anywhere worthwhile and I may just drop it. He's not the type to admit to his errors and he'll just try to deflect the whole thing rather than admit that he made an unsupportable allegation.
You're way too much of a pussy to ever take this liberal on in person. You're just another anonymous coward hiding behind a monitor.
Just think, if we got rid of all of those useless fucks we'd be left with a culture of self-sufficient people who didn't perpetually try to use the government for ripping off other people and sticking their noses in other people's business.
When conservatives are polluting the air I breathe, it's my business. When conservatives are handing over public lands to Exxon so that they can sell our oil to China, it's my business.
Ripping other people off? I probably pay way more in taxes than you ever will and you don't see me whining about it. John Kerry pays more in taxes every year than you'll ever earn, and he's not whining about it. It's the conservatives who want all of the benefits of living in this society without shouldering any of the costs.
Conservatives, as a group, are the least self-sufficient people in the world. They are a bunch of impoverished, innumerate idiots who think that they can have everything from roads to safe food and medicine and not pay any taxes. Just look at these results from the last election if you doubt me:
Top ten states by income:
1 Connecticut - Gore
New Jersey - Gore
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
New York - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
Minnesota - Gore
Illinois - Gore
Colorado - Bush
California - Gore
Bottom ten states by income:
Louisiana - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Montana - Bush
Utah - Bush
New Mexico - Gore
West Virginia - Bush
Arkansas - Bush
50 Mississippi - Bush
Now lets look at education. These are the top ten states rated by percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher:
1 Colorado - Bush
Massachusetts - Gore
Maryland - Gore
Virginia - Bush
Connecticut - Gore
Minnesota - Gore
New Hampshire - Bush
New Jersey - Gore
Vermont - Gore
New York - Gore
And now for the bottom ten states (those with the smallest percentage of residents over 25 with bachelor's degrees or higher):
Wyoming - Bush
Kentucky - Bush
Alabama - Bush
Idaho - Bush
Nevada - Bush
South Carolina - Bush
Mississippi - Bush
Arkansas - Bush
Indiana - Bush
50 West Virginia - Bush
So it looks like Gore was the strong favorite in states where the population was educated and enjoyed a good income while Bush was the candidate of choice in states where education and income were low.
BFD: I've got the +1 karma bonus, and it doesn't look like you do.
How f*cking hard is it the math here? 0 = anonymous, 1 = no bonus, and 2 = +1 karma bonus (before other moderation). You never cease to amaze me.
I've got 96 fans, and only 13 freaks, so I'm not too impressed with your moderation record.
96? That's friggin' funny! I've got over 270 fans, and the "freaks" that I have are generally right-wing nut-cases, so feel free to add yourself to the list if you like.
Correction: you were attempting to counter that crack, and rather than doing so you simply showed yourself to be a pompous ass.
You're a jealous little man, aren't you?
I'm curious why you seem to want to be in the first wave of ba'athist holocaust deniers.. What did the Shi'a ever do to you?
I challenge you to show me anything that I've written in this thread or elsewhere in which I claimed that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the murder of thousands of ba'athists. You claim that I'm denying it happened, so prove that I denied it. Quote me, word for word, in context.
It's amazing how low you will sink just to avoid admitting that you were wrong. You claimed that Saddam killed, or had others kill, people every single day and you still have yet to show one shred of evidence to support that idiotic claim. Be a man, suck it up, and concede that the daily killing claim was unfounded hyperbole.
You're actually talking about IMPRISONING your opponents for their speech and ideals, do you realize that?
No, I'm talking about imprisoning people who purposely slander people for political gain.
A bunch of avowed leftists/marxists who have no specilized exptertise in climatology write the president a letter whining about greenhouse gases, and the president roundfiles the letter... good, I would have too.
So you're no brighter than Bush is. No surprise there. Who the hell cares whether they are leftists or marxists? What does that have to do with whether they are correct? That's a typical right-winger ad-hominem attack. When someone as informed as the environmental editor of Time and someone as intelligent as Stephen Hawking sign the letter, someone as stupid as George Bush should take it seriously.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, or the Appeal to False Authority, I belive it's called... a rather large example of such, I'd say.
No, it's an appeal to intelligence. That's probably why you didn't find it appealing.
For that matter, get off your lazy ass and post a link if you're going to reference the thing. Jeez.
Get off your lazy ass and use Google. It's not my job to try to help you discredit my arguments.
With the way people are blaming everything else in the world on Bush.. I'm surprised.
Bush is getting part of the blame for it, and rightfully so. President Bush and his advisers maintain that reducing emissions through costly near-term measures is unjustified. The White House argues that forecasting climate change is too imprecise to agree to long-term, international, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
In April of 2001, ten of the world's most prominent citizens wrote a letter (published in Time magazine) urging President George W. Bush to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced by the United States. Signatories included Stephen Hawking, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Senator John Glenn, Walter Cronkite, George Soros, and Jane Goodall. The letter was initiated by Charles Alexander, environment editor of "Time," while he was collaborating on the magazine's project to explore the scientific evidence for the existence and extent of global warming and the political furor over Bush's withdrawal of U.S. support for the Kyoto climate protocol after nine years of international negotiations.
Actor Harrison Ford, who is a board member of Conservation International, signed as did J. Craig Venter who decoded the human genome. Venerable zoologist, ecologist and Pulitzer Prize winning author Edward O. Wilson added the weight of his signature.
Bush apparently round-filed the letter.
Gee, doesn't that sound like he should be shouldering some of the blame?
You certainly haven't demonstrated this on /.
Yes, I have, explaining why my comments are consistently moderated up. You, however, make it hard to hold an intelligent conversation as you can't even grasp the most rudimentary concepts (such as you can't divide total murders by number of days and determine whether someone murdered each and every day). As the old saying goes, it's hard to soar with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys.
Oh, gag me.
That does sound appealing at this point
I know a few real geniuses, and not one of them puts any weight on IQ test scores.
I was countering the "grow a brain" wisecrack, not stating that a genius-level IQ is proof that one is brilliant.
Okay, so you know less than I thought.
No, you just think you know more than you do. Read on. By the way, don't take that smug, superior attitude with me -- especially when I'm spending my time writing things like this to educate you.
Let me start with the basics. In some industries, the seller sets the price. Saudi Arabia can sell all the oil they want for $30/barrel, or $40/barrel.
In all industries, the price is either set by the seller or set by government regulation. The consumer does not set the price. If they did, they price would be $0 almost every time.
On the other hand, absent government intervention, an undertaker pretty much has to take whatever the heirs are willing to pay them (which is why undertakers are licensed).
That's just a completely nutty statement. Licensing of undertakers is done for reasons of public safety and consumer protection, and has nothing to do with their fees. Undertakers have to know how to tell if a person is truly dead (yes, mistakes, though rare, hapen). They have to know how to spot signs which are cause for suspicion of foul play so that they can alert the authorities. They have to know the laws governing the preparation, burial and disposal of dead human bodies, and the shipment of bodies dying from infectious or contagious diseases. They have to be familiar with local health and sanitary ordinances and regulations relating to funeral directing and embalming. They have to be trained in the art of embalming and body preparation.
An undertaker can charge whatever fee he/she wants and the heirs have to pay it or find a different undertaker. The consumer does not set the fee.
Taxis and hair-cutters are other examples.
They are other examples of professions licensed for reasons of public safety and consumer protection. Hairdressers (AKA "barbers" and "hair-cutters") need to know how to recognize and treat scalp problems like lice, seborrheic dermatitis, and rashes. They need to know how to properly clean and disinfect their hair cutting instruments to avoid transmission of disease or parasites from one client to another. They have to be trained in hair cutting so that clients are not put at risk of injury (cuts) and so that their haircut is not hideous, poorly done, and a source of embarassment.
Hairdressers can charge whatever they want to. If they want to give haircuts to actors and politicians for $150 each, more power to them. If Joe Average Consumer doesn't want to pay that much, he can go to "The Hair Cuttery" and spend less than $20.
Taxi drivers are licensed for the safety of their passengers and those with whom they share the roads. They are also licensed for reasons of consumer protection. Cabbies have to get licenses to show that they are skilled drivers with a good knowledge of traffic laws. The licensing process includes testing to see that they know how to transport handicapped passengers, that they understand laws regarding non-discrimination, and, in some cities, that they understand how to administer first aid and CPR. In many localities, they are also tested for their knowledge of the local landmarks and their ability to choose appropriate routes to destinations. That way, you can get into a cab at LAX and tell the driver "Stouffer Concourse Hotel" and they will take you to 5400 West Century Blvd without you having to give them directions and without driving you all over the city looking for it.
Taxi fares are regulated by the government. Neither the drivers nor the passengers get to set the fares.
Unfortunately, regulations don't lead to freedom. Regulations lead to more regulations.
That's better than having your drinking water contaminated by decomposing corpses, getting head lice, and being in a cab driven by someone who is an incompetent, dangerous driver.
Check the thread: you started it, sunshine.
I did, and this is the first message that either of us directed to the other. You will note that, in that message, you called me an "idiot."
So since you decided to start with insults in your initial post to me, insults are clearly not the real reason that you elected to stop debating. The real reason is that you can't show any reputable source that said that Saddam was committing murder, or having others commit murder, on a daily basis. Instead of being a man, sucking it up, and conceding that the daily killing claim was hyperbole, you feigned being in a huff because I insulted you.
I can't count the number of times the left-wing extremists have done it to Bush, so kindly step down from your self-righteous podium.
I didn't do anything of the kind to Bush, so I'll remain on my self-righteous podium. The actions of others are neither a reflection on me nor a license for you to behave as they did.
So much for any need to treat you as a serious opponent.
This is after you called me "jackass" and "idiot" so don't pretend that you've been taking the high road. You call me names, insult me, and then when I shoot holes in your argument, you pretend that my reply in kind justifies your failure to respond. You were never a serious opponent to me, so don't flatter yourself.
It is a DIRECT QUOTE OF WHAT HE SAID.
Bullshit. I quoted what he said. You quoted some tiny little piece of it in order to distort the meaning.
If he had such a fucking conscience he would not have done what he said he did in the first place. He would have disobeyed the orders and faced the results of his actions.
Yeah, it's real easy for you, sitting there in your swiveling office chair, to say that Kerry, as a young man just out of school, should have disobeyed direct orders in a foreign, hostile country after being brainwashed by the military boot camp experience. Come back when you have some actual combat experience in that kind of circumstance.
Both of his sons, for a start. Then, there was his whole secret police force, etc.
So show me the records of killing by these people. You claimed that at least one person was killed per day, so what were your sources for that statement? How many people were killed on July 14, 1997, to pick a random example? If you can't tell me, what evidence do you have that any were killed that day?
Tens of thousands of people are in his mass graves. Do the math, you jackass.
We killed 103,000+ people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but that does not mean that we killed 4-5 Japanese people per day since 1945. The claim was that Saddam was killing people every day, not that he averaged one or more murders per day.
No wonder your parents named you John, given how full of shit you are.
Perhaps an ignoramus like you just didn't understand those "right wing Bush supporters" like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc. who reported on Saddam's atrocities.
You could double your IQ and still not be in the triple digit range.
When did Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or *any* reputable source state that every day Saddam killed, or had other kill, one or more people? I never said that Saddam was a great guy. I disputed the absurd claim that Saddam killed someone every day.
Please come back when you either reach the
age of 8, or grow a brain. It seems unlikely
you'll ever manage both.
I'm an adult (both by age and maturity -- unlike you) and have a genius-level IQ. You, on the other hand, are just another anonymous troll who's too cowardly to even post with an identifiable ID.
Nobody said he did it *himself*, you idiot. He had his goons do it, just like Stalin, Mao, and any other tyrant would.
You calling someone an "idiot" is like Michael Jackson calling someone "weird."
Just who are these "goons"? Where did you get your information about them? Where are sources saying that Saddam killed, or had killed, at least one person per day? I want real sources, not just vague assertions from some little right-wing tool like you.
And here's what immediately followed: You take a man of conscience who is speaking out against the people who ordered such war atrocities and make it sound like he was bragging about his involvement. You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions.
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
No one is complaining that Allawi didn't write his own speech. What they are complaining about is that it was written by Bush's campaign operatives.
Don't you see a difference between Allawi having his speech written by his own, independent speech writers and having it written by Bush campaign operatives? Allawi is supposed to be the leader of a sovereign nation, not a member of the Republican party giving stump speeches to promote Bush's reelection.
The simple fact that you asked this question means that any and all of your comments on the war, or world politics in general, are null, void, and unwanted.
No, it does not. You do speak for yourself. You may speak for your fellow idiots. But you do not speak for those of us who are capable of critical thought.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Saddam killed people on a daily basis. Even the loony Bush administration didn't try to claim that Saddam was rampaging around the country killing one or more people per day. If you disagree with that, then disprove what I said or, as right-wing nut-job Bill O'Reilly would say, "shut up!"
But yet you failed to address the basic question and its the question thats always avoided by those that front this as some point against Bush's character.
What could have been done that would have saved anymore lives in that 7 minutes?
Thankfully, nothing. And I say "thankfully" because "nothing" is exactly what Bush did. But it was pure, dumb luck. There could have been more hijacked planes. The military could have been waiting for shoot-down authority from the President. He didn't know what the whole situation was and did nothing to find out.
That Bush sat there, dazed and unresponsive, while our nation was under attack is a black mark against his character.
Let's try an analogy: Suppose that the town fire chief had been in that class talking to the children. Someone came in and quietly told him that there was a massive fire in town. Rather than getting up and excusing himself, he sat there for seven minutes as the children read aloud. It was later learned that the fire had already killed all of its victims by the time he was informed of it. Would you say that his inaction was a bad reflection on him or would you take the same "end justifies the means" attitude and say that his behavior was appropriate?
Read this: http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
Sept 29, 2003
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.
The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.
Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.
The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.
Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."
Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.
Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."
The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Ir