Busy downtown Seattle Oct 5

[dinomyte]

Live

Consume

Bitch incessantly, with no result

Die

[Jim]

If bitching was all I was doing, then you have a point. However, if you want to volunteer in a good social or environmental group, or have time to tutor some kids that need help, send me a PM. We could use some help.

 

Continue to spray. Oh, and you forgot the

[fenderfour]

A protest does nothing but make the participants feel self-important. Try a hunger strike. It worked for 14,000 Argentinian prisoners. It worked for Ghandi.

 

Anyone can make a few signs and get together to bitch about an administration. Only a truly outraged person is going to starve themselves to get something changed.

 

I've got nothing against the protesters. Please, exercise your first amendment rights and bitch about whatever you want to bitch about. These days a protest in Seattle is about as effective at policy change as an internet petition. Don't convince yourself that you are changing the world.

[dinomyte]

My social group - Pub Club

 

My environmental group - I'm a climber!

 

[Jim]

Chiao - off to check it out. Say hi to Paula for me.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Of course we pose a threat to them. The weak often puff themselves up to appear more threatening.

 

It appears that you are blaming the present administration for global warming, natural disasters, etc. You are probably blaming current policies for doing nothing to help global warming, and blaming them for inadequate response to natural disasters, but I'm not convinced.

 

It appears that you are blaming the present administration for global warming, natural disasters, etc. You are probably blaming current policies for doing nothing to help global warming, and blaming them for inadequate response to natural disasters, but I'm not convinced.

 

It appears that you have trouble reading simple english. You also seem to have a problem with recent history.

 

What I stated was that this administration has left us unprepared to deal with these challenges. Our military is completely tapped. Our deficit has never been higher. Our credibility has never been lower. Three years ago, Iran came to us in good faith to negotiate, and our vice president responded with Fuck You. In six years we've failed to even start to build a real alternative energy infrastructure. FEMA was gutted, which directly resulted in the horrificly bad response to Katrina. We shat all over Kyoto. We backed out of our nuclear non-proliferation treaties. These are all direct failures of this administration alone. Sure, human caused global warming started 5000 years ago with the first flooded rice paddy. But this administration has failed not only to deal with the problem, it has failed to even acknowledge it.

 

And if you think Iran is weak, you haven't done your numbers, pal. Iran has the second largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. It's developing close ties with China, which, of course, wants that oil to become the dominant world power. It will most likely have a nuclear capability soon. It's a mountainous country of 60 million, nearly 3 times the population of Iraq, which, last time I checked, we've spectacularly failed to pacify or rebuild. We post no CREDIBLE threat to Iran, as is apparent by their behavior. Let's just say we bomb Iran (our only military option, since we can't spare a single extra soldier). Their response? Flood Iraq with Iranian insurgents. That'd work out real well for us. No, far from being weak, Iran will undoubtedly be the dominant player in the Middle East after we've withdrawn, with China right at their side. You might try getting out more.

 

And finally, a little lesson on risk, since you don't do too well at that subject, either. Risk = outcome x probability of outcome. 911 = 100% x 3000 people. Fair enough. Nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 49% x 80 million people = 40 million. Yes, we came that close...4 times. Consider yourself damn lucky that mummy and daddy didn't fry. The US and USSR went to Defcon 4 (our highest state of alert) at least 4 times during that period. Both Kruschev and Kennedy were very seriously considering a preemptive nuclear strikes during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

If your going to credibly debate, man, get some historical knowledge under your belt. Back up your statements with at least a supporting statement or two. If I wanted pure horse piss I'd tune into the O'Riley Factor.

[StevenSeagal]

My list of things that you should do to make the world a better place:

 

- If you see a Clif Bar wrapper on the trail, pick it up

 

- Don't cut switchbacks

 

- Yell "rock" when you dislodge one, even when no one's there

 

- Camp at least 100 feet from lakes

 

- For God's sake, dig a hole or pack it out!!

 

Feel free to add to my list!

 

Effectively protest US torture policies by:

 

- Put on black clothes, run amok in downtown Seattle throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows.

 

- Utilize any chant beginning with "Hey Hey, Ho Ho.."

 

- Conjoin the protest with one for the oppressed transgender community

 

- Block the freeway and anger people so badly they don't even pay attention much less care what the issue your protesting is concerning.

 

[Mr_Phil]

Bush sux.

 

See? I'm saving the world one post at a time.

[underworld]

My list of things that you should do to make the world a better place:

 

- If you see a Clif Bar wrapper on the trail, pick it up

 

- Don't cut switchbacks

 

- Yell "rock" when you dislodge one, even when no one's there

 

- Camp at least 100 feet from lakes

 

- For God's sake, dig a hole or pack it out!!

 

Feel free to add to my list!

 

Effectively protest US torture policies by:

 

- Put on black clothes, run amok in downtown Seattle throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows.

 

- Utilize any chant beginning with "Hey Hey, Ho Ho.."

 

- Conjoin the protest with one for the oppressed transgender community

 

- Block the freeway and anger people so badly they don't even pay attention much less care what the issue your protesting is concerning.

 

 

thought that was critical mass??

[G-spotter]

Rudy in a dress = trans fat.

[dinomyte]

What I stated was that this administration has left us unprepared to deal with these challenges.

 

Every administration has left us unprepared. When the next democrat is in office, we'll be just as unprepared, but you won't be as vocal.

 

Our deficit has never been higher.

 

It will reach new highs, as our government has virtually never brought in more than it spent.

 

Our credibility has never been lower.

 

I'll give ya that one!

 

In six years we've failed to even start to build a real alternative energy infrastructure.

 

In 5000 years, we failed to even start.....tough to blame it all on Bush.

 

I was gonna dispute every one of your comments, but my personal opinion is that people would have bitched no matter what the response was to Katrina. I agree that many Republican policies exacerbate global warming, but I personally believe that only through economic incentives will we begin to deal with that issue.

 

And if you think Iran is weak, you haven't done your numbers, pal. Iran has the second largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. It's developing close ties with China, which, of course, wants that oil to become the dominant world power. It will most likely have a nuclear capability soon. It's a mountainous country of 60 million, nearly 3 times the population of Iraq, which, last time I checked, we've spectacularly failed to pacify or rebuild. We post no CREDIBLE threat to Iran, as is apparent by their behavior. Let's just say we bomb Iran (our only military option, since we can't spare a single extra soldier). Their response? Flood Iraq with Iranian insurgents. That'd work out real well for us. No, far from being weak, Iran will undoubtedly be the dominant player in the Middle East after we've withdrawn, with China right at their side. You might try getting out more.

 

Whoa, Tiger. I misspoke. How 'bout "relatively weak" in relation to the US. We still are a superpower and (ignoring outside impacts for a moment) could nuke them back to the stone age. You mention that "once we withdraw" Iran will be the dominant player in the Middle East (which is true) but that indicates that they are not currently the dominant player, which I assume means we are.

 

And finally, a little lesson on risk, since you don't do too well at that subject, either. Risk = outcome x probability of outcome. 911 = 100% x 3000 people. Fair enough. Nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 49% x 80 million people = 40 million. Yes, we came that close...4 times. Consider yourself damn lucky that mummy and daddy didn't fry. The US and USSR went to Defcon 4 (our highest state of alert) at least 4 times during that period. Both Kruschev and Kennedy were very seriously considering a preemptive nuclear strikes during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Interesting argument here. I guess my thought would be that you are comparing the risk of something that happened (which = 100%) with something that did not (0%). When something is in the past, there is no "risk" or "possibility," it either is or is not. I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the one that happened than the one that didn't.

 

I'll ignore the rest of your post, as it's a bit more disrespectful.

[tvashtarkatena]

Every administration has left us unprepared.

The main difference between this administration and past ones is that this one, as I've outlined, has actually created problems that weren't there before (Iraq) or greatly exacerbated problems that could have been resolved in a much better fashion had it not executed its agenda (Iran, Katrina). BTW, you misquoted my on the blame for global warming again.

 

It will reach new highs, as our government has virtually never brought in more than it spent.

 

Not true at all. Clinton left a 200 B surplus.

 

In six years we've failed to even start to build a real alternative energy infrastructure.

 

In 5000 years, we failed to even start.....tough to blame it all on Bush.

 

Actually, you can, because of 911. Bush should have started working on energy independence to get us out of the Middle East for good the day after the attack. He's done virtually nothing so far.

 

my personal opinion is that people would have bitched no matter what the response was to Katrina.

 

and that's what it would be, a single personal opinion. Every government and media postmortem comes to a very different and remarkably unanimous conclusion: That the Katrina response would have been much better if a) FEMA hadn't been gutte b) The feds would have recognized the seriousness of the threat (yes, it was well known and predicted years beforehand for Cat 4 storms) and evacuated the city, and c) the administration hadn't grossly mismanaged the funds during the aftermath (as, BTW, it has done in the Iraqi 'reconstruction').

 

I agree that many Republican policies exacerbate global warming, but I personally believe that only through economic incentives will we begin to deal with that issue.

 

You're dreaming, partner. Purely economic incentives, whatever that means, will lead to burning the cheapest, most plentiful domestic fuel possible: coal. That will accelerate global warming very rapidly. Public policy and incentives on a global scale are what are needed to tackle this bad boy. That's not to say it has to trash the economy, it doesn't. But certain sectors of the economy will have to shift focus.

 

How 'bout "relatively weak" in relation to the US. We still are a superpower and (ignoring outside impacts for a moment) could nuke them back to the stone age. You mention that "once we withdraw" Iran will be the dominant player in the Middle East (which is true) but that indicates that they are not currently the dominant player, which I assume means we are.

 

We're not the dominant political force in the Middle East by a long shot. Islamist fundamentalism might be, but there is no one dominant player in that regard. Iran isn't yet because they're still going at it on their own, but they are close. And as for our nukes, you and I both know they're utterly useless because we can't and won't use them and no one believes that we will. They have no deterrent capability and offer no negotiating leverage in this game...unless, of course, we want to sell them.

 

Interesting argument here. I guess my thought would be that you are comparing the risk of something that happened (which = 100%) with something that did not (0%).

Check out a statistics book. What I outlined is simple risk analysis 101. You previously implied that we are now more at risk, and so need to throw our constitution out the window, than we were during the Cold War. My analysis appropriately showed your argument was bunk. If you won't stick to your line of logic, I guess I'll have to do it for you.

 

I'll ignore the rest of your post, as it's a bit more disrespectful.

Fair enough, but putting arguments and words in your opponents "you probably think that..." mouth is also disrespectful. What's more, you're almost invariably wrong about what the other person thinks about the side issues you tack on. Unless I tell you what I think, you don't know, and visa versa. Fair enough?

[dinomyte]

I think we could probably go on arguing many of these points forever, and I am sure that many will. So, while not trying to put words in your mouth I'll just say that you seem to find the current administration lacking, and I (in my typical cynical way) find them not much worse than many predecessors. I am confident that we'll always be fighting "wars" - they'll just go by different names. And, we'll have just as many problems as we've ever had, regardless of who is in the White House. Interestingly (and you may find it hard to believe) I still do what I can - adopting families in need, helping out at Meals on Wheels, etc. But, I'm not a big protester. Living in P-town I must just be tired of it!

 

But, I will comment on two of your points:

 

Economics is the study of the allocation of resources and how supply and demand influence that allocation. (Not trying to be condescending.) The use of "economic incentives" does not imply a drive to the cheapest fuel source. Instead, I am talking about establishing some motivation for companies and consumers to conserve. Can administration policy help? You bet! I am just talking about using the market to encourage change.

 

Second, the statistics thing. In reviewing my posts and yours, I missed what you saw. I was not intending to imply that we are more at risk now than we were during the Cold War - simply that we are at risk. Perhaps you understand this....we are currently at risk of a terrorist act, we are not currently at risk of a nuclear attack during the Cold War.

 

I just jumped on the flaw in your argument, and perhaps you see this now:

 

Risk = outcome x probability of outcome. 911 = 100% x 3000 people. Fair enough. Nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 49% x 80 million people = 40 million.

 

Actually, nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 0%! It did not happen.

 

It's kinda like the probability of my winning last night's lottery. It didn't happen.

 

Oh, and I guess one more point. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth, though it's all to easy to do in such a forum! We're probably both guilty of that one.

[Crux]

Your definition of "cynic" is wrong. (To be a cynic you must believe in something.) Your definition of "economics" is wrong. (I will not condescend, you can look it up yourself.) Your application of statistics is incompetent, as you effectively concluded with your analysis that there was no chance of nuclear holocaust during the cold war -- sorry, but you wrote it! And your comprehension of the principles of risk assessment is just plain willfully ignorant.

 

Always a good laugh to read the contributions of yet another self-absorbed nihilist!

 

Carry on.

[Mos_Chillin]

So, how did it go?

 

Here in Bellingham, remodelling a house I mentioned to my co-worker at lunch:

 

"Habeus Corpus! When have YOU ever used it? I bet you won't even miss it!"

 

Shit. What a fucking joke. A stroke of the pen. Habeus corpus was implimented as a lesson from the French who incarcerated people for life! Many people died for this right! WTF is up with this country?

This sucks so very bad.

 

[dinomyte]

Your definition of "cynic" is wrong. (To be a cynic you must believe in something.)

 

From Meriam Webster Online - "Cynic - 2 : a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest."

 

So, I am a cynic. I believe that our current administration is motivated by self-interest, and I believe that, for the most part, so were their predecessors. And, yes, I believe that most humans are the same.

 

Your definition of "economics" is wrong. (I will not condescend, you can look it up yourself.)

 

I'm sure that definitions of economics vary in the exact wording, but this is the one that I was taught in my economics classes in grad school. To once again turn to our friend the internet, go to Yahoo, type "economics definition" and hit enter. Click the #1 result:

 

"economics

 

Definition

 

The study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources"

 

Hmmmmm....

 

Your application of statistics is incompetent, as you effectively concluded with your analysis that there was no chance of nuclear holocaust during the cold war -- sorry, but you wrote it! And your comprehension of the principles of risk assessment is just plain willfully ignorant.

 

Once again, incorrect. I concluded that we are currently not at risk from an event that did not occur during the last 35 years. It is pretty tough to argue with the logic that there is zero chance of something happening in the past, when it didn't happen.

 

I wasn't arguing that there was not a risk at the time. Certainly there was. And the risk at that time was certainly greater than our current risk of a terrorist act. Still, right now, the probability of a nuclear holocaust happening in the past is zero.

 

Always a good laugh to read the contributions of yet another self-absorbed nihilist!

 

Back to the dictionary, for your sake: Nihilism

 

1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.

 

I certainly don't believe that existence is senseless and useless. In fact, I think "self-absorbed nihilist" is an oxymoron. I may be self-absorbed, but hardly a nihilist!

 

[G-spotter]

nice marmot

[dinomyte]

Still, right now, the probability of a nuclear holocaust happening in the past is zero.

 

Dammit....assuming, of course, that time travel is impossible!

[dinomyte]

And, with this post, I've hit a nice even 80!

 

I'm done arguing!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thanks for clogging up 2nd Ave today assholes. It was real fun maneuvering my bike amongst all the pissed off motorists trying to get home.

 

 

[G-spotter]

Still, right now, the probability of a nuclear holocaust happening in the past is zero.

 

Dammit....assuming, of course, that time travel is impossible!

 

Don't need time travel... Google "Oklo"

[StevenSeagal]

Pessimist, Terrorist targeting the next mark

Global chaos feeding on hysteria

Cut throat, slit your wrist, shoot you in the back fair game

Drug abuse, self abuse searching for the next high

Sounds a lot like hell is spreading all the time

I'm waiting for the day the whole world fucking dies

 

I never said I wanted to be God's disciple

I'll never be the one to blindly follow

 

Man made virus infecting the world

Self-destruct human time bomb

What if there is no God would you think the fuckin' same

Wasting your life in a leap of blind faith

Wake the fuck up can't ignore what I say

I got my own philosophy

 

I hate everyone equally

You can't tear that out of me

No segregation -separation

Just me in my world of enemies

 

 

[Mr_Phil]

Thanks to the mass demonstration yesterday, today we wake up to a brand new world full of love, peace, and warm puppies.

 

Thank you for showing the ignorant masses the way.

[underworld]

sounds like a booming success.

[enelson]

i'm just glad portland showed up seattle for most hardcore protesters, 12 to 3 arrested, hahaha, we win!