Maeglin.
Check my later post. Tradesillicon tipped me off on the what you were about with that line. I just didn’t pick up on it.
No offense taken. Good one.
I saw it after the fact. The perils of leaving a thread open, having to do real work for a few hours, and posting without previewing later.
For the record, I believe we are largely in agreement.
Ya know, sometimes you can just apply the simple but effective MR. T approach. We might be onto something.
I pity the fool who attacks America. I pity the fool who doesn’t turn over Bin Laden.
I have one thing to say to the terrorists: “Pain”.
( I believe this is more of a Clubber Lang thing)
Or, viewed in a more silly light, we can -ahem- make Stoid’s points Mr T-ized: I pity the fool who doesn’t scrutinize George W as much as Bill. I pity the fool who fights a war which must be doubted for it’s corporate motives.
Geeze…I like the simple approach myself, since it makes more sense: I pity the fool who attacks America. Pain. Yes, Mr T captures the essence of what this is all about.
Grrrr.
**
So, in your parlance, “oil men” excludes drillers and explorers and is limited to wholesalers, retailers, and other resellers?
The rest of the world uses the term differently, Stoid. Besides, what you say isn’t true. The aim of resellers is not to get oil cheaply, it’s to derive profits.
Wholesalers, retailers, and other resellers operate in one of two fashions. Either their oil holdings are hedged, and they earn a markup br processing crude, or performing some other service, or else they are speculating with their inventories. In either case they are price independent.
The people that don’t want to see cheap oil from overseas are the people you specificaly excluded from your example; the drillers and explorers.
In other words, you have it exactly backwards. Par for the course.
This is an argument from ignorance.
“I don’t know about it I never heard of it, but it must be this way.”
When I started on this board I had a debate with Dr. Fidelius. We were talking about microbiology and Lamarckian evolution, and I was largely ignorant in that area.
After debating for a while he basically came out and said pretty nicely that their is a certain level of knowledge necessary to discuss certain things meaningfully, that I did not have the knowledge, and it was not really his job within the context of a debate to educate me.
That really pissed me off, but he was right.
So I went and read a Microbiololgy textbook, and came back to the discussion when I knew what I was talking about.
You have a consistent habit of starting with a premise founded almost wholly on ignorance which you assert as if it were indisputable fact.
You act as if it is the job of the person who actually has knowledge of the subject matter to somehow prove you wrong. When they attempt to do so, you use your lack of knowledge about the subject matter to shield you from reasoned and knowledgeable arguments.
It seems to me that if you wish to make the argument that Bush is somehow going to use this war to bolster his own financial interests to the detriment of the country, you need to know actually know a little bit about how these things work before you post your conclusion.
A blind trust is one of these things. It’s purpose is to specifically prevent the President from having even the appearance of impropriety by placing a “Chinese Wall” between him and the management and control and even the makeup of his financial holdings.
You need to have them at certain levels of office or security clearance, and certain executives either must or choose to have them as well.
The blind trust in only item of many that reveal this thread to be a load of ignorant and prejudiced hooey.
You’re frankly don’t demonstrate the knowledge necessary to make a meaningful argument in this. What facts you do have are colored and rendered suspect in their interpretation by your prejudices, and you place your conclusions before your facts.
But is fun to play pirate!
You can probably forget it, Scylla. And Philster. And Milossarian. And Jackmanni. And Maeglin. It sure looks like all of your posts are not being read, and that your points are being ignored.
I hope not. But your arguments are not being adressed, though there’s been plenty of posting and a re-statement of the orginal position more than a few times.
Obviously, I myself am beneath contempt and my ideas not worthy of consideration, much less refutation or argument. I’m left to conclude nothing else.
That’s fine. I can live with it. And I guess you can afford to completely write off those who disagree with you when you’re one of the chosen few who have the ability to properly question authority.
But boy, sometimes it sure is hard for those of us who aren’t members of the intellectual elite. Like George W., we must somehow content ourselves with being merely stupid and totally, totally evil.
(I have to leave out the filthy rich part because I’m not anywhere near.)
>sigh<
I pity the fool who don’t read my posts.
Arrrrrrr, matey.
Well, just one minor point, a quibble, really: seems you Scylla, Sam Stone et al. are operating on the assumption that you will be officers. All you lack now are enlisted personnel. Jolly good on luck on that, lads. To quote Daffy Duck:“Not thith little black duck!”
The fine old traditions, eh? As Churchill had it, “buggery and the lash”. Ships full to the brim with rugged, manly seamen. Have you thought about recruiting at the YMCA?
But, your kind offer notwithstanding, I think I most likely stay ashore and offer what comfort I can to your wives and daughters. No, don’t thank me. Least I can do.
Blacksheep:
Note the differences between the posts of the people I responded to (Sam Stone, for instance, who disagreed with me completely), and the people I did not. It isn’t hard to figure out the difference, and it isn’t brilliant arguments that leave me speechless.
stoid
Speak for yourself. I like this situation handled just the way it is being handled.
Who is this WE? Your point of view is outnumbered in this nation at least 100 to one - IMHO. Especially considering how many Democrats among the public support Bush’ handling of the terrorist situation.
Stoid - no problem with you having your personal opinion. Just take care not to present it as some kind of True Path.
elucidator:
Oh yeah, a liberal pirate, yeah right!
I can see it now:
"Arrr, best we just leave that treasure ship alone lest we be violatin’ their civil rights.
Don’t forget to make sure the ship is peg leg accesible.
Take that skull and crossbones down matey. It be a symbol of oppression and we wouldn’t want to offend anybody 'afore we plunder their ship and send them to meat Davey Jones.
No! don’t be firin’ that cannon, the conncussion is liable to disturb sensitive marine mammals.
Maybe we should just pull into port and get some latte."
My point has been: pay attention. So far so good, just do not turn a blind eye. Don’t get so caught up in revenge, fear, patriotism, whatever, that we forget that our government has been known to do things it turned out later we weren’t so happy about, in the name of protecting us. Let’s not make that mistake again. With that in mind, here’s some interesting information.
stoid
Scylla, m’lad, you are reaching new refinements in rhetorical style. A couple of your recent posts are entirely comprised of pithy sarcasms, utterly unhindered by any point that might be subject to rebuttal.
As to “blind trusts”. So what? As I tried to point out recently, it hardly matters. I am as sure as you that Our Leader is not conspiring darkly to enhance his portfolio. His history as a business man is quite enough to assure me that no such threat need concern me.
He surrounds himself with persons of his culture, people like himself with whom he is comfortable, people for whom the epithet “Ruling Class” was coined. Colin Powell may be the only one among them who realizes that one doesn’t actually eat a food stamp.
The kind of men who see compensation for a CEO 500 times the compensation for a “working class” employee as perfectly justified. After all they bear the crushing burden of responsiblity! Oh, that crushing burden! Is it not remarkable that so many of them are willing to claw, scratch, betray and backstab to arrive at a position where they must shoulder that burden. One’s heart brims with gratitude.
“Feh!”, as they say in Lubbock.
They remain firmly convinced that they do what they do for the good of the country. I repeat: if they are so convinced that drilling the wilderness area is crucial to our national security, why then don’t they volunteer to eschew profit for thier patriotic endeavor? Well, that would smother free enterprise. Hinder the entreprenurial spirit. They have a duty to thier stockholders. They are the fervent acolytes of the sanctity of Property Rights and Business.
I don’t say they are evil and cynical men. I say they are wrong. Which is quite bad enough.
Stoid:
I never said my arguments were brilliant, merely implied (in an admittedly snide way) that I felt they were worthy of a response. It’s your perfect right to disagree.
You may remember that, in my very first post, I took issue with what I perceived as a pretty disingenuous argument and condescending tone in your OP. You did not respond. That’s your perfect right.
It’s also my perfect right to interpret that choice as a sign of further condescension.
Later, I tried to apply similar rules and limitations as those found in the OP to the Bombing-Blowjob scenario–a scenario you brought up. I began by stating I could care less about it. The way I proceeded, though, was obviously–and deliberately–overwrought.
About as overwrought as the OP, the difference being the deliberateness of it. Which was my point.
Again, you didn’t respond. Your perfect right. My perfect right to interpret this as even more condescension.
Finally, by pointing out that there’s been no response, I got my answer. The answer is that there’s a difference in how I and others have conducted myself in this discussion and how Sam Stone does, that my arguments are far from brilliant, and that you will only respond to people who show you the level of respect and consideration you deem appropriate.
Fair enough. But Stoid, that level of respect is the same you are either unwilling or unable to accord anyone else. The OP starts out from that standpoint. You began with that position, and said sue me if you don’t like it.
So I did. Or tried to. I doubt I’ve been successful. But we must carry on, carry on…
Wait a second. It is entirely reasonable to say that Bush may put his own interests above that of the country on the basis of nothing more than interests held by people other than Bush, but it is unreasonable to say that maybe, maybe someone who has for years been carrying out terrorist attacks on the US, who is responsible for thousands of deaths in the US and elsewhere, might attack us again in the future?
At yet again you are criticizing Bush for your own imaginings of what will happen.
Arrrr, Since ye an Stoid was livn’ an irrational fantasy, I thought I’d join you. My argumentum ad ridiculum might be subject to rebuttal by a clever scalliwag, but I see you’re not he.
Well, if you’re so sure of this matey, what then be the point of this debate?
Blah, blah, blah, is there a point here, or is this merely diarrhea?
Arrrr, be there a freakin’ point in here somewhere?
Arrr, methinks ye be gettin a littly loopy, going off on these gratuitous tangents. Be there some substance in this post of yours somewhere, or like the OP, despite the feeblest of disingenuous denials is it merely a happenstance framework to give you an excuse to froth at your mouth at the dirty, greedy Republicans?
Arr, ye say they are wrong, but what have they done? You accuse 'em based on who in your prejudicial mischaracterizations and misperceptions ye think they are, not because they’ve done anything wrong, but because ye think they will.
Ye condemn 'em before the fact.
Yer livin’ a fantasy if ye believe your own press releases.
elucidator, please share next time you get the good stuff, will ya?
CEOs salaries, huh? W is no good because the CEOs he surrounds himself with just don’t get it? Where the heck is that coming from, and what’s it got to do with this thread?
And Stoid, please let us know when you think congress does and does not do their job, and why they would allow Bush to get a way with the conspiracy. Please. Oh, unless I’m one of those you ignore, of course.
Stoid:
Hmm. On Page 1 you showed evidence that you were not watching the news on September 11. Now you’re showing evidence you haven’t watched it any day since.
Our intelligence indicates there are terrorism cells operating in at least 60 countries. They’re lying, right? And all those arrests, in Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and a half-dozen other places - those were Bush’s doing and they were unfounded, right?
No one - not even Donald Rumsfeld, aka to Nation readers, “The Evil One Who Sucks Raw Marrow out of Bloody Bones” - says a military option will be the best approach in all places where terrorists are.
Do they? Did they have absolutely no involvement in Sept. 11, or the anthrax attacks since? Then I guess they don’t have to worry, do they?
What’s your implication here, Stoid? Quit beating around the bush (heh-heh), and allow yourself to be tied down to a position that can then be smashed to smithereens like a al-Qaeda mud hut.
“I’m just saying we should be careful.” Horseshit you are. Read the above-pasted quote. That’s not what you’re saying at all.
**
F*cking-A right. If they were involved in the events in this country on September 11, or pose a similar threat now.
Glad to see you’re starting to get it.
And speaking of “getting it,” my money is on your fair city being next on the list. Wonder if your highest priority will be George Herbert Walker Bush’s oil assets and your hatred of his son then?
And I’m not sure I can bring it back on course, but I’ve been wanting to say this for a while and I feel it’s more on-topic than a sea shanty.
I believe the U.S. Government should release ALL the evidence they have against the Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden to the general public. If it is as damning as Tony Blair believes, then it will get some of the other countries off the fence and put all these conspiracy theories(well most of them, there will always be people who will believe the evidence was faked, cf Apollo Hoaxes) to bed. More than ever I believe this needs to be done in an objective manner and with full disclosure. Real names, everything.
In reality this conflict is so one-sided it’s not even funny. Even if every one of our sources of inside information was exposed by this release of information, how much of a difference could it really make? And how long would it take to get more insiders? Get our agents out, or offer insiders asylum and then release the evidence.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories and I believe full disclosure would go a long way towards helping the American cause and would be in line with the principles this country was founded upon. If the citizenship is not informed, how can they, or their representatives(who are also being kept in the dark citing “need to know” type restrictions (shades of the sedition acts?) :P) claim to be part of a democratic society? (no hijacks about the U.S. gov’t not truly being a democracy please?)
As far as I can tell, there is very little to lose by full disclosure after a reasonable time frame to evacuate agents/informants. This “war” is so lopsided that our superiority in the military intelligence area could be re-established almost immediately and with minimal effort. I don’t see that as a significant barrier to disclosure.
Steven