funny things to do on a bike

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
and the fact that the connection has been denied since.

Denied since... when?

The connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? It has been quietly denied
by the Administration.

And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
your point.

By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced?

See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
actual content of his writings.

Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
Someone said that - I can't remember who...

It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq

There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

[ad hominem snipped]

I notice you don't actually address my point.

Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.

In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.

Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out.

Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
wish to bring up which part is not logical.

Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection.

Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.

It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
different things.

Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

I agree that ad hominem commentary is a losing game. Insults are only
opinions, and have no bearing on the logic of the argument.

While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
understand what the conversation is about.

On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
the facts) that there IS a connection.

THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
building.

Personally I wouldn't doubt
it

Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.

Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there

So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
connection?

Heh heh heh... NOW how are you going to reconcile THAT with your
position that GWB was doing his best to imply there WAS a connection?
You're digging another hole here.

Between al Qaeda and Iraq. Maybe you are misunderstanding on purpose.

To be clear, and to forestall your obvious pedantic wordplay:

Bush implied a link between Iraq and 9/11. His minions have played up
the Salman Pak angle, and when that was found to be a complete
fabrication, the administration quietly said there was probably no
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Despite your thickheaded
denials, the leap between the suggestion that Saddam supported al
Qaeda and the idea that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is not all that
large. The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
much proves this point. You may wish to call all those folks stupid
if you like, or that it's merely a happy coincidence, but I don't see
that you have made any kind of convincing case for that POV. Many
Americans still believe Iraqis were among the hijackers. How would
they get that idea?

[snip Liebermann quote]

If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen.

This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.

Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
the drawer, are you?
--
Jonesy

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:


Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
subway?


Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?


Seven.

At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
administration.....

There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!

[
http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html
Have terrorists ever used sarin?
Yes. It was used in 1995 by Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese doomsday cult, in
a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway system that killed 12 and sent
more than 5,000 people to hospitals. A year earlier, the cult killed
seven people in a sarin gas attack in the central Japanese city of
Matsumoto.

]


Seven thousand were killed?? I had no idea. I thought it was several
orders of magnitude lower.

Well, if it's seven thousand, you've convinced me, Mark. If that's
true, then a small amount of sarin with primitive dispersal _should_ be
considered a Weapon of MASS Destruction!

Of course, if you're misstating numbers...



Are you trying to say that sarin is NOT dangerous?


Well, prior to this, I thought that it was dangerous to those
immediately next to it, but difficult to deploy effectively over a wide
area.

I thought it was analogous to the gasoline in a fuel-air (or aerosol)
bomb. Those are the bombs in which a liquid like gasoline is first
dispersed, but not ignited, into a large cloud of droplets. A second
explosion detonates the cloud.

If done exactly right, you can get an explosion of near-nuclear strength
from something as ordinary as gasoline, making it a true WMD. However,
if you merely spill gasoline on the drive, it's not a WMD.

See definition #1 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aerosol%20bomb

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...
(Jonesy) wrote:

OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/...018.5.appb.pdf

... discussing the solubility of sarin...

"Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"

Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
then try and smuggle it under your coat.

I don't recall the need to bodily carry it to its dispersal point, but
even so it's not that hard to imagine (or maybe just send out four
people with a quart of sarin each).

Which increases the complexity of using it as a terror weapon. I told
you, it's not as simple as you would have people think.

snip
Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
viscosity.

Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.

If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
idiot.

I missed the part where I said no one had ever looked at that.

Learn to read. See that "If" up there?

You
seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
their lips or keyboards...

Strawman.

In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
newsletter:

http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf

Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?

Chicken Little holding on line two...

Talk to the doctors involved. I'm sure they are all total idiots too.

Non sequitur. I already told you that the difficulty was in delivery.
You're only supporting my point, and your strawman of idiot doctors
is just plain stupid. Knock it off.

I don't really feel the need to create a list.

Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
rational discussion.

Hmmm. There you go again. Care to point out where I said
conservatives don't make mistakes?

You seem to think that there are not many specific examples to list.
That somehow *I* should come up with what *you* think are conservative
mistakes. You tap-dance around the question but don't answer, so I
will ask again - what are some specific mistakes conservatives have
made?

Would it be rude of me to point
out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
reading comprehension.

Strawman. It's a nice try to avoid the question, but I see through
it.

I think perhaps that has something to do with
your problem with some of the things GWB "said".

I have no problems at all with what Bush said. I do have problems
with some of the things Bush does. I also have difficulty with some
of the things that were implied.

Are you still building that strawman, by which someone is supposed to
find some quote somewhere where Dubya comes out and says Iraq + 9/11?
Let me help you out here, since you are obviously too dumb to read it
only once and get it:

Dumbya didn't say, at any time, DIRECTLY, that Iraq/Saddam had
anything at all to do with 9/11. In fact, they have denied any
connection.

Dumbya HAS *implied* that there was a connection, by his commentary
about al Qaeda and Iraq. Proof: nearly 70% of Americans believed
there was a connection.

But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
nothing.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
military know this.

Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
this.

Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.

Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

LOL. You have no clue about history, do you? Again, since you can't
seem to read:

Actually find some INSTANCES of appeasement. Vague references to your
conservative hero and trying to put him in the same league as
Churchill is laughable.

Here's another clue for you: UK armaments production from 1937-1939,
specifically aircraft. Apply this information to Summer 1940,
airspace over the English Channel and Great Britain. Reference the
phrase "buying time."

I'll expect your homework on my desk in the morning. Here endeth the
lesson.
--
Jonesy "never have so few..."

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message news:...
(Jonesy) wrote:

In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.

One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.

You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
over a crowd? I can think of dozens.

Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
doing it.

Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
about it as you seem to think you do.

Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin.

Bin Laden is an architect - I'm sure that somewhere out there is some
fanatic that knows something about organic chemistry. Beleive me,
making the stuff ain't tough.

Maybe you could
fill us all in on where they might go about picking up a few gallons
of the stuff, other than from a state-sponsored lab (directly or
indirectly).

The precursors could be had on the open market. (In the U.S. it's
tougher.)

They are simple, and widely available. Even existing O-P pesticides
could be modified, if one knew how to do that. In fact, that's how
sarin was originally made.

The fact they haven't used it as a weapon yet doesn't prove anything
any more than the fact no one had flown airliners into skyscrapers did
prior to 9/11, even though it was obviously possible.

Sarin is nasty stuff, and easy to make purely with simple equipment
and generally available precursors. It's structure is published,
along with the sturctures of the binary shell components. Some
knowledge is required, but nothing that couldn't be learned with an
undergraduate chemistry textbook and some internet research.

Making is easy. Delivering, even ineffectively, is hard.

--
Jonesy

In article ,
says...
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:


Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
subway?


Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?


Seven.

At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
administration.....

There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!

Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.

.....


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Why not argue with the facts rather than trying to set up an amazingly
unstable straw man. Did Clinton do anything to reduce mercury
emissions? Did Bush pass legislation that will reduce them by 70%
(I'll give you a hint - no/yes).

Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?

Clinton joined Bush and the (then) Democratic congress in unanimously
rejecting ratification of the Kyoto accord.

My memory of Kyoto was that Clinton signed but it did not submit it to
Congress because he did not have the votes to get it passed.

Your recollection was wrong. Congress has to pass it before it can be
signed by the president (95-0 is a little beyond "not having the
votes" at any rate).

Wrong. A treaty is signed and then sent to the Senate for ratification
for it to become binding. It can be signed by the President or his
representative, usually the Secretary of State.

In fact my recollection turns out to be exactly right. Clinton never
submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. The vote you are
talking about was a Senate resolution expressing its dissatisfaction
with the treaty. It was NOT, however, a ratification vote. President
Clinton negotiated and signed Kyoto and was actually accused by some
of trying to implement its provisions by Executive Order. To say that
he rejected it is purely and simply about as far from reality as you
can get. Fact: Clinton supported Kyoto, and Bush rejected it and
essentially rescinded the US signature to it.

I actually did apply for a position that would have taken me to Iraq,
FWIW. I didn't get the job. Happy?

Did you apply for something for which you were QUALIFIED?

Very much so.

Then I'm left wondering why you didn't get hired. Or maybe the job was
not in Iraq, maybe it could only theoretically have taken you there
briefly.

1. Give taxcuts to the people who need the money and will spend it.

So far, I agree (though would add "or invest it")

Investment capital is not that helpful when you have as much extra
industrial capacity as the US had for the last three years, and
interest rates are already as low as they can get. You need to
stiulate consumption, not capital investment. (This is related to why
the Fed policy has not been that helpful in getting the economy going
again. To the degree it was helpful, it was by allowing a massive wave
of home mortgage refinancing that increased disposable income and
provided cash for consumer spending.)

2. Increase government spending in ways that will stimulate the
economy.

Here's where we part company, in most cases. At any rate, Bush HAS
increased government spending (even without including military
spending).

Not in ways that are effective to stimulate the economy.

Bush did very little of either.

I'd say history has proven you wrong on that already.

Well, what Bush did or did not do is a matter of fact. Whether what he
did or did not do was effective in stimulating the economy is a matter
of opinion. Most economists and even his former Secretary of the
Treasury will tell you that what Bush did could be only marginally
effective at best. You, as a True Believer, will no doubt have a
different opinion. We'll have to see whether this current "recovery",
jobless as it is, has any staying power.

I don't think anyone should
have to pay more taxes as a percentage than the rich already do -
though I know we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Since we can't balance the budget with tax rates like they are, what
do you propose then, raising taxes on the bottom 95%? Cut Social
Security benefits so that we can afford those taxcuts?

There are two elements to generating tax revenue. Income and tax
rates. They are directly proportional. You increase tax revenues by
either increasing the tax rate OR by increasing the earnings. If you
can stimulate the economy out of a recession by lowering the tax rate,
ultimately the growth in the economy will produce increased tax
revenues (I didn't buy that when Reagan first proposed turning around
the Carter economy, but have obviously seen the light).

Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

Give me a reference on Kerry's so-called taxcuts for businesses and
we'll talk specifics- if you dare.

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html

I knew it:

"Kerry will offer a trade: He would cut taxes on U.S. corporations in
exchange for forfeiting current tax benefits for moving money and jobs
overseas."

Are you saying that you are opposed to that idea?

Nope. Are you still saying that Kerry didn't say he was going to cut
taxes on business?

I NEVER said he wasn't. What I said was show me the specifics and
we'll talk about it. As I predicted, it turned out to be a business
taxcut targeted to help the American worker, in this case by trying to
stem the flow of jobs out of the US, something that Bush has refused
to address, despite the pleas of even GOP Congressmen. Note that
Kerry's proposed "taxcut" also removes present tax incentives for
moving jobs overseas.

JP

(Hunrobe) wrote in message ...
(Jonesy)

wrote in part:

From the luna.org site, Bush and his minions equated or linked al
Qaeda to Iraq or Saddam many times. Let's see if you can follow this
huge leap of logic:

1.) Al Qaeda took down the WTC.

2.) Saddam/Iraq is in bed with al Qaeda, thus

3.) Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Wow, I guess it's just my superior intellect that can connect the dots
like that, huh?

Of the 22 quotes on that site, 21 are post-9/11 yet not a single one even
mentions 9/11.
"Huge leap of logic"?
So you think it's logical that he so desperately wanted to link Iraq to the
9/11 attacks that Bush simply forgot to even mention 9/11.

Or, instead of painting themselves into a corner that would be
impossible to get out of, they instead decided to use implication and
innuendo to accomplish the same task.

If the implication was not intended, how is it that nearly 70% of
Americans drew this conclusion?

Is it your "superior intellect" or your emotional response to GWB that makes
you think that passes for logic?

Since you have not pointed out the logical flaw, but instead tried to
use some red herring, I think you should reserve your logic lectures
for after your remedial coursework in it.
--
Jonesy

(Hunrobe) wrote in message ...
Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:



But to summarize:

Q: Did your claimed 10,000 liters of anthrax show up?
A: No.


You seem very fond of simplifying (maybe even oversimplifying) complex issues
Frank so here's a few yes/no question for you:
1- Were all those UN resolutions demanding Hussein account for the materials
passed solely to satisfy someone's idle curiousity, i.e., did the UN believe
they had evidence that he possessed such materials?
2- Did Hussein comply with the terms of any of those resolutions?
3- Were the UN weapons inspectors ever given complete and unfettered access?

4-Which one of the above constitutes a mandate to unilaterally engage
in miltary operations, in direct contravention of the governing body
mentioned above?
--
Jonesy

David Kerber wrote:

In article ,
says...

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:


Frank Krygowski wrote:



Mark Hickey wrote:



Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
subway?


Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?


Seven.

At worst, you are lying. At best, deceiving...Reminds me of a certain
administration.....

There were 12 individuals killed. Not the 7000 that you imply!


Oh, come on! You are intentionally mis-reading his post. He meant 7
people, not 7 thousand people, and you know it.

.....


point taken.

Frank Krygowski writes:

Tim McNamara wrote:

Well, it *is* a WMD.

I've long been a little dissatisfied about that phrase or acronym.
The US has many, many weapons that can destroy much bigger "masses."
And what we've done in Iraq certainly qualifies as mass destruction.

Agreed.

Seems to me the meaning of the phrase is really "A weapon we don't
allow them to have (whether or not we have it)."

Agreed 1000%.

Not that I want (or wanted) Iraq or anyone else to have tons of high
explosives, nuclear weapons, sarin or mustard gas or anything else.
But it does sound like the shorthand being used ought to be followed
by "wink, wink."

The irony escapes most Americans, just as it does the President.