Joby Warrick’s Washington Post article (11/14/11) on the new International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran goes wrong from the first sentence:
When the Cold War abruptly ended in 1991, Vyacheslav Danilenko was a Soviet weapons scientist in need of a new line of work.
Well, no. Danilenko is allegedly a nuclear weapons scientist–but neither the IAEA or Warrick present any actual evidence that he was any such thing.
Rather, the documents disclosed so far suggest that Danilenko is what he says he is: an expert on the use of explosions to make tiny, industrial-grade diamonds known as nanodiamonds. His area of specialization goes back half a century, to the early 1960s, when the scientist was in his mid-20s (Inter Press Service, 11/9/11).
Warrick’s story is a step forward from his earlier article (11/7/11) on the IAEA report, which refers to Danilenko as a “former Soviet nuclear scientist” without mentioning the field he’s actually been publishing in for decades at all. Still, Warrick works hard to give the impression that the scientist’s career-long interest in nanodiamonds is some kind of fly-by-night cover story:
Danilenko struggled to become a businessman, traveling through Europe and even to the United States to promote an idea for using explosives to create synthetic diamonds…. The scientist’s synthetic-diamonds business provided a plausible explanation for his extensive contacts with senior Iranian scientists over half a decade…. Danilenko’s work in Iran initially centered on his diamond-making scheme. But over the course of a six-year relationship, UN investigators later concluded, he provided expertise that would help Iran achieve something of far greater value.
OK–so what’s the evidence that Danilenko was helping the Iranians make bombs, not diamonds?
The IAEA’s report cites “strong indications” that the unnamed “foreign expert” [apparently Danilenko] assisted Iran in developing a high-precision detonator as well as a sophisticated instrument for analyzing the shape of the explosive pulse.
Right–because creating industrial diamonds requires high-precision detonation, which you would presumably want to monitor and analyze. The evidence that this is actually a cover for nuclear weapons research boils down to a lack of proof that it is not a cover for nuclear weapons research. Or as weapons analyst David Albright puts it–who is a major source for the Post story, both directly and through his Institute for Science and International Security think tank–“It remains for Danilenko to explain his assistance to Iran.”
There’s such a degree of spin in the Post‘s case for Iranian nuclear research that it really makes you want to check to be sure your wallet is still in your pocket. After relaying Danilenko’s assertions that he had nothing to do with a nuclear program, Warrick adds, “In private conversations, however, the scientist allowed that he ‘could not exclude that his information was used for other purposes,’ the ISIS report said.” Of course, no scientist can guarantee that their information was not repurposed, so the admission has zero evidentiary value–but it does function as an effective tension-raiser, like mood music in a horror movie.
The Post story concludes: “‘Synthetic diamond production is unlikely to have been a priority’ for Iran, ISIS said. ‘Although it has obvious value as a cover story.'” Actually, Iran has a serious, long-standing nanotechnology program (Moon of Alabama, 11/7/11)–and one of the chief uses for nanodiamonds is in oil drilling, an activity that provides the bulk of Iran’s exports earnings, so it’s not actually all that remarkable that the country would be interested in producing them.
Of course, the Post should be skeptical of Iranian claims–but where is the same skepticism of assertions that an official enemy state is secretly researching weapons of mass destruction–particularly given the very recent history of such claims being manufactured and distorted for political ends? It’s worth recalling that Albright, the Post‘s main witness for the idea that Danilenko is not what he says he is, was taken in by the last major WMD propaganda campaign, telling CNN (10/5/02; Extra!, 7-8/03): “In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now. How many, how could they deliver them? I mean, these are the big questions.”
We need the news media to be asking bigger questions this time around about the Iranian nuclear allegations.
Language is a virus.
There’s a qualitative difference between being “taken in” by propaganda, and taking on the dissemination of same, don’t you think?
In Albright’s case, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck …
Take it to the nearest pond.
Fair often writes from a “nuanced” perspective.It picks apart ,and disseminates words.Parsing this sarcasm or that….yet seldom does it proffer a conclusion.If i may be so bold as to speak for fair and its contributors in regards to your geopolitical conclusion on the matter……
IRAN HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EMBARK ON IT”S NUCLEAR PROGRAM.THEY HAVE STATED THEY WILL NEVER WEAPONIZE,AND WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THEM.
See it is not so hard to take a stand.No matter how idiotic.
@ michael e: That’s completely beside the point. What this piece is about is how the author and the media takes completely for granted the assertion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons under the disguise of a civilian nuclear power program. The thinnest shred of evidence– like an alleged former Soviet weapons scientist probably working with Iran on diamond creation– is enough to prove Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That “evidence” is “crap.” If this is the kind of proof it takes, then changing planes in Toronto oughta be enough to make me a Canadian citizen. The last time we, the American public bought into this kind of crap, we fought a ridiculously-expensive and regionally-destabilizing war in Iraq where only a few thousand of our young men and women (an an unknown, but huge, number of Iraqi civilians) were needlessly killed or wounded.
Note well where the piece says “Of course, the Post should be skeptical of Iranian claims…” The issue is there oughta be skepticism of our media’s and government’s claims as well.
If you wanna sit here and just guess that Iran is developing nuclear weapons based on crappy evidence and personal bias against Iran and the Islamic world in general, you feel free. But understand it’s just your wild-ass guesses. And nobody’s wild-ass guesses should be used as a basis for ordering a small subset of brave men and women into harm’s way while you sit in the comfort and safety they provide and then gripe about how much it costs to run the country and how we should cut taxes in the middle of a war.
@michael e: By the way: “disseminates”? Nice word choice, Shakespeare.
John I totally agree that people have a right to be skeptical of intel.Any Intel.Though I would not bet my ass on it.Israel for instance will not play that game. Im completely skeptical of what this administration has said on so called global warming.What bothers me is the Liberal template has taken hold in too many peoples minds, that not finding WMDs in Iraq has rendered that service moot.They did not find WMDs true.But their greater reading of Saddam was spot on.By his own words he intended to reconstitute ,and use anything he damn well pleased.What bothers me about FAIR ,is the way they try to disavow todays intel, by first believing that the liberal spin rules the day ,and paints America as the aggressor nation.This is where our liberal press can be used by foreign despots to camouflage and smokescreen their true designs.
Re read this line…….”Of course, the post should be skeptical of iranian claims….”The issue is there oughta be skepticism of our media’s and governments claims as well.No not AS WELL.AS WELL indicates they are just as likely to be truthful ,or lying as their Iranian counterparts.I won’t even dignify that.This is the manure that Fair and the liberal press DISSEMINATES.
@michael e: It makes no sense to justify the invasion of Iraq based on a false premise with the glib statement “they got Saddam spot on.” We didn’t start the Iraq war because Hussein was an evil guy– he surely was. We were sold the war on the premise that there were WMD’s in Iraq, or at least under development. Lies cannot be made true after the fact. That template seems to be what is taking hold in people’s minds– it’s taken hold in yours– and that’s a problem. It’s just another way of saying the end justifies the means. We all know Iran is full of religious-zealot bad people, right? So why bother actually looking critically at some of this BS that’s being peddled as proof of their beligerent nuclear program? If you’re gonna start screwing around in another country’s affairs– even to the point of dropping bombs on them– then I prefer it not be with lies, omissions, and half-truths. Hell, it’d be better to come out and say “We flipped a coin and it came up heads, therefore we’re attacking Iran.” At least that would be accurate and truthful.
You’re skeptical about what this administration has said on global warming? There’s a frickin’ surprise. Something like 99% of climate scientists agree on human-induced climate change and its future impacts. I guess they’re all idiots, huh? Or on the take. Yeah, last time I went to a climate scientist convention, I couldn’t even count the Bentleys in the parking lot. Skeptic Magazine had an article about this I think a year or so ago, The title was something like “If 99% of climate scientists aren’t enough to convince you…”
FAIR trying to disavow today’s intel? Good. This intel should be disavowed– it’s worthless. But it’s not being disavowed. It’s being repeated within the rest of the media community and being eaten up by you and your ilk who insist that Iran is guilty until it proves itself innocent. That shouldn’t fly. Especially after Iraq.
Yeah, it’s all the liberal media’s fault that much of the world views us as an aggressor nation. No, the whole invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with it. And the covert and/or overt meddling in the internal affairs of any number of countries has nothing to do with it, either. Yep, it’s all the liberal media.
Congrats on using disseminates correctly this time. Batting .500 now, are we?
John 99% do not agree that changes in the weather from global warming ,to the coming ice age are man made.You can’t find 99% of anyone on anything let alone that.99% of Libs push that agenda.Your not still pushing Gores “the science is closed” are you? Haven’t we seen his hypocrisy?Haven’t we seen the global warming lies?Lets just say there are changes in the weather and the left is more likely to blame man.
As far as Iraq read Clintons book.He says war was inevitable.Why????Because Saddam had broken all 17 caveats of his surrender terms.Under the terms that demanded an instant resumption of hostilities.The UN backed down and left us holding the ball. Chaimberland all over again. More so…..He refused to come to heal for Bush at a time after America was attacked.He would not give honest answers to the worlds demands.He admitted on his death bed he was playing these games.He just thought Bush lacked the balls.WMDs were just one part of the march to war.Not the only one.WMDs led the way in the PR war.
Your assertion about Iran is dangerous.Iran has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction.It IS up to them- to prove themselves innocent.Do we take them at their word when they say they will not arm…Or when they say they will loose a fire upon Israel that will obliterate the Jewish state?You seem to think our intelligence agencies are key stone cops.Like wise Israel.I would ask this…..What has Iran done or said that leads you to conclude their actions are peaceful?A rapist who openly threatens murder upon you and your family probably would not be welcome to sleep at your house.And i don’t think the CIA being among those who warn you- would change your mind.But that is what is called “having your ass on the line”.Iran has proven again and again to be a threat to this country.You don’t believe that?Go back to sleep
@michael e: Here’s a link to a 2010 National Academy of Sciences survey analyzing the relative qualifications and extent of consensus among climate researchers:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
Looking at it, you will see an overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. However your assertion that ” 99% do not agree that changes in the weather from global warming ,to the coming ice age are man made,” is so poorly-worded and unclear, that I can’t really tell if this particular study refutes your argument or not. Perhaps that was your design in phrasing it the way you did. In any event, I’m inclined to believe that 99% of climate scientists probably know a lot more about it than you do. And here we go, yet again, with the “don’t listen to the hypocrite spiel.” [sigh] This illogical and intentionally-distracting hypocrite card you insist on playing, at every opportunity, is getting quite tiresome. But I’ll humor you… Fine, don’t listen to Gore– listen to the some 1500 climate scientists that are telling you about climate change. Surely, they can’t all be hypocrites or on the take, right?
So war was inevitable? Death is inevitable for all of us; that doesn’t justify me bringing about your death does it? I submit that war was inevitable because our govt. wanted it to be and for no other reason. Read “Fiasco” by Tom Ricks, wherein he talks about marginalized dissenting voices who were saying that Hussein had been contained and was playing a game of bluster with his regional adversaries; those guys/girls seem to have got the intel right, and some of them made no secret of what they thought. They were not listened to because we had it in mind to start a real boots-on-the-ground war. They were not listened to because the American public was sold a line of BS about WMD’s. They were not listened to because many in the press abandoned their responsibility to call BS on the many things that were obviously BS. I acknowledge a lot of what I put forward is hindsight being 20/20. But that makes it all the more important to look at the facts with Iran and not skew the playing field with prejudice and illogical demands– like making Iran prove a negative. Our country made many big mistakes with Iraq; why are we in such a rush to repeat the experience with Iran? If the evidence is there and is persuasive enough– then some kind of action must be taken and I have no problem with that. But as to what’s presented thus far, I ain’t seeing anything other than a bunch of crap coupled with bias; that don’t make for good intel on which to make decisions that are gonna change countless lives.
Other than the 1979 Tehran Embassy Seige, what has Iran done that has been hostile to the US? They fund and train terrorist groups? So does our country when it suits our purpose. They put Iranians in the fight in Iraq? Maybe– that’s a little less clear– but we’d do the same thing if some foreign power invaded Canada or Mexico. Iran undoubtedly has a hostile attitude toward the US, but if we’re gonna be the big kid on the world block, we better grow a thicker skin; you can’t start bombing and fighting wars every time some idiot rattles a sabre at you. Iran is capable of harming Israel, but last I checked, the vast majority of Americans don’t live in Israel. Given all of this, why exactly must we conclude that Iran is intent on destroying the US? It’s a non-sequitir.
Now, I have to admit that I have my doubts about Iran and its nuclear ambitions and I’m a staunch anti-proliferation guy. But that doesn’t mean we need to jump the gun to open hostility, even if doing so will prevent them for being nuclear capable. There’s a lot of time left on that clock. But for some reason, people seem to wanna make that clock tick faster. I don’t get it. There are other ways to achieve the non-proliferation goal. But to go around saying “Iran is treacherous and hostile, always will be, and they can’t prove otherwise,” is designed to make it more acceptable to forego all other options and proceed right to the use of force. There’s no good reaon to do that right now, as you’d think Iraq woulda demonstrated.
Now you say the UN dropped the ball. And you previously said it’s the liberal media that’s responsible for the world seeing us as aggressors. Having worked in the mental health field in the past, I can tell you from experience: most times when a person has a problem with everyone around them, it ain’t the fault of everyone around them; the problem really lies with the one person. If the rest of the world seems to think you got issues, it’s probably because you do.
Well john I have seen these studies and those completely refuting them.Both prove the worlds weather has change continually and will continue to do so.I am on the side that says taking that for granted i will not hand over 1 sixth of the economy to Government control gauged on their belief in how much man if effecting it ,if at all. . I am well aware that many of these scientific studies are proffered to get Government grants(aren’t you?’).You will see the great percentage of these studies follow the money trail.Global warming is awash in them.I have seem the global warming crowd admitting that wether it grows warmer or colder it is still mans fault and in perfect agreement with their models.That is bad science.And remember there is no such thing as a CONSENSUS in science.Only in theory.Science is or it is not. ..I have seen Gore tell people on a beach community that within ten years they will be under water…Then buy a house there 15 feet from waters edge for 3 million.Problem with global warming was stated by Clinton regarding China.He said even those Chinese who adhere to the theory will not destroy their economy over it.Should we?
As far as Iran you say “There is a lot of time on the clock”.Seems to me the powers that be(Obama included)disagree with that.Yes we can simply say That the presidents daily intel briefings that have turned his hair grey would be better spent with him working on his bowling game.But i think not.Looking at it another way it seems that most of what iran does is kept out of the public eye and the press so as not to quicken the march to war.Obama has really sat on the pentagon ,the joint chiefs.Israel,and perception to keep the drum beats quiet.i think that s Ok.As long as some headway is being made with iran.If you read more about Iran and read the farsi translations of daily speeches from Iran it is hard to fluff it off as “saber rattling”. I think this country is still hoping for an overthrow from within.So when you say what have they done hostile to us I am a little shocked.Im sure Obama could talk to you for days on the subject.He may of come in clueless….but the learning curve seems to of woken him up.Iran is our enemy.We can still deal with our enemies.i hope Iran is truthful about their nuclear ambitions and lying about all their threats.Lets say i am doubtful.
Is war inevitable?Never.Not even against Hitler.Remember we did not declare war on him.Sadly it is more likely when enough factors fall into place creating the probability for conflict.Iraq was just so.It was possible to stop up till 3 hours prior.Saddam could of left up till even then.He chose to fight.You would say what right did we have for those demands.I would say- did he not think his threats and stubborn refusals would be taken seriously after his past actions, and the reality of what we had just gone through? Recently Irans small navy brazenly interjected themselves into our navies security zones far from home.They were given a wide berth and all naval regulation were observed.But the provocation is dangerous.Even one threat of the nature against Israel and the US(Our missiles will soon be able to reach the great Satan reining death and destruction on his lands as the great return of the third imam begins)are really enough.Imagine us saying to Russia “soon we will let loose our nuclear arsenals against you till not one of you stands”.Imagine the Russian response.John you ask too much of us.
My real problem with what you wrote is about the moral equivalency you point to between our Democratic government, and a Religious oligarchy that is plain and simply put…. NUTS.I simply can’t dignify that.
I have often been told my prose is a sloppy mess.Man oh man are you all right
@michael e: No, you have not seen studies that refute the contention that there is over 90% scientific consensus on the issue of climate change. That is because such studies do not exist. About 92-99%, depending on what survey is cited, of climate scientists agree about human-induced climate change. You may have seen studies that refute the underlying data, and/or conclusions drawn from it, that these climate scientist use to arrive at their opinions. However, those studies are just as vulnerable, if not more so, to the “follow the money” boogeyman you trot out– many are funded by oil companies and others who have a rather significant interest in seeing no changes made to the Western way of life. Those studies do not fare particularly well under peer-review, either. What the eff does “there is no such thing as consensus in science” even mean? So until 100% of cimate scientists agree on something, then nobody need listen? That’s a pretty stupid basis for decision-making, isn’t it? Do you have any thoughts that are complex enough to NOT fit on a bumper sticker?
And by the way, I’m not in favor of any radical re-making or ruination of our economy in order to deal with climate change, either. That doesn’t mean I must be a climate change denier. The two things are not necessarily linked.
So Gore’s a hypocrite? And nobody need listen to hypocrites, right? [sigh] OK, fine… Unless you can prove you’re joining the military in order to fight the next war with Iran that you’re calling for, and unless you donate all your income to the government in order to finance it, then you’re a hypocrite, too. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, pal. I eagerly await you posting a picture of yourself at your military enlistment ceremony and a pdf of your 1040 where you ask the IRS to take all your extra money in order to defray costs of the next war with Iran. Or you could, you know, give up this stupid fixation on manufactured hypocrisy and try making a logical argument for a change. Either course of action would be acceptable.
So you’re saying that war with Iraq was inevitable and war is never inevitable? Which is it Sybil?
Hussein chose to fight. Our govt. could have chosen to listen to those who were saying, some of them screaming, that Hussein was contained by the no-fly zone and was bluffing to seem powerful in the eyes of his regional enemies and that Iraq was of very little danger to any other country. This is what’s called sabre-rattling and we chose to go headlong into a ridiculously-expensive and ill-conceived war because of it. So rather than learn something from that mistake, you advocate that we stand ready and eager to repeat it? That doesn’t make any sense.
Sorry about your problem with moral equivalency. I guess. You need not dignify it, but would you care to explain why it’s OK for the US to fund and support terrorist groups and causes, but not Iran? Would you care to explain why the US can meddle in the internal affairs of any number of countries when it suits our interests, but Iran shouldn’t meddle in an aggressive war being fought mere miles from its border? Why is it OK for our democracy to do these kinds of things but it’s strictly off-limits to their theocracy? It all comes down to Us vs. Them: the Us is always right and good, and the Them is always wrong and evil. Time to grow up: international affairs is a big boy’s game and it sometimes involves a lot of people doing highly questionable things at their govt.’s behest. There is typically no moral high ground to be had by either side– I’m sorry to say.
michael e, I call you out paid mouthpiece and troll for the 1%.
The trouble with any war, is that it’s not the politicians and muinition makers that suffer: ultimately, it’s the civilian population ( aka collateral damage.)
If the politicans that voted for war, actually had to go to war as leaders on the ground, then I think we would see a lot more thoughtfulness about declaring war. Waving the flag is so much easier than dodging arms fire.
Don’t forget,one hundred years ago, America began its global military rise. Teddy Roosevelt started his grand tour with his grand warship and visited other nations of the world. He did make his ” Talk softly but carry a big stick,” statement at this time. However, for the past 30 years, this nation seems more inclined, at this point in our history, to hurl the stick at the closest and most convenient head.
I can’t imagine that many Americans are interested in another war, as we have so many going on and unfinished at the moment. I don’t think that the Super Committee could ever figure its way out of anything if another war happened.
The latest news seems to be quoting Israel as saying that they will attack Iran. I can’t imagine that those 450,000 citizens that gathered in Tel Aviv re: no jobs, no raises, nor opportunities would want another war either. I also can’t imagine that those 25,000 or so Jewish people that live in Itran would be interested in being bombed either.
Nor, can I imagine that China, with oil interest in Iran, is at all interested in having oil workers dodging bullets and drones either. To restate the idea again, I truly do think that if leaders vote for war, then they really need to be on the ground until the dispute is finished. I think wars would be much shorter, if they even began at all, if the war “deciders” had to be THERE in person; the citizens of each state would be so much happier too.
I’m sorry that the one gentleman doesn’t appear to believe in global climate changes but I do suggest that he read up on East Siberia; that’s where the tundra is melting and all of that ancient methane is rising up. That’s a real game changer.
I also think it would be very helpful if journalists ,who wrote about Iran, actually looked into their history from 1918 on. After WW I and the dividing up of the Middle East like a pizza, well things got a bit messy and stayed that way. Don’t forget that yellow journalism really got going during the Spanish American war time too. Remember Mr. Hearst’s famous quote. ” You provide the pictures and I’ll provide the war.”
The Post left a great legacy and perhaps it can be reclaimed…but maybe taking a cue from the global citizens at large would inspire them. MA’AT is such a great word!
It’s hard to separate human nature from history; it’s not the greatest story, but certainly the most repetative story ever told.
We all must forgive Michael e. His ferocious grip on extreme right wing dogma renders him incapable of cognitive reasoning. More’s the pity.
It seems to me that Iran, under threat of attack from at least two nuclear armed nations, would be crazy NOT to be developing nuclear weapons!
Just so Michael E will not rewrite history, let us remember the following: No country, except the USA in 2003, ever started a war when its putative enemy had allowed it unfettered access unto its grounds and into its buildngs, so that its inspectors could locate and destroy weapons. The US not only inspected Iraq for weapons, but controlled its airspace with its jets and Iraqi trade with the help of the UN. Thousands of children died under our sanctions regime, which Secretary of State Madame Albirght called “well worth it”. The Iraqi scientists turned over 12,000 pages of documents describing the elimination of Iraqi WMD program, and the week before the invasion Newsweek reported that Saddam’s son-in-law, who had defected to the US, had confirmed to US officials that Iraq’s WMD program had officially ended in 1995. Cheney and Bush ignored the real evidence, instead choosing to believe those captives who they tortured, especially al-Libi, who was waterboarded into saying there was a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Pressure was put on officials to confirm the premise that weapons of mass desructions did exist, as the Downing Street Memo confirmed.
Then, Bush unilaterally withdrew the inspectors, stopping the UN from completing the mission it started. His motive was to end a search that was disproving his thesis on every day it failed to uncover those WMD that Bush had so long claimed were there. Michael E should not be surprised to be reminded of Bush’s rush to war, for surely he has read multiple accounts from administration insiders that recollect Bush’s placing immediate blame on Saddam for 9/11. And, even Cheney has admitted to have laid out maps of Iraqi oil deposits on the Oval Office table well before the Twin Towers crumbled to the ground.
So, Michael E needs to find a better pastime than shilling for America’s corporate war machine and enabling its leaders to make the needless, bloody, and expensive war that deprives this country of its opportunity for peace and prosperity.
Now, John, see what you’ve done? You fed the troll, and he shit out a torrent of lies and the most preposterous nonsense imaginable. I skipped over it all; no doubt your responses make sense, but the troll does not care. No one knows what his bag is, outside of barking out pure reactionary lies and bullshit non-stop, and there is no point at all in engaging him, no? He’s like a super-stupid and senseless version of the Terminator–he can’t be reasoned with, feels absolutely no pity or remorse, and will not stop untill the entire blogosphere’s mind has been dumbed down to his level. So, imagine trying to reason with an empty garbage can, or a rabid chimp, or a handful of gravel. Got that? Same thing. You are absolutely wasting your time. The troll is as the troll does, and if you don’t want to get frustrated, don’t feed him. That is all. I speak from bitter experience.
What Tim said.
Good point, TimN, but I write for others as well, as I paid close attention while everything was happening and remember a lot of it like it was yesterday. Why? Because I was finding it preposterous that we coud launch such a major war when we were not in danger. I felt so ashamed when US bombs started hitting Baghdad. I think it is good to remind everyone of what really happened, so the truth can be passed down. Also, it needs repeating that Bush’s attack was spurred by the failure of the inspectors to find anything. The media never made that connection, which is a somewhat speculative claim, I admit, but to my mind is a high -probablity inference since the UN’s continued failure to find any WMD undercut the main premise of the war itself.
Sorry guys busy week.Im having trouble finding any time to spend on your blogs.
Basically I can say your re writing of history and your ignorance of how things occurred is startling.Once Obama was your guy.The guy who believed as you do.The guy who was gonna get power and use it to try Bush on war crimes blah bla bla.Then he got intel briefings and all that went away (to your consternation.)He kept the troops there and fighting, according to Bushes template.How could he?I will tell you.He learned what is what- and you don’t have a clue what it is you are talking about.So you stomp about and scream and insult…and the world moves on past you.You are in effect transcended. Iraq’s WMDs were the selling point for the public.If you don’t understand there was far more to it than you are lost.
It is obvious you believe the hoax that is man made global warming.Nothing will change your minds because it is not based on love for nature or science.It is political agenda plain and simple.Hatred for business and this country and the need to gain power over peoples lives is a constant drive for you lot.But believe as you want.As long as you have no power over industry or the direction of research and gov spending …..believe away.It is a free country.We will of course stop you gaining any more power to effect social engineering changes.How is that green industry doing by the way?Remember the whole aim of liberal politics is to keep the public alarmed.So that the government can save them them from all the imaginary spooks and goblins.Lord Monckton is still hysterical on his destruction of the global warming crowds narrative.John you really need to read outside the liberal box.You are starting to believe this junk.They say it is going to be the coldest winter on record.And the wettest.So if it rains…global warming.if it is dry….global warming.Warm or cold …global warming.Please save us oh empowered government. “:)
Tim as always you say nothing.You simply want no dissent to your stupidity.Bummer Comrade dude.
Has it not occurred to any of you that your gripe is …with this country.You simply don’t like it.And all your will is bent toward finding ways to knock it down a couple pegs.It really robs you of validity.
Pete who the hell are the 1%?Another liberal hob goblin?
@michael e: My belief in climate change– and please note that calling it global warming and then mockingly pointing out that it’s not warm right now is NOT evidence of anything– is based on the fact that some 90%+ of climate scientists think this. These guys and girls study this stuff for a living, and have done nothing but study this for most of their lives. There’s about 1500 of them according to the link I posted. What do you do for a living, again?– ’cause I’m willing to bet it ain’t climate science. You can believe the minority of climate scientists whose work attracts funding of oil companies and other interests and whose products don’t fare well under peer review; but you have to realize the inherent vulnerability to criticism– like it’s the minority position, it’s getting its funding from somewhere, and it doesn’t stand up to scientific peer review very well. No, the majority is not always right, but this particular majority is pretty-well educated, at least, and its work product stands up to scrutiny a great deal better than the minority’s product does. By the way, studies have been confirming human-induced climate change since at least the 1980’s. That’s all through the Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama govt.’s. You believe that all those govt.-funded studies under all those different administration were all a result of a secret liberal agenda to create a scientific phenomenon outta thin air with no evidence? That doesn’t seem just a tiny bit far-fetched to you?
Once again, lies cannot be made true after the fact. We bought a phony billl of goods in the run-up to the Iraq war and it cannot be whitewashed by citing to Hussien wanting to be the lion of Judea or whatever after he’s captured and facing a noose. There’s a crazy homeless guy down the street who says he’s re-incarnated Napoleon. Even if he’s telling the truth and he is, there’s no point to taking any action military action against him until he recruits a new Imperial Army. Until that time, he’s just a crazy guy on my street who’s no threat to any other country.
Well John I do of course believe in climate change.We have always been warming or cooling since the world began.And I do believe that”oil companies get the research they pay for.I also believe that global warming created an industry of scientists attached to academia based grants.This is one of thee strongest good old boy systems around.Having Obama highjacking the entire movement to grow Gov control and taxation(carbon credits)was also part and parcel to this.Just as with the oil companies you need only follow the money trail.Does that discredit all the models?Probably not but…..The science is not closed.The newest models indicate that cloud cover may have more of an effect than any of the other theories.Cloud cover that will cause global warming ,followed by global cooling.And what causes this?Sunspots.In fact it has been theorized that one sun spot can create more change than man….in all his history here!And in fact if global warming from carbon emissions is real…..that it would act as a very infinitesimal counter weight.
The stats you jump for joy with are these….”90% of climatologists are of a consensus that man is effecting climate change.”Well consensus is not science..That aside I agree.Every cow that farts is as well.And every butterfly that flaps his wings in China.The only question is…..does it warrant the government taking over industry for the altruistic reasons(lol)of saving us from ourselves in some distant future?And don’t poo poo away Gores massive hypocrisy.His legend loom large in the creation of this industry ,and mindset.And he is a complete fraud.As Clinton said”no it does not”.And you must give more creedence to the reality that these same scientists can’t report the weather a week from now yet say they can judge the climate a hundred years from now.It all comes down to this John POLLUTION.Same thing we have been fighting for years.We must all strive to pollute less.Creation of green industry along profitable norms have always proven to work best.Government intrusion as always- is a complete disaster.Lets all work to create profitable business models that bENIFIT from green technology.Have you seen the turf roofs in NEW YORK?Amazing .Killing the worlds hot spots one blade of grass at a time.
As far as iraq I think the left discounts what Bush ,,,,Condolisa Rice….Cheney….Saddam,Sectratary of defense…and the rest of the key players have to say.The left still holds up things that could of been done to avoid conflict as if those key players had not thought of it.Condoliza is very articulate on these matters.It would not be a waste to read her words.They instead turn to academia and beat writers to determine history redux.Not that they find many new facts.It is simply a re-working and re interpretation of old bones.Always with the opening disclaimer that since WMDs were not found…Good soundbite but the conflict was due to so much more.
I just read two books on Hitler.One by a twenty nine year old writer(With history degrees)The other was by a general who spent most of the war by Hitlers side.The difference was startling.You are correct about PR though.Our presidents have become adept at manipulation of the public to grease the wheels toward what they want to accomplish.Often it has little to do with the “devil in the details” of what is truly happening and it returns to bite them in the ass when the public realizes they were sold a phony bill of sale (let alone goods)..Look at Obamas selling of healthcare.The numbers proffered were pure pie in the sky.Yet it has not changed his mind.There are most def two realities.the presidents daily briefing and what he wishes to share with the public in some packaged fashion.I have noticed that Obama seems every bit as worried about Iran as anyone else Ive seen.I have to believe his intel is better than mine or yours.Iraq proved that inel can manipulated by people like Saddam(or in your belief system Bush and the military industrial complex) and end up completely flawed.So yes we must proceed with the utmost care.But believe your own president when he says this danger is real.
@michael e: You’re not looking at the science of clouds, sunspots, weather forecasts, and butterfly wings. You’re regurgitating sound bites that support your position. Each and every variable you throw out there to say “these climate scientists are wrong” has been considered in multiple studies. Each and every one. And several more that you didn’t mention. Are the climate models perfect? Absolutely not and any climate scientist will concede that. But they all are pretty consistent with each other. Oh, so they can’t predict the weather? Doctors can’t cure the common cold, but that doesn’t make it wise to ignore my doctor’s advice, does it? And apparently it’s not far-fetched to you that this scheme to take over the economy was hatched outta nothingness at least 30 years ago, has survived on govt. grants during multiple administrations that have been openly hostile to the entire concept, has managed to brainwash several thousand respected climate scientists over the years, and now is reaching fruition with the Obama presidency? Really? OK… I’m not sure what else I can add to that.
OK, fine… [sigh] I won’t pooh-pooh Gore’s hypocrisy. But neither will I ignore yours. Where’s the picture of you at the recruiting center waiting to ship out to basic, pal? Where’s that 1040 where you write in “take it all; you need it to maintain the military in order to threaten Iran”? Until you do those things, you are just as hypocritical. I can put you in touch with some recruiters. You have any idea how bad the military needs doctors?
The conflict with Iraq was NOT due to so much more than WMD’s. Not going in it wasn’t. What you’re doing now is trying to backdate the reasons– Hussein was evil, he was devoted to WMD’s and woulda got ’em given enough time, he wanted to take over the whole Middle East, etc. It doesn’t work that way– if you’re gonna sell a war because of WMD’s and then not find them anywhere, then you’re gonna look like a lying ass. And that’s what happened. They played games to sell the war to the public, rather than put forth accurate and/or truthful info and run the risk that the public would say no way. They played the game, played it poorly, and need to be called out so it doesn’t happen again. And you wanna excuse it all by saying “well, they needed fight the war for any number of reasons” and maybe give ’em a do-over with Iran? I guess that Tea Party promise to “hold them accountable” only applies when it suits you. Hmmm… I’m smelling more hypocrisy.
You admitted that intel can be manipulated. And the whole point of this thread was to discuss looking skeptically at the media’s claims about Iran– about how the “evidence” put forth in the article proves little more than a former Soviet scientist once worked in Iran for some reason on some kind of project. So do you now see why maybe it’s not the best idea to swallow any BS evidence about Iran simply because it fits your prejudices and preconceptions?
Wow, John: You are more than welcome to imagine that in your “writing for others” your writings are somehow going to enlighten the troll. As I said, you are wrong, but I can’t stop you. I was guilty of the same thing here at one time too, but I finally realized what a waste of time (and space at FAIR blog) it was trying to talk reason and sense and truth to someone in the death grip of overwhelming stupidity and irrationality and hatred. The troll is here in absolutely bad faith; he’s convinced himself that there’s a “discourse” going on, and that his preposterous and outrageous lies are part and parcel of a rational disagreement between right-thinking and ultimately good-faith practitioners of democracy (and I’m giving him a huge benefit of doubt here). When you answer back to him as though his “ideas” deserve anything other than contempt and ridicule, you cause others here to jump right past the whole bad argument–I’m sure you have something interesting to say, but how am I to know? You’re hooked into something that’s utterly counter-productive, and no sane person is going to follow along for very long.
You might like to write and express your ideas for the pure fun and goodness of it–I know I do. It’s just that I learned long ago to not address those who really, ultimately never approached what you said and thought with anything other than rotten, base, pre-conceived notions, notions rooted deeply in a rigid, uncomprimising, and utterly incurious totalitarian mind-set. You’ll eventually tire of the exercise, I suppose; I’m just sayin’ that it’s better to pitch your ideas at people who actually might give a shit about what you think.
John I Totally agree that they looked like a lying ass.Especially in the narrow framework spun by those people who believe as you do.So be it.The president should not decide these important matters on how well it will play in the future.Not to you or me.Bush did the job as he saw fit.And he did not do it by following liberal public opinion.One of the disconnects Obama is having now is his accepting this responsibility.In doing so, he is no longer playing the game as you thought he would.I think the presidents daily briefing give him a far better look into these matter than you or me carping from the outside.Is that a free pass?Hell no.And we must ask those questions.But your absolute belief of Bush as a war criminal leads me to believe you see Obama also as one.We disagree
We also also disagree on global warming.Difference …….your stance would have you given the power to legislate the way we live our lives.Same old same old for you lot.
And as far as “joining up”…..not to let you in on too much info into my personal life….But, been there- done that.In one of the toughest outfits you we have, and damn proud of it.And i did it late.They would not want me now.Im not in the shape i was.Twenty pounds up.Though I shall loose it i swear. :)
@michael e wrote: “The president should not decide these important matters on how well it will play in the future.Not to you or me.Bush did the job as he saw fit.And he did not do it by following liberal public opinion.”
How about following the will of the people? You know, that little thing we like to call democracy? You’re describing the thought process of an emperor, not a President.
________________________________
Also: “But your absolute belief of Bush as a war criminal leads me to believe you see Obama also as one”
Where is my absolute belief that Bush is a war criminal stated? I never wrote that and I don’t think that. He mislead us into a war. And then effed up the execution of that war. That makes him an idiot, but not a war criminal in my book. Sorry, but I ain’t the straw man you set me up to be.
_________________________________
Also: ” your stance would have you given the power to legislate the way we live our lives.Same old same old for you lot.”
No. You must have missed it where I wrote: “And by the way, I’m not in favor of any radical re-making or ruination of our economy in order to deal with climate change, either. That doesn’t mean I must be a climate change denier. The two things are not necessarily linked.” Again, I ain’t the straw man you set me up to be. My “stance” is based on the science underlying it as best I understand it- -which I admit is imperfectly. My stance may support the argument for “legislating the way we live our lives” but lemme ask you this: When is it a good idea to insist the scientific evidence doesn’t say what it purports to say regarding a problem, just because you don’t like possible political ramifications? You ain’t talking about seatbelt use and MVA mortality rates, here– where it can be argued that making people where seatbelts is an infringement on personal freedom DESPITE the clear statistical evidence that shows increased MVA safety. No, what you’re saying is far closer to “No need to worry about seatbelt use because I irrationally disbelieve that mountain of evidence that says seatbelts saves lives.”
I stand by my hypocrite charge. And I’ll continue to do so until you realize that maybe continually playing the hypocrite card is… well… illogical and stupid, I guess are the best ways to put it. You served? Great. What have you done for the country lately? Now that you’re engaged in war-mongering, I think it’s reasonable to think you should be prepared to put your money where your mouth is; in any event, it is just as reasonable as demanding that Gore not drive a car or that Warren Buffet pay 10 times what his 1040 says he’s ‘sposed to. The military always needs doctors, and age and weight– and a number of other things– are all waivable. You volunteer at Walter Reed or the USO? You could, you know. And where’s that 1040 I mentioned? Opposing Iran takes money, doc. You wanna pony up more to make it happen? Excuses are like assholes, doc: everybody’s got one.
John you seem as if you want to help to make a better day.Is it so hard to believe that we on the right do not feel the same?But that we hate the methodology of the left?Do I believe in the science on Climate change being due to man?Well first I think it is very bad science.It went bad as government encroached on the scientific method by enjoining it with political ideology, and the effort to wield power over peoples lives.Now that the air has been let out of that move we will generally see better science.Now that the wild panic to do something(tax) is moving behind us we shall see.You see the left always needs a disaster.We MUST push through stimulus immediately or the sky falls.We must pass healthcare immediately or the other sky falls.We MUST pass carbon credits before….you get the point.
AS far as what I give.Sir i have always been, and always shall be, charitable with my work ,time and purse.Far different than your president.
And where come you to this war mongering stamp?War is the ultimate stupidity man can visit upon his fellow man.I just sadly contend that Iran seems bent on a very dangerous confrontational game.Our president who ever he may be may not be able to turn a blind eye.He is charged with or safety.If he did not want the job he should not of taken it.And confrontation(war)can not only come AFTER a pearl harbor.Or a 911.Or a nuclear/Bio/chem weapon has been used.We no long have the luxury of accepting the first blow.We may have to deliver it -to safeguard ourselves from it.This was a part of the wind up to war in Iraq.And it could be in iran.Now the best way i see to defuse this ,is for the country that is creating the perceived or real threat, to simply stand down .We have no designs to conquer anyone.No Armies are mustered here for world conquest of lands and peoples.BUT….we will defend ourselves.And in that horrible mistakes may happen.May already of happened.The lion gets his tail pulled enough may bite.AND…may himself be shot.I think the blame is squarely on Iran in this.I think Iraq and afghanistan also played dangerous games that led to our attacks upon them.We do need to stop this cycle.It takes two
@michael e: For the 3rd time: You don’t have to support radical changes to our economy or way of life if you agree with that vast majority of climate scientists that say human-induced climate change is quite real and a problem. When did the left politicize this? During the Reagan administration, when the first studies were done and a big corporate push went out to discredit the findings? Or was it during the Bush 2 administration, when govt.-employed scientists allege they were pressured to abandon their scientific viewpoints that conflicted with those of the administration? And just so we’re clear: this whole thing is simply made-up crap, that’s part of a sinister plan to take over the economy, that’s taken well over 30 years to implement and is nowhere near fruition apparently, and has managed to somehow convince thousands of highly-educated and competent scientists despite the fact it’s based on nothing? Do you have any idea how completely ridiculous that sounds? And that’s what you’re putting forth.
Oh, well, if YOU think it’s very bad science, then who are these 1500 or so climate scientists to say otherwise? How stupid of me to think that the majority of people who study and do this for a living might just know what they’re talking about. Yep, I oughta listen to that minority of climate scientists– and that’s a pretty generous term to grant them, as a few of those studies the right likes to tout were written by a scientists who were turning their attention to climate science for the first time ever– whose work does not fare well under peer review. Sorry, pal, but between you and the majority of climate scientists, I’m gonna take them and give points.
Oh, you’re generous with charity? Too effin’ bad– so are a lot of the people you like to call out here for supposed hypocrisy. If Warren Buffett and others are hypocrites for not somehow paying way above and beyond their legal tax liability, and if Gore and other environmentalists are hypocrites for not abandoning their cars and walking everywhere… if that’s the ridiculous rhetorical game you like to play– and you sure do seem to like to play it– then you, too, are a hypocrite. The govt. needs tons of money to maintain a strong military with which to deter and/or threaten Iran– which is something you want. You can’t produce a 1040 showing that you’ve volunteered more than your tax share to provide that money; in fact, you’re often here railing that the govt. should get far, far less tax money. You’re advocating something and not backing it up with your actions: so like Buffett, Gore, and their ilk, you’re a hypocrite. Contact your recruiter about getting an age waiver to go into the medical corps. Does it hurt to ask? The worst that’s gonna happen is they say no. File an amended tax return for 2010 and simply write in: “Take it– you need it to keep us all safe from those Iranians!” and enclose a hefty check. Do those things, and you’re no longer a hypocrite. [sigh] Look, pal, I ain’t the one who starts down this hypocrite road every chance he gets; I’m just the guy tryin’ to show you that it’s a 2-way street. You could end all this by simply resolving to stop your illogical, distractive, and stupid railing against manufactured hypocrisy and instead argue on the merits of a position. Or you could keep it up with the “the weatherman isn’t carrying an umbrella” act and see where it gets ya.
I come with this war-mongering from the whole point of this article. Just buying every BS-assertion that the media or the govt. puts out about Iran and nuclear weapons is pretty-much war mongering. If you’re not gonna look critically at the reasons that are being proffered for being hostile to Iran, then you might as well give the govt. a blank check. The American public did that with Iraq; we should be learning from that mistake, rather than chomping at the bit to repeat it.
Yeah, it’d solve the problem if Iran back down. From Iran’s point of view, I bet they’d think it’d solve the problem if the rest of the world left them alone. It’s Us vs. Them. You gotta get past that or you’ll end up justifying all sorts of crazy behavior by the Us, while demonizing everything about the Them. I’ll buy that we have no designs to conquer anyone– who wants that frickin’ headache? But that’s a hard sell when our military’s as large as it is and we’ve invaded one country for evidence that was about as strong as “a little bird told me Iraq has WMD’s.”
John the same people that wanted Government encroachment into every part of the economy during Reagan’s time due to the coming ice age ….want it now .It has never been pure science.Always co-opted.You can see the leval if you remember when the great fraud of scientists admitted cooking the books.No uprising on the left at all.Just silence until the spin machine could find an angle to try to bury it and move past it.Do you remember a certain fraud who worked for Obama who admitted that socialisms aim should be to tie into the green movement?That was the way to power?Your belief in the science is naive.Your refusal to see governments hand in this is as well.It will prove to be wrongheaded as the data catches up to some of the models is my guess.It will prove to be the hoax so many believe it isOr maybe Gore is right.We shall see.And as i say believe as you want.It is a free country.I don’y need you to change.Im not buying it,and thats ok right?I will of course work to vote you out.And we shall see who America believes.That after all is the tipping point in this discussion.
As far as your idea that i pay more taxes- stick it.I pay enough already.I believe in a strong military.Your belief that they are not already well funded is false.And your idea that if I don’t spend my life in the military beyond my 60s proves that im a hypocrite is idiotic.Or that i should pay more taxes for the one thing the government is charged with doing under the constitution as opposed to every program your side can dream up, and your belief in every growing taxes to pay for it is completely different.Anyway Obamas win with his super committee will gut the military.So my taxes would only be defered into another government rat hole.Your idea on hypocrisy is plain stupid.I have no ability to change hearts and minds.To send children to war.To tax.To encroach on the economy.To order anyone to do anything accept with my one vote.You compare me with the power that vice presidents and the such have to do so is plain stupid.The difference between you and me as I see it is I am not ready willing and able to throw America under the bus at every turn.Even when matched against that lovely vacation resort known as Iran… for Jews who need a new destination wedding place.You sir have a burr in your saddle.And like Obama it is part of the blame and apologize America tour.This negativity can only go so far partner.You are wearing out your welcome.Did you hear even Chris Matthews kick BAMs ass this week?So I will keep working hard to pay my taxes and keep everybody working.I will vote for positive people who look to a brighter day.And leave you to…..bitch
@michael e: Regarding your hypocrisy tirade: If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Your effin’ right I have a burr in my saddle about this. It’s there because you repeatedly shout an accusing “Hypocrite!” at anybody who’s ideas you disagree with. Rather than addressing any argument to the substance of their ideas, you’d rather just call them a hypocrite and be done with it. It’s a weak and distractive argument at best and it bugs me that you continually trot it out as if it’s a show-stopper: “Well, that Nobel-prize-winning cancer researcher smokes cigarettes! His whole body of scientific work is meaningless since he’s a hypocrite!”
My idea on hypocrisy is plain stupid? No shit, Sherlock. Guess whose playbook I’m running here. I’ll give you a hint: he can’t spell or punctuate to save his life and his initials are michael e.
No, I don’t remember a call for government intervention to deal with an ice age during the Reagan administration. That’s because no such thing ever happened. Post a link and prove me wrong, if you like. There’s always a few people on the fringes of any idea who want or think all kinds of crazy stuff. However, what we’re talking about nowadays is a mainstream scientific view of the issue of climate change. And, for a 4th time, just because you believe what climate scientists say about climate change does not mean you want massive govt. intervention in the economy or society. Many climate researchers are on record saying they don’t know what, if any, is the proper governmental response to the issue– they’re just reporting what the results of their climate models are telling them. It’s never been pure science and has always been co-opted? I don’t ‘spose you can actually prove that pretty serious allegation, can you?
John you can be tiring.Cap n trade is dead.Carbon credits hopefully are as well.Global warming and climate change are on the back burner .Screaming that you have no knowledge of any past attempts by your side to co-opt science into a bid for power- along the same lines as today, does not make me want to prove everything to you so as to convince you.You live and die on the little you glean from google.Look it up if you want to research it.Of course No amount of failed models or uncovered scams would do that.You are a believer.And the only thing you have is that there is a consensus(not science)among scientists today(90% of whom are on the government dole)that believe man is effecting the weather.That and a dime will get you a cup of coffee.And for the 5th time …..just because the scientists are not thinking along the lines of a global takeover with their gov for pay research does not mean the engine of manipulation is not toward that aim(VAN JONES)
Regarding any “argument or substance of ideas” that is funny.That is what I should be doing?FAIR usually snipes from the sidelines at reports.it offers no alternatives.Usually her bloggers do the same.Tim is the perfect example.He makes fun of every idea or press report, yet has none(ideas) of his own.He is a socialist ,yet will never step forward and offer the socialist aim on any situation for fear of ridicule.
And Im sorry but I don’t buy your Hypocrite argument.We on the right see blatant hypocrisy on the left.Massive.Look at the fellow running the OWS donation fund(half a mil)He was caught staying in a 700 dollar a night hotel along with OWS chief contributors last week.We will continue to point that stuff out.I mean you can’t make that stuff up right?Look at Van Jones who would of been BAMS top guy on the subject spill his guts about what the true aims were.Its pure gold.Look at NASA admit the films and studies were faked.Amazing!Read the top global warming scientists admit they cooked the books.Fantstic.And yes look at Gore meltdown as he tries to build his green empire.Booya!
Or ….Watch Lord Monktin point out the hoax that is global warming.I notice Congress calls him in as a top witness, yet the left personally attacks him as a fob.Putting it plain and simple….We on the right are killing you on the left.You are getting murdered for your ideas.We have laid bare the insanity of your platforms,and your president.Enough to heave it all out.That is the burr in your saddle.Yet you want to take away our arms at pointing out the insanity, and “hypocrisy” by twisting the word to fit….even little old me.No dice.
If you ask me directly how I as a man of science feel about global climate change I would say this.Is it changing?Yes of course it is.It always has.Could man have any effect on that?Im sure he does.Do cow farts have an effect?Im sure they do.The evidence is they produce massive amounts of Co2.Can man pollute less?Im sure that is the goal.Is this the hidden time bomb that will impact earth massively?I have not seen good data to that effect.Do you think this should be the claxton bell warning time- shrilling away for action before all is lost?I have seen no data to that effect.Should government be intervening to take controls- due to this belief?Of course not.Should science continue to study as free from government interference as possible…..ALWAYS!
michael e wrote: “Screaming that you have no knowledge of any past attempts by your side to co-opt science into a bid for power- along the same lines as today, does not make me want to prove everything to you so as to convince you.”
_______________________________
Yeah, and repeatedly putting forth allegations and refusing to back them up doesn’t make me wanna stop calling you a liar. All you gotta do is post a link and back up something you say. I did. BS D’Tektor does it. Join the club. We have cookies! And last I checked, I was writing. How am I screaming, exactly?
Oh, I know you on the right are really good at seeing hypocrisy– as long as it ain’t your own. Remove the log from your own eye… I think the saying goes.
Sorry, pal, but you see blatant hypocrisy in an OWS organizer staying in a hotel? Well, I see it in you demanding that the govt. have a sufficiently-strong military to threaten Iran with, but wanting everyone’s taxes slashed so that there’s far less money to support that military. Why is your gift for spotting hypocrisy insightful, divinely-inspired, and per se correct, but I’m off-base? Better yet, why is pointing out someone’s hypocrisy a legitimate rhetorical technique at all? You say because Tim does it? So 2 wrongs make a right to you do they? You sure you’re a “man of science”?
The burr in my saddle is that you seem to think it’s legitimate to point out that someone’s a hypocrite and therefore his/her ideas are worthless. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your neighbor is a huge hypocrite and you hear him yelling to you one day that he sees smoke and fire coming from your house. You gonna call 911 or just ignore him because he’s a hypocrite?
John I have no problem with what you just wrote,or what you believe.It is a free country.You have a huge problem with me along those same lines.You write something from a very liberal perspective,on a very liberal site,as reported by very liberal reporters,and liberal writers.One lone voice stands up and says that there is a different viewpoint out there(conservative) ,that by the way is strong enough to vote you, and this whole lot down and out.And you scream LIAR at the top of your lungs(toward me).Do you think me alone in my beliefs?Or am I one of the unwashed masses you pander down to?Or is it frustrating that my life experience ,and education is superior- and so i become outlaw numero uno?
As far as ignoring people have you ever heard me say on this site “don’t listen to john”?Don’t converse with Tim?Cover your ears because here comes Elaine ,and Frank and Woodward?NEVER.Yet it is commonplace regarding me on this sight.My “frank”opinion is the more you libs talk ,the better it is for us.The last thing I want to do is silence any of you.If you are one of those people that needs correlating data to my every pronouncement you are gonna be a sad man.I am not being payed by you to run down facts(though I was by Clinton).If you think I am wrong, do your own legwork and prove it.I have been wrong before and shall be in the future.So good luck.I think you will find me a worthy adversary if you intend on pushing liberal swill.It is always easy to track and disassemble.
Let me tell you how I feel about hypocrites.If it were proven that a certain republican candidate had relations with these woman as has been stated……he is one, and should be DUMPED!Just as Clinton should have been.You see you and I can be hypocritical.We don’t matter.They do.I have zero tolerance for such things at that level.I wonder if you believed Clinton should go?Doubt it.So I am afraid that when Obama demands more sacrifice and Charity when he has never given dime one…i think that is a worthy point
@michael e: Again: screaming? You do realize that neither of us are actually using our voices here, right? Trying to make it more dramatic than it really is, are we? The righteous voice being shouted down… from a keyboard?
I ain’t calling you a liar because of your beliefs. I’m calling you a liar because you post these beliefs– and several dodgy facts– and put them forth as God’s truth. And then you refuse to provide a cite a source. If these are opinions, then say so and I got no issue. But if they’re facts, expect to be called out to prove ’em. And the way you write, you really do need to explicitly say what’s a fact and what’s your opinion– I do believe you admitted your prose is a sloppy mess.
I don’t care whether you’re alone in your beliefs. I care whether you’re putting forth your beliefs as unassailable fact. You wanna believe climate change science has been politicized, then fine; if you’re saying it’s a fact, then point to something that proves it. Otherwise, you might as well just be making stuff up.
When did I pander down to unwashed masses? And by the way: is it possible to pander up? I don’t remember that; I must’ve been drunk. Lemme check my Frustration Meter… It’s reading zero, so nope: I’m not frustrated by your awesome life and superior education. However, my I-Don’t-Give-A-Fuck-O-Scope is reading off the charts! Get over yourself. You ain’t enemy numero uno, amigo. You’re just a guy who writes stuff on the FAIR Blog. I went to the University of Go Fuck Yourself, doc, where I majored in Spotting BS on the Internet.
You’ve never said don’t listen to me. But you have said, multiple times, don’t listen to Warren Buffett, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Paul Krugman, and I think a few others because you considered them hypocrites. I’m saying don’t listen to you, because you are a hypocrite. Like I said: don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
We can be as hypocritical as we want because we don’t matter? Seriously? Not where I come from, doc. If you’re gonna go around calling the kettle black, make sure you ain’t the pot. You may be able to sleep at night by rationalizing your hypocrisy this way. But you ain’t sleeping as you read this, and I ain’t letting you off the hook that easy. If you’re gonna go around saying that hypocrites shouldn’t be listened to, except when the hypocrite is a little guy like me, then you should listen to them (me) and ignore the hypocrsiy… well, if that’s what you’re gonna espouse, then I’m afraid I’m gonna have to keep pointing out how frickin’ idiotic that sounds.
And by the way: still no answer on why it makes any sense to ignore the hypocrite regardless of the merits of what he/she is saying, huh? If noted hypocrite Warren Buffett walks up to you on the street and seems to be giving some really sound investment advice that might make you some serious money, you gonna ignore him? This is my biggest issue with the whole concept and you don’t seem to be getting it at all. The biggest hypocrite in the world could tell me 2+2=4 and he’d be right; the merits of the underlying idea do not necessarily depend on the personality of the guy/girl who’s conveying the idea.
And, no, I’m not gonna go around disproving you. That ain’t the way it works. If you’re gonna allege fact X, you gotta prove fact X. That’s the way this works. If it’s OK to put forth all kinds of ideas and then just invite the opposition to disprove it, then I got one: michael e is a supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Have fun disproving that. See the issue yet, doc? You can’t just shift the burden and expect to get away with it.
John you are the same old same old angry lib.It is getting so old at this point that the only thing to do….is vote you out.The reason I lay it out there for you is so you wake up that not everyone is in the lockstep mentality that you are.The reason I don’t endlessly site Articles/papers/science/fact to you is because I know the methodology of liberal thought.It is a waste of time.I can say with ample experience that a liberal believes what he believes, and no FACT will ever change his mind.It is like a faith.I worked for years as a bell ringer patiently explaining the disaster that was FANNY and FREDDY.Never did I meet a lib who agreed.i spoke to the top people( Franks Dodd, Schumman etc)It was useless.I spoke to thousands in person and million on radio I suppose.Nothing budged them. And they were completely wrong.When it crashed they looked for the exits, and forgot about the warnings.There was zero capacity to move outside their thought processes.You are like that.That is why when Obama came in we told you what to expect.It happened as we said it would.And you morons would vote for him again.THe FACT that he failed ….alludes you.You are only capable of this and nothing more i would guess.You do not want education to learn.You want argument.And lib argument is always personal attack.Your demands as to how I should allow you to dictate the rules under which I try to impart some small knowledge to the truth that there is a thought process outside the march of the liberal lemmings isn’t flying.Im not biting.You as far as i can see ,don’t write the rules here.
A lot of conservatives simply have come to the conclusion that talking to you is useless.Just vote you out is the mantra.That is not me.But understand how tiring you have become to us.The man boy thing is perfect liberal slander.And it is …PERSONAL.You are angry that I simply write to the 99% liberal swill on here -that there is a different belief out there .And that there are enough people in this country that believe as I do to send this whole liberal insanity packing.So you slander me.
I have no problem with you saying i am hypocritical on things.That is your opinion,and it is a free country.Of course everything on here is my opinion.Am i supposed to be only supplying opinion by others?That is all some on theses blogs do.A war of so called experts one to the other.Do you have no capacity to daw conclusions of your own? And while we are on that …On these blogs there is plenty of argument.Very little conclusions.The liberal mindset.Read chris Mathews creaming the president this week.Can you believe he had the temerity to knock him without supporting google facts.
It is my considered opinion you take a chill pill.I will write you a script.One chill pill 2x.And next November A BIG GIANT chill pill.A bottle of scotch,and a BIG box of tissues(your gonna need em).See the great unwashed masses have heard you……and discounted you and your so called facts.That is really where your anger lies.That is why you are screaming and being insulting.Demanding.You have been transcended.
@michael e: Again with the screaming, huh? Not gonna concede that nobody is screaming and we’re both actually typing? Really? [sigh]
You missed the point about the NAMBLA thing. I’ll spell it out:
1. It is wrong of you to simply put forth alleged facts and saying it is my (or someone else’s) duty to disprove it.
2. To give you a taste of your own medicine, I allege you support NAMBLA and invite you to disprove it.
You missed the whole point and now say I’m slandering you. A more appropriate j’accuse would be to call it libel because it was written, not spoken– although you sure seem convinced that we’re using our voices here. This superior education of yours that I’m ‘sposed to be frustrated by… what is it exactly? Don’t get me wrong: I’m completely frustrated with you, but not because of your education.
Oh, I’m not just venturing my own personal opinion that you’re a hypocrite: I put forth very specific facts that prove it. I submit that any rational person looking at these facts would similarly conclude that you are indeed a hypocrite. Take a note: that’s how the whole concept of an argument is ‘sposed to work. I allege X, I put forth facts to prove X. In response, the opposing side can poke holes in my facts or put forth facts of their own that prove not X. These ain’t my rules. This is what the rest of the world says an argument is ‘sposed to be. Check out Monty Python’s Argument Sketch for verification, fer cryin’ out loud. You have apparently unilaterally decided you can short circuit this process because you tried it before and have now given up and you don’t get paid to do it. If that’s how it’s gonna be, then you’ve set yourself up as completely unassailable and immune to any kind of reasoned argument or questioning. How convenient for you: you can put forth anything you want, you don’t have to prove it, you don’t have to deign to consider any requests that you do prove something you allege, and any attempt at calling you out on this whole rhetorical house of cards you’ve built is misconstrued as a personal attack. That about sum it up? ‘Cause that seems to be the size of it to me.
What do you care if I think you’re a hypocrite? I’ll go further: what if you are, in fact, a card-carrying member of the Hypocrite’s Union Local 101, there are surveillance pic’s of you attending the Hypocrite’s Gala last year, your Facebook page lists your occupation as Professional Hypocrite, and your house is filled with stuffed hippos from Krit, Azerbaijan? That shouldn’t matter, right? According to you, unimportant guys like you and me can be huge hypocrites– it’s the important people who can’t be, right?
Look, if everything you are henceforth gonna write here is just gonna be your opinion, then that’s fine by me. But understand, opinions based on weak evidence and faulty conclusions are the proper subject of scrutiny. If you don’t like them being questioned, either keep them to yourself or be prepared to engage in a reasoned debate. (Maybe practice writing something like the following: I allege X, and here are facts Y and Z that prove it.) You can’t just say “it’s my opinion that the sky is barf green” and then cry foul when challenged with the ample evidence that the sky is blue. Similarly, you’re gonna catch flak if yousay “it’s my opinion that the Pope is not Catholic, there’s lots of facts that support my opinion but I ain’t gonna tell you what they are or where you can find them, and it’s up to you to disprove my opinion.” Maybe it’s just me, but I submit that’s a pretty fair characterization of everything you’ve written here in this thread, and quite possiby on this entire site.
Bottom line is you tend to want me to proffer more facts ,or at least note some authors of facts that agree with my overlaying general assessment of the argument in question.My general view(outside of liberal lockstep) of said argument is not thought provoking enough for little propeller heads.In essence how come me to this thought process.That I suppose would count as proof?That would change your mind?Why do i doubt it?
Clinton used to say I don’t want a gaggle of experts with countering argument.I want you to break that mass down and give me your opinion.Thats what i pay you guys for.You in effect want the unpaid opposite as William Jef .Maybe I will try to help you a bit on that.Or just do what a lot of folks do on these blogs.I will simply send links.They can counter link.I will counter that with a new link ,until we run out of links.
By the way it is my opinion that today the sky here IS in fact barf green.Why do I feel that way?Well because my vision is 20/20.Leo D .Bores has written some great books concerning the eye and its general physiology.I recommend you read two or three.Bring your self up to speed on the anatomy of the eye and the brains interpretation of the images you “see” -and I think you will better understand why it is ……Barf green today.Convinced?
When I say You and I can be hypocrites it means this.You and I can spout all we want about our belief in more or less taxation.Generally we will strive to lower our tax burdens.That may seem hypocritical to some positions.Obama can not be a hypocrite on matters like this.Or charity.Because he effects everyone with his viewpoint.If he is amassing a fortune while deriding those who do…..If he wags a finger over the uncharitable nature of the rich while he has never given anything…..He simply must be held to a very high standard.More than our “opinions”.That is what I hoped you would get from it.
And as far as my opinions go…….Since when do you find that i am alone in creating these opinions?Have i ever said anything that i claimed to of discovered all by my lonesome?When i say global warming is a hoax ,do you think i am alone in that?Have you never heard this before?Have you never heard the arguments and counter arguments?Suffice it to say you agree with one viewpoint as I do the other.Yet you feel the need to argue again all the stated points as a way to what???????Clarity?The NAMBLA thing is definitely your discovery alone.Maybe you had better find some correlating evidence.Same thing with the pope routine.And I do promise that I will be forthcoming in any situation like that.But when I give my opinion that Obama’s presidency is a failure on many levels……..Do I really need chapter and verse on correlating data?I mean come on.Yet I will try to understand your needs as you have taken the time to explain them.Open dialog is important.Maybe in the future you will see a change.
@michael e: Yes, I want you to proffer facts! I’ve written it several times. Explicitly. And yet, you’re apparently gonna refuse to do so for some reason that I don’t quite understand and that turns the accepted rules of argument and debate on their heads. My bottom line is this: I get the distinct impression that you put forth arguments based on a worldview that has very little factual support, and in some cases, is contraverted by nearly every known fact that’s out there. You see this a lot from the right, although I concede that the left is not immune to it.
Exposing those common perceptions that have no basis in fact, but yet keep getting repeated by the media is one of FAIR’s primary purposes. Here are some examples: the OWS movement is anti-Semitic (it’s not); illegal immigrants are running rampant and committing widespread crime in AZ (they’re not); muslims hate America (not all or even most of them); Iran cannot be trusted and must be developing nuclear weapons (maybe, but the “evidence” cited in the original article this thread is based on is a far cry from anything even remotely persuasive on the subject). So if the facts ain’t there to support many of these perceptions, why do they take hold and get repeated? Without any critical questioning by anyone? So, yeah, I’d like to see some evidence that you’re not just basing things on your personal worldview. If you are doing that, so be it– but realize that someone’s wild-ass guesses that seem to be contraverted by all the known facts are nothing to base policy on. That goes for anybody, and FAIR’s job is to try to point out that many of the right’s talking points– which they wanna base policy on– are not supported by any factual evidence and are contraverted by a lot of what factual evidence is out there. I’m sure there are sites devoted in a similar way to exposing when the left’s talking points lack support.
Sorry, I’m still not sold on this whole “you and I can be hypocrites” thing. It still seems completely idiotic, no matter how much you parse and refine it. You’re not just calling Buffett and Gore, et al., bad people for being hypocrites as leaders. You’re saying that their ideas, which they back up with quite a bit of evidence (you remember evidence right? that little thing you refuse to provide under any circumstances), are wrong and should not be listened to because they’re hypocrites. They aren’t just spouting belief– they’re spouting the results of what analysis of data (scientific or economic) tells them. You seem to be saying don’t even consider what the underlying facts are because they’re unacceptable big-guy hypocrites, instead of perfectly acceptable little-guy hypocrites like me. It’s still a stupid argument to make and it still ignores whatever merit is in the underlying idea. 2+2=4 regardless of how big a hypocrite is telling you that fact.
I don’t give a shit whether you’re alone in creating these opinions. I give a shit that, as near as I can tell,: you don’t distinguish opinion from fact; you base these opinions on little more than your own preconceptions and prejudices, regardless of what the facts say; you flat-out refuse to give any further info or facts for where these opinions come from, but you insist you got it all figured out and you’re right on all counts; and you wanna base policy on these opinions. Look, I don’t go around saying I want policy to be based on a fever-dream I had when I was 10, that I refuse to tell you anything further about, and yet insist is 100% correct and if you don’t think so, go use Google and prove me wrong. That’s awfully close to what you’re doing here.
Still missing the point on the NAMBLA thing, I see. First off, you should be the last person on earth asking me to provide corroborating (and you did mean corroborating, not correlating) evidence for anything. Secondly, note where I wrote “taste of your own medicine.” That shoulda been a tip-off that it was a rhetorical strategy; you missed it and you’re missing it still.
Open dialog is important. For me, it means somthing like this: “I allege fact X. Here are Y and Z that prove or tend to prove it.” Or: “My opinion is X. I base this opinion on Y and Z.” As I’ve said before, these are the generally-accepted ground rules for an argument. For you, open dialog, as near as I can tell, means something like this: “I say X. I’m not gonna clarify if that’s a fact or opinion. I’m too busy, educated, and personally important to tell you what Y and Z are or where you might find them. You need to go try and disprove it, but, rest assured, X is correct and Y and Z can go screw themselves ’cause I don’t need ’em.” How is that open dialog?
Well John I suppose you do see the right as having a world view lacking in factual support.And that is why you are a liberal.Because you believe the factual support proffered.I do not, and so I am more on the conservative side of issues. FAIR does not- “expose common perceptions that have no basis in fact” at all by the way.Fair pulls out stories(some barely even important enough to report when matched against what may be happening)and trumpets a very liberal point of view after setting the template for the story.Their only concept of any other belief it that it is idiotic.Liberals do suffer from always thinking they are the smartest folks in the room mentality.When I read in fair that there is in fact no anti semitic element at OWS 10 minutes after getting in from viewing the demonstration and talking to people….and seeing many anti semitic signs(that were being cheered)while pollsters are going around asking if jews run wall street.May I have your permission John to report that?Or should I shut the fuck up?Or will you just call me a liar?Or say prove it prove it like my 5 year old nephew?Or should I wait for the liberal spin to sanitize the situation and then tell you what I saw and witnessed??Or should I get another observer (that you would believe) because in your world I can’t speak to what I just saw minutes ago, you pompous elitist ass?Maybe a film by the hag on Democracy now?And now your endless argumentative, specious ,convoluted,baiting,personalized attack style has me doing it.Christ talk to a liberal long enough and you too can become like them .Just as insufferable.
John I already told you I understand what you need.Remember I was a Dem in my younger years.And I worked for them till I no longer could take the lies.So i understand the mentality.You do not need to explain it further.i know you inside out and backwards.but because you have taken so much time to talk about your anger and frustrations I have already said in the spirit of open dialog I will in the future I will try to get you the type of information you so want and desire to help you understand other viewpoints that do exist outside the liberal machine.Now have a wonderful healthy day.
There is one more thing Im laughing at.You liberals pertain to be the side that believes in “facts”.Yet you voted Obama in without one fact that he had any qualifications at all for the job he now holds.Im not sure what he was qualified for.Maybe a lawyer in some capacity or another .Definitely as a community agitator.In the white house maybe as the press secretary.Didn’t Joe bite me say he was a clean well spoken black man?But really what else?Not to run a 7 11 even.What did he work 12 hours in a restaurant?I believe that was his only job out of academia or on the gov tit.No experience to speak of in any way.YET YOU VOTED FOR HIM.Facts my ass
Ummm… I didn’t vote for Obama, Mr. Jump-to-Conclusions. I voted for McCain. Although I can’t disprove your allegation that I did vote for Obama, so I guess to your mind and way of thinking that means I did vote for Obama. And my issue with him was that I considered him less-qualified for the position. Not in absolute sense, like you do, but relative to McCain. “Facts my ass”? How ’bout you kiss my ass?
I’m actually pretty conservative about many issues. My problem with some of my fellow conservatives is that they, like you, don’t wanna consider any facts that don’t fit into their worldview. So they get irrationally dismissive about certain facts and ideas, or they believe opposing facts out of all proportion to how credible or persuasive they appear to be, or they paint the proponent of an idea as unworthy of belief. Sound familiar? It oughta– it’s the playbook you run here. And you run it a lot. Irrationally dismissive?: check (climate science is completely politicized and is not science). Disproportionate belief in opposing facts?: check (Iran is developing nuclear weapons because a former Soviet scientist worked there once); painting the proponent as unworthy? great big check (Buffett, Gore, et al. are all hypocrites).
“And that is why you are a liberal.Because you believe the factual support proffered.” That’s not an insult. Not even remotely. I was brought up to think that’s what you’re ‘sposed to do in life: keep an open mind about things and decide based on facts and evidence. I ‘spose you feel it’s better to stick to how you think things are or oughta be, regardless of what else is out there that says your worldview is inaccurate. “The sun revolves around the earth, Copernicus,” I can hear you saying. And then for good measure sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you, nah, nah, nah…” If that’s the way you gotta be to be considered on the right nowadays, then I want no part of that. I’m sure there are issues and and positions and people on the left that are the same way. I want no part of that either.
I’m sorry you don’t like me asking you to prove things. You don’t need to shut the fuck up about stuff. Just back up your allegations with facts, your opinions with basis. Like you’re ‘sposed to do in an argument. I didn’t make the rules about what an argument is ‘sposed to be. But I live by them, and I’m gonna call you out unless you do the same.
By the way: what was result of this poll done at OWS? ‘Cause I can’t find anywhere that any kind of results were reported. Got a link to post? I didn’t call you a liar because I didn’t believe that a poll was conducted. I called you a liar because you said, as best as I can remember it: “they did a poll… and the majority said…” You did not write that “they were doing a poll” or “you saw a poll being taken.” Or that “you didn’t know the results yet” or “the responses that you heard were such-and-such.” No, you wrote that the poll was done, you implied the results were established, and you wrote in such a way to suggest that the poll results support your contention that the OWS protestors were anti-Semitic. That’s lying in my book– or at least close enough to call you out on it.
I’m guilty as charged with getting personal. Where I come from, turnabout is fair play. So if you’re gonna come here and tout your fantastic life experience and superior education, then, yeah, I’m gonna point out when you look like an moronic ass. Similarly, if you’re gonna run down the opposing view with slurs and whatnot, I’m gonna give it right back to ya. So to that end, I’d like to address the following phrase quoted from you last post: “argumentative, specious ,convoluted,baiting…” Of course I’m being argumentative: we’re having an argument, dipshit! Specious? How is anything I have written specious? I invite you to provide an example, assuming specious is the correct word choice here; you do have a pretty bad track record on word choice, after all. I’m sorry my writings seem convoluted… I guess. You sure you’re not confusing the word convoluted with “lengthy” and “consisting of multiple paragraphs”? In any event, give things another read and I’m sure you wade through it with a little effort– you are a man of science, after all. Baiting? Well, yeah, probably. You got me there.
SUM ofabitch.You voted for Mccain?I do owe you an apology.Right you are i did peg you wrong.I could hardly stand to pull a lever for him myself.As if it mattered. Gumby could of beaten the republican running.And well that party deserved it.Ive already said I will try to give more of what is needed on these blogs so that argument hopefully is dying down.When you say back up your allegations understand you are asking me to back up every word in several ways.I hate this game.The old prof trick of stretching one question into a twenty page proof is also an old political trick to create endless smoke and mirrors.If I asked you who created the Polio vaccine your memory would hand you that answer in one word.If i asked you what would be the temp of a piece of wood,marble,and leather in a room that was 60 degrees.You would reason 60 degrees.If I asked you for twenty pages to prove it …..well it can get tiresome no?I feel that way here sometimes.On these blogs i would then be asked for twenty more to answer the twenty I already offered.
As far as my life I have a beautiful life and a hard life.Like many others.As I get older sadness hits more.Life gives less, and takes more.My education would to most of the readers hers be reason for me to fall in lockstep with them.Funny actually.So I do bring that up.Also it seems common place to believe here that conservatives are backwoods hicks,or rednecks.So it gives me a laugh to point out to some of these kids living in the basement that actually I am far from that.Even here you question use of words,diction, others punctuation as if in some way you can define me by that.Obama himself has said he is often corrected about these things.That he is incredibly lax.He has even stated his daughter corrects him.Yet he gets a pass somehow.Pass through Harvard and we obviously had to play the game to get the grades.Pass through the military you obviously had to get in shape.Life does bring on laziness(no excuse). As far as how do i feel about it?My education?I. don’t.That was me then.I did it.Past that step in life.Now Im on to another.Recently im working on learning to cook thai.That is me now.
I stand by the fact that on the whole libs tend to believe in personalized attack.Mitt has had his shot already.I see no personal attack .Soon the libs will have theirs and the whole ballgame will shift.So don’t even try “YOU got me there”Im telling you how this will play out.Care to refute me?
It is a beautiful Saturday.Enjoy it.Soon a new FAIR Blog will be out and I can tell you how wrong you are (lets say if Iran nukes Israel and i actually blame Iran)and you can tell me how i spelled “paradigm” wrong and that makes me an ass :)
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya, John. Be sure to keep coming back for more of the same.
Wise words from TimN on November 19th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
The troll has once again hijacked what could be a useful discussion on an insightful article.
Discovered your short article very intriguing without a doubt. I genuinely experienced reading through it and you also make really some superior factors. I will bookmark this web page with the potential! Relly fantastic post.