stupid, evil, and corrupt
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:34
VIEWED: 5904
PAGE 10 of 13
Sig - one issue at a time.
*edit* Was that COGNET your typo or a swipe at something I posted ? Now I'm confused.
**edit** Never mind.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You should know by now that's not my style. I prefer substantive discussion. I didn't see any "obvious" typos. Which typo did I highlight?
it's among the cheapest, most petty and small tactics to highlight an obvious typo.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let he who is without sin...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And it's among the cheapest, most petty and small tactics to highlight an obvious typo.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh... I still don't get it. I looked thru my posts... found an obvious typo of my own (cognet instead of cogent, I typo ALL the time!) and corrected it. That was my typo, not yours, so..... ????
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, just saw your post. That was a typo of mine. If you notice my posts, they're full of typos... I try to catch them all but don't. Not a swipe. Just a typo.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AUraptor,
I'm just calling it as I see it, so as far as I understand, this is the most likely motive. I don't buy the level of incompetence that the apologists would for this administration, but it's entirely possible.
Quote:
Also, it was the CIA's director George Tenent ( appointed by Clinton) who said that WMD in Iraq was "..a slam dunk ".
You know how I feel about CLinton, but that aside, you're missing the point about the CIA. The CIA is not like an administration or a typical non-profit organization: it doesn't have an "official position," it has "consensus estimates." There is a hell of a lot of dissent and disagreement. If Tenet says it's black, and Plame-Wilson holds up a pile of evidence saying it's white, then what does it matter that Tenet is top dog and Plame is sub-dog?
For some reason people think intelligence operations are squeaky clean. If there was a desired result, and there certainly was, then there's every reason to suspect that there could be some skullduggery going on.
Also,
I hope that we can speak plainly about this: no one can seriously consider that the president is a sharp thinker. Cheney had a desired intelligence result, he discussed this with Tenet, and together they edited the data to support that case.
Now, in defense of Cheney and Tenet, they actually did thoroughly believe that this case was not just convincing, but accurate. What they didn't trust was their own ability to convince the president, and others, and so they did their best to silence dissenting views.
True, I'm speculating here, but I've dug pretty deep and I think that if I were wagering money, I'd certainly put my chips down on this side fo the board.
If we go on to the intelligence, and what was accurate, I'll fall closer to your side. Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction and use them against his own people? Absolutely he did. Was he attempting to acquire nuclear technology? Absolutely he was. Was he doing either of these things during the Clinton and Bush years? No, probably not. He had gotten a little scared of America after the Gulf War I, and was a little less cocky. He was hoping that somehow he would be allowed to peacefully co-exist without being under the thumb of the US.
I think there's something here which, historically, cannot be denied. When push comes to shove, evil people will chill on the evil if they feel they have to in order to avoid a conflict they made lose. Look at Joseph Stalin prior to WWII and his alliance with the west. Concentration camps, extermination camps, purges, wholesale genocide, anti-semitism and all that, just a bucket of evil. After allying himself to us? Backpeddling, denying, and trying his best to keep a lid on things. Because he needed us. He needed us to draw off Germany, to defeat Japan, etc.
As long as Saddam Hussein needed us not to kick his ass, he was behaving reasonably well. (as well as could be expected, still evil) This is why he destroyed the WMDs, he was afraid we'd find them and take him to the war crimes court, etc. Certainly he was still a threat to iraqis, as witness when clinton cut off iraq's food and medical supplies, saddam hussein wasn't ready to step down to save his people.
The Iraq question overall is a complicated one for me, but I cannot accept pre-emptive war as an appropriate use of defense. If we allow certain conduct to be acceptable, as we lead by example, then we have to think what kind of message this sends not just to tin pot dictators like Kim Jong Il, but to Russia and China.
There has to be an in between. Our method which comes down to "Do what we say or we'll bomb you into the stone age" is really, if you have to define it, a sort of fascist tyranny. (literally, if you say, fascist is might-makes-right, which is what it really means, "rule of power," and tyranny is unquestioned and unchecked authority)
This gives us a superman situation. The problem with superman, as with the US's current self-defined rule, is it is only good as long as the decision maker, the superman, is good,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen
It's not so. In fact, it's widely known, domestication is rare but far from unheard of. There are dogs in africa who have domesticate species of bird, fish with jellyfish, all sorts of relationships have developed. Human beings in fact, don't even come in first in the number of species domesticated. We come in second. The argentine ant has domesticated as many as a thousand different species of animal. ALl invertebrates, to the best of my knowledge.
anyone,
A curious note, I would wonder if anyone has any has encountered any species of invertebrate that has domesticated a species of vertebrate or any species of vertebrate that has domesticated a species of invertebrate other than human beekeeping?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm talking about domestication, not symbiotic relationships, which are entirely different things.
Still not seeing much evidence for your claims.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sitting here waiting for a search to end, so I can set up the next one and go home.
I really don't know how you all have the patience to debate ass-wipe.
"war crimes? Now that's funny. Realy, it is." Ass-wipe minimizes, rationalizes, condones, - supports evil. Rape, beating, murder - torture - ? No problem. Fascist control? Never happened. Bush breaking the law? By definition, he IS the law.
Every day every one of us draws a line as to where we will accept evil. If you don't stand against it - then you are for it. And ass-wipe, zero and slick have thrown in with evil and sold their souls for peanuts.
Got my new search set up. Time to boogie.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
BTW- As loony as PN is, he's a FAR better contributor than you. He looks things up, he references his sources, about 75% of what he says is true, verifiable, and off the radar of most folks.
That being the primary reason I have less issue with PN than I do trolls from the right wing.
Mind, I'm not about to throw a tea party for either end of the political spectrum, but I figure if i have to listen to these right-wingies, who, as you so well noted, do less fact checking than someone who's obviously a bit kooky... i wanna hear PN's end of things as well.
The rightwingies can sometimes *sound* reasonable, tho in truth they're anything but.
PN sounds like he's lost a few gears, doesn't even pretend to be reasonable, and in the end is something much closer to it.
And just like PN, I prettymuch ignore the rightwingies unless they bring actual discussion instead of pre-programmed soundbite bullshit.
Anyone else notice they've begun to sound less and less sane and reasonable, and more and more like angry profanity muttering troglodytes as their bullshit gets slowly shot to pieces here ?
Gee, the masks come off quick when the facts hit the table, don't they ?
-Frem
Quote of the Day:
"My free advice is worth everythin ya paid for it, kid..."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
You really just try to be difficult don't you?
Ants domesticate other insects, they don't just have pre-existing symbiotic relationships. I do understand the difference. We didn't domesticate the bacteria in our stomach. Ants actually trap and enslave other insects, much as humans do. But it makes me wonder, do you ever read science at all? I think this is pretty common knowledge.
everyone
BTW, since it keeps coming up: (from wikipedia)
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.
At the moment, no one is being a complete troll, but some folks are getting close. Kaneman has calmed down considerably since his days of high trollishness.
Frem
I don't think the people on the right are being more trollish at the moment. IMHO. Six months ago I would have said yes. I don't think I've changed, I think it's the mode of debate. The right wingers have calmed down, partially because there's less overall pro-bush feeling, and so there's less need to argue. The left is more so now than it used to be, probably because anti-bush feeling has grown, and a tinge of partisanship is emerging. I suspect this will rally into a parade for hillary clinton when the day comes, as a large % of liberals elect that total lack of liberty into office.
I was actually surprised by this tirade, since you recently put up Ron Paul for president. He's a very conservative guy. I don't remember your take on the Buchanan crowd we were talking about earlier. But if, when you said "right-wingies," you actually mean "Bushies," please say so. George W. Bush is not "more conservative" than other republicans, in the same way that Hillary Clinton is not "more liberal" than other democrats. It's a matter of being "more stupid," "more evil," and "more corrupt."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME