This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

[Uncle_Tricky]

Sorry to have reprecipitated this over-howed row. Anyway, I'm beginning to believe that MtnGoat and DFA are auto response bots created by MIT grad students. Complex logarithms, but GIGO as they say...

[Cpt.Caveman]

I'm just wasting my time on this thread Dr Flash Unamazing I think was born from here -->

[allthumbs]

Dr. Flash Unamazing is a dangerous wacko. Guys like him would put this country into the toilet.

[Necronomicon]

How do you like my new, offensive, insensitive in the post-911 climate of irrational national self-pity ("Poor us!") and intolerance, avatar image? I'm starting to like the new me. Allah is Great!

 

BTW: Did you hear the news? Douche-bag #1 says that Iraq allowing unfettered UN weapons inspections amounts to a "tactical move". You think? I can't wait until may tax dollars get put to work inflicting civilian casualties on an already devestated population, so that we, as a proud nation, a beacon of Freedom, can gain unfettered (that word keeps coming up!) access to 10% of the world's oil reserves.

 

"Generals gathered in their masses,

just like witches at black masses.

Evil minds that plot destruction,

sorcerers of death's construction.

In the fields the bodies burning,

as the war machine keeps turning.

Death and hatred to mankind,

poisoning their brainwashed minds.

Oh lord, yeah!

 

Politicians hide themselves away.

They only started the war.

Why should they go out to fight?

They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

 

Time will tell on their power minds,

making war just for fun.

Treating people just like pawns in chess,

wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

 

Now in darkness world stops turning,

ashes where the bodies burning.

No more War Pigs have the power,

Hand of God has struck the hour.

Day of judgement, God is calling,

on their knees the war pigs crawling.

Begging mercies for their sins,

Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.

Oh lord, yeah!"

 

Oh yeah, SAY NO TO THREAD DRIFT!!!

 

-Dog

[Cpt.Caveman]

Crazy. Say is this almost 5000?

[Necronomicon]

Make it a good one...

[Necronomicon]

I just turned a 100 and I didn't even notice. How I pine for my salad days...

[Off_White]

The current proposal to invade Iraq has nothing to do with immediate threats to the US and everything to do with the November elections. Its classic distraction methodology: don't look at the economy, business scandals, or how much work we still have to do in Afghanistan, look over here at this scary thing. Here's a link to what Scott Ritter, conservative republican bush voter US Marine former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq has to say:

 

Scott Ritter

 

Another vocal Republican who is upset over the lack of debate and examination of the issue is Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. Mountain Goat and Fairweather should be familiar with Congressman Paul, since he's widely known to be a Libertarian in Republican clothing.

 

Ron Paul

 

I believe Mtn Goat is dead wrong about Saddam Hussein. He is not a Muslim fundamentalist, he's very much a secular guy. Iraq is NOT linked to Al Quaida, and Abu Nidal has killed fewer Americans than the Green River Killer. Saddam's a black hat, no doubt about it, and its really a pity that the US helped put him where he's at. The real failure though is in the nature of US Foreign Policy, which has operated from a "strategic" viewpoint (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) which has lead us to support hideous leaders and regimes, rather than an "ideological" viewpoint that says the promotion of freedom and democracy everywhere in the world is our best path to security.

 

Anyway, ya'll are having such a great tussle here, I almost regret that too much work will keep me from the daily fray. Have fun out there.

[erik]

the brains behind it all!!!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Shit, the Doctor is up to his capacious cranium in work today, so minimal time to debate, if any.

 

To the doubting wanks the Doc was arguing with before, your argument that there is no conclusive evidence that we're toasting our little planet is weak. If you're going to argue that DFA doesn't have enough evidence that we ARE cooking ourselves, where's your evidence that we're NOT?

 

And, again, look at the website the Doctor linked to before. It's a fucking basic science information site, not the Utne Reader, so your "liberal propaganda" arguments are bullshit.

 

Your arguments about Saddam could easily be made about America, as we've sponsored plenty of brutal regimes and bloody coups for our own ends. Do you think Bush would allow UN weapons inspectors into the US? Yeah, right. Fucking hypocrites.

 

Trask, you are a leg-humping warthog.

 

Back to work, yo.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fence Sitter:

yeah mabe on ranier...bu what about in other areas...there has been so much clear cutting that i would think it very difficult to get a 600 year old sample from very many places all over the world. cause we are talkin about micro climatology...within .2 degrees difference... one tree in each state wouldn't even cut it because you are dealing with averages and i can assure you taht in the south there are very few 600 eyar old trees and you must have a large sample covering ALL the areas you are measuring (in their case the world) and you jsut dont have that...for .2 degrees differencein 600 years...i just need more than a pathc in MRNP...and then down in cali...and northern noerthern canada...and very very very few in s. america...etc...seriously how precice can this be? certainly not to .2 degrees C c'mon....

---

are you gonna tell us how the paleontologists faked the age of fossils and the earth is really flat next

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

You mean it's not flat?!

 

Time to replace that "disk" with one of them "globes" they're always talking about.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dru:

the earth is really flat next

---

Duh, it rides through the sky on the back of a giant turtle ...Canadian schools.

 

Greg W

[MtnGoat]

"To the doubting wanks the Doc was arguing with before, your argument that there is no conclusive evidence that we're toasting our little planet is weak."

 

So first you admit there is room for doubt, a few paragraphs later you say it "might be a crock, fine", now you're back to the evidence *against* it is weak, which is it?

 

For someone really sure about the lack of evidence in the "doubting wanks" position, your own pacific attitude oscillation isn't exactly engendering confidence here. Which of those views in your previous post are you now refuting, and which one are you sticking with?

 

"If you're going to argue that DFA doesn't have enough evidence that we ARE cooking ourselves, where's your evidence that we're NOT?"

 

It is not required, for one thing, because the burden of proof for extraordinary claims, like oohhh, heating the earth up for example, is on the one making same.

 

In addition, I'd present the fact that we still exist, and all the flora and fauna here today, and made we all made it, through all the cyclical changes in the last few millennia. With temps both higher and lower, which varied all by themselves for reasons unknown, and we did so with no technology higher than horses.

 

I think we'll manage even if you are right and I am wrong. In fact, I think we'll do better than managing, because the vast bulk of land too far N to be farmed now, will become available and growing food will be easier, not harder, especially given GM crops on top of it.

 

"And, again, look at the website the Doctor linked to before. It's a fucking basic science information site, not the Utne Reader,"

 

Is it? Is part of basic "science" adjusting scales on graphs to alter how data is presented?

 

"so your "liberal propaganda" arguments are bullshit."

 

I personally do not think it's *all* liberal propoganda, but I think it's demonstrable of lot of it, is. The global warming bandwagon is the perfect tool for social control "progressives" desire to implement their agenda.

 

"Your arguments about Saddam could easily be made about America, as we've sponsored plenty of brutal regimes and bloody coups for our own ends."

 

You are right. But we're talking about Saddam, not the US, and now he's demonstrably responsible for killing Americans, when you claimed he was no threat to begin with, a charge you respond to now with "oh yea, what about US?".

 

Instead of addressing the point made, where you claimed he is not a threat and I proved he is, you sidestep. So are you saying he is not a threat even though he has proved to be, or what?

 

And he's like us? Really? Which presidents have their sons shot? Which presidents watch tapes of gasoline being poured in people's mouths and lit on fire? Which US citizens have their intestines spread on police station walls in DC or their eye poked out for talking bad about the administration?

 

Are we doing this too? NO. We are not. IF you see us as being like Iraq, we have some serious, serious disagreements about our country.

 

"Do you think Bush would allow UN weapons inspectors into the US? Yeah, right."

 

We have in the past, in concert with SALT treaties, and again now, with the current destruction of weapons agreed upon by Putin and Bush.

 

Yes, that's right, we do allow inspections.

 

Will you now modify this element of your theosophy on these issues to take this into account, or just wait a day, a week, or a month and then just make the claim again because you won't modify the shtick in the face of evidence, hmmmm?

 

"Fucking hypocrites."

 

Who are you addressing? I'm tired of this kind of name calling, and I'm calling you on it.

[Dru]

I still dont know how the Earth can be hollow and flat at the same time but obviously it is.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Duh, it rides through the sky on the back of a giant turtle

...Canadian schools.

 

Greg W

---

Psh. Predictable right-wing conservative Hindu propaganda.

 

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Duh, it rides through the sky on the back of a giant turtle

...Canadian schools.

 

Greg W

---

Psh. Predictable right-wing conservative Hindu propaganda.

 

---

We have many reputable scientist who will swear this is true

[Dru]

 

Fools! As you can see in the above sattelite photo it is TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

"And he's like us? Really? Which presidents have their sons shot? Which presidents watch tapes of gasoline being poured in people's mouths and lit on fire? Which US citizens have their intestines spread on police station walls in DC or their eye poked out for talking bad about the administration?

 

Are we doing this too? NO. We are not. IF you see us as being like Iraq, we have some serious, serious disagreements about our country."

 

How about US citizens who get plunger-fucked by the NYPD, or pumped full of enough bullets to put down a full-grown bus, or dragged out of their cars and beaten (assuming you'll claim Rodney King had it coming, this happened to a 70ish-year-old woman as well, although she only got roughed up by one cop). Then there's the School of the Americas, which puts tactics like torture in the hands of questionably moral military forces. And of course let's not forget the formerly very-chummy-with-America Taliban (ol' Bill Clinton had them as honored guests not too long ago, yes?), a group which for some reason we now condemn for their shitty human rights record, among other things. Speaking of whom, keep your eyes on Afghanistan in the future and watch for a large oil pipeline spanning the country, then ask yourself whether we decimated the country and installed a government we approved of for the good of their country, or the good of our oil companies.

 

Maybe our hands aren't always on the trigger, but they're not too far away. While DFA understands that day-to-day life under GWB is not as shitty as life in Iraq, the US is hardly a gleaming example of innocence, either.

 

And regarding the "fucking hypocrites" remark, that was aimed at the current administration, who are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

 

Also, we're never going to agree on any of these issues, are we?

[sexual_chocolate]

"In addition, I'd present the fact that we still exist, and all the flora and fauna here today, and made we all made it, through all the cyclical changes in the last few millennia."

 

The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth. This is coupled with the FACT that humans have never affected their environment to even nearly the degree to which they have affected it in the last hundred years (I think this is pretty evident to anyone, no?). I know the topic (hah!) was global warming, but global warming is only one aspect of our effect on the environment, although potentially the most serious in the long run, unless our current foreign policy brings us even closer to the precipitous edge of nuclear warhead usage.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth.

---

Isn't this sort of a bullshit statement? 100 years is a pretty small sample; and for how many of those years has the science community really had access to the methods and locations to accurately speak on this? Makes a good shocker statement, but doesn't seem to have legs.

 

Greg W

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

DFA:

"Your arguments about Saddam could easily be made about America, as we've sponsored plenty of brutal regimes and bloody coups for our own ends."

 

Goat:

You are right. But we're talking about Saddam, not the US, and now he's demonstrably responsible for killing Americans, when you claimed he was no threat to begin with, a charge you respond to now with "oh yea, what about US?".

 

Instead of addressing the point made, where you claimed he is not a threat and I proved he is, you sidestep. So are you saying he is not a threat even though he has proved to be, or what?

 

Hey, you were just arguing that nothing gnarly happens to people at the hands of America. Now who's changing their story? The Doctor was not attempting to sidestep your point, but he was merely illustrating that if we're truly going after Saddam because he's a potential threat to people, then we're hypocrites (see previous statement regarding fucking hypocrites).

 

Also, you don't really prove he's a threat to the US. You're conjecturing that he is, but you don't have any concrete proof, and apparently, neither does GWB. How do you explain the fact that many Republican congressmen aren't even sold on the need to bomb Iraq if the evidence is so clear?

 

Looking at the situation, it seems naive to assume that Bush's Iraqi blood lust is anything but politically motivated. He makes a lot of noise about hunting down Bin Laden, but can't find him. Things are apparently settling down in Afghanistan, but meanwhile questions get raised (again) about the administration's ties to big business, which looks bad politically. Bush is a politician with a reputation to uphold, so why not go after Iraq in the name of justice, and keep Americans feeling safe. After all, we'll never find out about the civilian death toll, anyway.

 

Of course, it may be moot anyway, since it seems that Mr. Hussein is letting NATO come in and have a peek.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

DFA:

"How about US citizens who get plunger-fucked by the NYPD, or pumped full of enough bullets to put down a full-grown bus, or dragged out of their cars and beaten (assuming you'll claim Rodney King had it coming, this happened to a 70ish-year-old woman as well, although she only got roughed up by one cop)."

 

MG: Are these acts legal? In Iraq, they are. You seem to be making a common mistake, equating the acts of individuals who commit crimes and are then fully and rightly sanctioned for them, with places where these acts are not crimes and are carried out with impunity.

 

Are you really going to claim that a nation in which these things are illegal is the same as one in which they are not?

 

No, these acts aren't legal, but if you look at these incidents, you don't see the police being too heavily punished for their actions, either. In a nation where the powers that are meant to maintain the law are given a slap on the wrist at most for working above the law, it doesn't make much difference if these behaviours are illegal.

[MtnGoat]

"However, engaging a ragtag army of AK-toting Afghans intermixed with civilians by dropping huge bombs on them doesn't seem like the most efficient way of rooting out who we're looking for."

 

It was a very efficient way of destroying their base of operations with minimum American casualties.

 

Next question: Are you suggesting that elimination of Al Queda's primary training, logistics, supply, and concentrations was not militarily appropriate?

 

And another: If you are not qualified to make judgements concerning an alternate plan, how is it you are qualified to determine the one used was not appropriate? This is very curious.

 

"When the police are looking for suspects, do they blow up the houses of those they suspect, and then look for the evidence?"

 

Are the police in a foreign nation, looking for combatants who have declared war on them? nope. The tendency to compare situations which are not analogous doesn't make much sense to me.

 

"Perhaps smaller groups of soldiers launching more precise attacks on specific targets would have been a good start."

 

Our attacks were on very specific targets.

 

"For all the rhetoric about how this is a new kind of war requiring new tactics, why did we charge in with the B-52's (Love shack, baby, love shack!) and start cluster-bombing?"

 

Who said new tactics couldn't involve old ones, especially when faced with a classic situation of entrenched troops in open country ripe for B52 runs? If we say new tactics are we still allowed to use guns, or is that old tactics too?

 

"It's obvious that the tactics we used haven't done much as far as turning up or eliminating Bin Laden."

 

is it "obvious"? I don't see how obvious it is, when we have wiped his organizational center. These judgement calls you take for granted as proofs continue to amaze me!

 

"Additionally, we seem to be threatened by potential terrorist action quite a lot lately (see Tom Ridge's brilliant color-coded alert system), so it would seem that aside from not finding Bin Laden, we haven't done much to mitigate the threat against us, either."

 

Using what standard, exactly? How many attacks have there been since 911? how many have we stopped? How many were planned? Isn't this all stuff that needs to be known before we can trot out the "fact" that we haven't done much?

[Dru]

illegal for the lower classes and tolerated/condoned by those in power. if you steal from a rich man you are a thief, if you steal from 1,000,000 poor people you are a savvy businessman. if you are poor and smoke crack and get caught you are thrown in prison, if you are jeb bush's daughter you get some cushy optional resort disguised as rehab.

 

we need a little Che graemlin. i nominate Iain to find one on the net.