obidiah, if you’re sincere, let me say that I am quite impressed. I’ve often seen folks in the Pit with beliefs that most consider outlandish who fight tooth and nail to defend them, regardless of the evidence. To objectively review things and decide some of your assertions are incorrect, and then admit that, takes some fortitude.
I second what Sauron said. To be quite honest, I had pretty much decided to give up on this thread because I said what I had to say and didn’t figure you’d change your mind. I was pleasantly surprised when I opened this thread.
As for China and the WTO, your latest points are well taken. I don’t deny that entry might have been for cynical reasons. I am merely arguing that the timing does not tend to prove a conspiracy, and you seem to agree. I only make this point to illustrate that the people arguing against you in this thread are not blind patriots or Bush supporters. We’re simply people who understand that the world is more complex than many conspiracy folks care to acknowledge.
Sauron, Zoff,
Yes, I’m sincere. I look forward to talking with you folks in the future (hopefully in a slightly more rational capacity).
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my last post.
Classy move, guy.
Wow! I didn’t think that could happen on the Internet! 
I’m no Bush fan, believe you me. But while I think he’s guilty of illegally occupying the White House, while I think his energy scandals and Enron scandals eclipse Whitewater, I don’t think he could be behind 9/11.
For one thing, he’s a jerk, not a psychopath, and he’s even shown a bit of restraint on killing Afghani civilians, despite being a hard-core nationalist. For another thing, there are much easier ways to provoke a war: how hard would it have been for him to get militarily jiggy in Colombia or in Iraq?
The first I heard about CM’s comments was in an editorial in this morning’s paper. She was bad, but worse was the editorialist:
“Here’s the deal,” says Kathleen Parker. “McKinney is a dangerous fool whose voice needs to be stifled.” She goes on to call for charges of treason against McKinney.
The card-carrying ACLU member in me cringes at that. Sure, she’s an idiot; sure, she makes me look dumb by association. But that’s no cause for tossing out the first amendment. On the contrary, isn’t it better for conspiracy theorists to speak in the sunlight, where their theories can be seen and considered (and, if necessary, scorned and mocked)? The alternative – that conspiracy theorists only talk with like-minded people and build up scary heads of steam – does no one any good.
Daniel
Not to be an apologist for Ms. Parker…but I think you overstatd her point of her bit…
I agree, Daniel. While I think McKinney is a stellar example of the Peter Principle, Kathleen Parker is crazy for even suggesting that McKinney be “stifled.” For one thing, it removes one of the basic freedoms Americans hold dear – the right to free speech. For another, it’s just so much fun to see what idiocy she’s spewing on a regular basis.
Well, at least Ann Coulter didn’t jump on the bandwagon. Actually it is unfortunate as she is always an entertaining read. In the past she has also suggested the removial of the civil liberties of those who disagree with her, although she takes it a step futher:
“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.”
–Ann Coulter at the PAC conference
Although I’m assuming she can’t be serious, it is an interesting point, huh?
I don’t know if that’s a safe assumption. I’ve seen some stuff from her that makes me think she’s crazier than a shithouse rat.
Thanks, beagledave, for the full quote; I’m pretty sure the newspaper in which I read her column edited out this line:
“Of course, news reporters have to be objective and respectful, even toward loonies like McKinney, which is why God created columnists.”
Without that sentence, the paragraph has the voice-stifling sentence as its topic, and becomes a lot scarier.
I still think Parker is a scarier voice than McKinney – later in the article, she seems to call for charging McKinney with treason. But the full column is a little toned down from the one I read.
Daniel
Damn, now that’s crazy!