The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy wrote: The Encyclopaedia Galactica defines a robot as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With."
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent.
Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
mrbrown wrote:i still dont see a plane sticking out of the pentagon.
and i lost interest after about 3 min.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Actually, he was the most reactive president.
The information that there was something huge afoot was given to him and all Whitehouse and Senate Defence Commitee members in 2000 before Bush took command. This is something you'd know if you read the 9/11 commission report (Or you can DL and play the free Text-To-Speech version), as well as Richard C Clarke's book Against All Enemies, or James Risen's State Of War
Bush is no great president, he was asleep at the wheel for 9/11, his government allowed the greatest invasions into your personal privacy, and even managed to side-step the Constitution's protections on your right to unreasonable search, all while making it VERY attractive for major US companies to outsource American's jobs to foreign countries and pay far less taxes than you as an individual pays. That was just the first 4 years. In the last 2 years, they've managed to watch one of the major metropolitan areas (that classically voted Democrat) basically get pounded on and the single largest loss of life in US history happen unchecked over 3 days while doing nothing (say what you want, he had the power to activate Reserve units in case of a disaster, the buck stops somewhere, hold him responsible), all while dumping more money into Iraq than 3 Vietnam wars, Totally whiffing on capturing on Bin Laden, and not really secure either Iraq or Afghanistan (remember that place?) or make things better on the whole than they were under Hussein. Not to mention the fact that he's taken historic economic surplusses and fiscal prosperity and basically turned them into record debts... We're still watching what is happening with North Korea, but basically, NK has re-agreed to a deal that was hashed out and signed under Clinton's Administration... How is this a feat?
The next President, Democrat Republican or Independant, is going to have to spend their first term cleaning up after the Bush Administration.
How do you call this kind of underachieving mess great?
Rollinredcavi wrote:All I have to say is that this video shows the real problem with the world. The middle east, the WHOLE middle east.
And most important. THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT BUSH. If it was any other president that would just sit on their asses, we would have been attacked again.
The most proactive president this country as ever seen. I will be sad to see him go in two years. If the democrats get seat again... well, we can only pray that our nation is not wipped off the map.
Quote:If you like Bush - I don't think you should be thanking God. You should probably be thanking Satan for that one. Short of Satan - you might consider thanking KOTL (j/k KOTL - I would never really blame Bush on you)
THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT BUSH.
Rollinredcavi wrote:^^^3 to 4 times more people died of food poisoning in 2001 than died at 9/11 ground zero. More importantly - a HELL OF A LOT more people died in WW2 than people who have so much as even seen the WTC. What is it that some people tell the French now? "You can't speak German?! - you're welcome." Guess what - WW2 was a much bigger and more important war than the "war on terror" could ever hope to be. A madman with a fetish for genocide could have conquered the world. OSB IS NOTHING COMPARED TO HITLER. Go tell a WW2 veteran how you think 9/11 is more important than Pearl Harbor - and prepare to get smacked in the head with his cane. You'll deserve it too.
You actually believe the hore @!#$ you just said.
More people were killed in the world trade center attack than were killed at pearl harbor. Plain and simple.
BUSH IS THE SHIZZNIT!
Rollinredcavi wrote:^^
John Kerry even said that he was going to use "Diplomacy" to defeat the terrorists. If you can believe that "talking" the terrorist down would work... yeah ok. Nearly the whole middle east wants every other "Infidel" person killed in the name of allah. The general public the the middle east are not extremist but the powerful figures over there are, and they want to kill everyone in every way they can. And that is not my words, Its the words of the terrorists. Yeah great people to take a democrat's philosify on. They say " Why cant we just talk to them and stop all this fighting". HAHAHAAH, great idea... Come on bastardking, even you know that is an absolutely retarded idea. And that is exactly what the democrats are using as a party plan for upcoming elections.
Quote:
And as for Osama, it would have been nice to put a piece of lead in his head, but the most important figure to take out in that region was Sadam. Dont believe me...well since you wanted to start about WWII, here is a little bit of info that you just might find a little interesting...
Quote:
It all starts back at the days of Hitler's party rising into power. Through a series of unfortunate events and politcal genious, Hitler became the leader of the Nazi party and Germany. At the start of WWII Germany aligned with Italy who was very near the middle east and just across a sea from Africa. The British and some American troops were stationed all over north africa and the middle east where Hitler definatly didnt not want them. He sent in troops in Africa (were the Africa Corp was coined) and enlisted certain "rebels" in the middle east who were did not like that other nations had military stations in thier "holy land". Hitler sent these rebel armies thousands of weapons to carry out attacks on small British military bases around the land. This group of rebels was actually a political party which was created in the early part of the century that was trying to get rid of the British control over the country. You may have heard of them, the Baath party. One member of this party, Khairullah Tulfah, Saddam's uncle, became an alliance with the Nazi party. After getting out of prison in 1947, for whatever reason Saddam moved in with his uncle, where he became a member of the Baath party. Where his uncle thought him the political views of his party, basically the nazi party. So after time what you have is a ruler who created is politcal agenda with nazi beliefs.
Quote:
That all came to be because of the Grand Mufti who was the leader of this rebal party that was actually in physical contact with Hitler, it is even reported that they became quite good friends. So in other words the Baath party, was kept running though a funding from the slaughterings of the Jews and Serbs in the middle east, and the endless amounts of military fundins from nazi germany itself. This group that commited to the holocost in the middle east was most of the members of the Baath party, was funded by Hitler and called the Hanzars (or somthing like that). This politial party grew into power exactly the same way that Hitler did. And out of that came the former leader of Iraq, Saddam.
Quote:
I dont car how Bush got intel from Iraq, or even if his advisors made it up, they did the right thing even if that is true, its not but it doesnt matter.
Quote:
And this Baath party was basically the first muslim group that would kill themselves to kill others and the suicide bombing type stuff. Thus making Iraq the center of terrorist organization because it was the first extremist muslim state. So for anyone who thinks there is no link between Saddam and terrorism, you are sadly uninformed.
Quote:
So for all of you saying that Iraq is wrong... plain and simple, your wrong.
Quote:
You wasted your time typing somthing that... well... wrong. Some stuff is true, like the spening money. So @!#$ what. I am glad he did.
Quote:
Personal privacy, Bush didnt go any farther than Clinton did. Remember the Eschelon program.
Quote:
Which did they same thing, only president Bush had the decency to ask the public first. Yes thats right, Clinton was lying to you and spying in on phone lines and all sorts of stuff behind everyones back. Get over the phone line thing, even if they were listening to every person, you wont get arrested if you say " gun" or "bomb" on the phone. There would have to be beyond reasonable doubt for anyone to even assume your going to blow somthing up. It would be one of the best policies we could adopt. It's just the retarted people out there that think their lives are more important that anothers that keep complaining about privacy.
Quote:
Plus our economy is just as high as clintons was. Not only that but we are paying back national debt at the fastest rate our country has ever done so.
Quote:
You cant capture Bin Laden when you are being forced to stand down by other nations and retarded generals. Plus the fact that Bin Laden is definaly not doing to much right now. He has no more resources and no ability to call shots.
Quote:
Outsourcing of jobs is a direct relation to the corruption of Unions in the nation. If you allow every factory worker to get paid over $20 and hour for putting a steering wheel on a car your prices are driven to the highest levels in the world. And you wonder why it is attractive to move out of the country. Get rid of the selfish unions and you have companies that can produce goods for nearly half the price they are right now. This brings TONS of money back into the US system and will offer attractive oprotunities for other companies to move back in to the States, which creates more jobs and gives people incentive to rely on US companies. Oh yeah, and Unions are 99% Democrat, funny that they are the ones complaining about outsourcing the most. And the Demmies want to raise taxes even more, Wow, idiocy at its finest.
Quote:
Give me George W. as president any day of the week, he is one of the last true politicians who cares about the US, the rest might as well be considered terrorists or communist.
Rollinredcavi wrote:Gam... I dont even know where to start on your extremely opinionated, well stupididy.
Quote:
Now dont get me wrong, you are one of the very few people that actually do some research before arguing, but you forget the remember that it is just that... and arguement. So you go on and on with non-factual informantion and some factual information. And then when someone posts factual information you make up some excuse for why you dont believe the link I posted above. Want to know how true it is, well there has been TV programs on the History and Discovery channels describing exactly how Saddam is a direct political desendant from the Nazi Germany. And yes I know my @!#$ about WWII.
Quote:
So your question about why we havnt got back 100% of the jobs, we were in an economic recession. Now we are in a time of prosperity and jobs are coming back, whether your going to admit it or not.
Quote:
There is no solid basis whatsoever to say that we are not safer after going to Iraq. And yes I agree there is no way to say that we are. But this is a matter of opionion and can never be proven. But I can sure tell you that with absolutely ludacris Liberal democrats in office, your are going to be much more vulnerable to terrorist attack. If you can't understand that then I know you are basing nothing off of fact. The current day republican party is by no means perfect, but is by far better for the current world politics than a Democrat who obviously has little care for the safety of the country and would rather worry about "personal liberties" which in themselves are obsolutely minimalistic to the need for national safety.
Quote:
You even deny the truth about the echelon program.... Wow... thats all I have to say. wow.
Quote:
No child left behind is a failure, you are correct on that one; however, since Bush make a very good political move by cutting taxes for the portion of americans that spend the most money on goods, wages, and anything they desire, I now make more money and can send my children to private schools where they will recieve a good education. And yes, imediatly after Bush passed the tax cuts I recieved a wage increase along with all of the employees I worked with. Calculate it all you want those tax cuts that give the rich more money will be spent and circulated back to where you origionally are trying to say they should go.
Quote:
You beat completely around the point about the unions possing the greatest threat to US companies.
Quote:
Just after WWII we were still in an industrialized society rebuilding from a pretty rough period in the country. Unions in an industrialized society are very necessary.
Quote:
Back in those days the middle class person made a far less percentage of wages when compaired to todays world.
Quote:
In this fairly new technological society there is no need for factory workers that make more money that the average income.
Quote:
Lets face it, they didnt have to go to college or train hard at all and yet they recieve full benifits... stupid.
Quote:
Cut their wages by 10% even, and have them pay $50 more a pay period for thier benifits. Thats billions of $ more a year that allows companies in the US to remain competitive instead of going bankrupt and having to move out of the country to continue profiting.Quote:
I understand this line of reasoning, but, why make it more attractive for those major corporations to move shop to a foreign country (don't forget: they have to pay severance to all the workers here, pay out closing costs, and pay all due taxes before they can even consider opening up shop which also entails usually building the buildings, electrical, water supply, roads, and other infrastructure, hiring other employees, training them to do the same jobs as well as fixing their employee turn-over costs) and dump all that money?
As for cutting wages tomorrow and incurring those extra costs: put yourself in their shoes. They have to pay union dues, and usually (if you're working in a Union right now, please correct me if I'm wrong, I've been out of a unionised shop for about 5 years) they pay group medical separately, just like everyone else.
It's all a nice idea until you try and put it into practise. This is a foible of a lot of Republican romanticists, it's not just you. It's the "walk a mile in the other guy's moccasins" factor.
Quote:
The people in the US these days frown heavily upon companies which move over shore, which obviously creates a bad public relations situation. Simply put, unions make up almost all of those employed by the largest of corporations and factories and they get paid to much. So those corporations and factories much raise prices of goods produced to even remain competative. So you drop wages to sane levels, require that employees pay more for benifits, and the general public, the factory or corp, and the whole US economy benifit from a company that stays in the US and offers competitive pricing compared to goods produced out of country.
Not true. GM, Ford and Chrysler were competative all through the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's because of sound business practices. In the mid-80's, thanks to unbridled inflation and unfair competition from Japanese manufacturers, market share slipped, but profits stayed high until the early 90's (under GHW Bush, Remember "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"?), and thats when things really went awry. Combine a lot of bad business decisions by GM, Chrysler only marginally hanging on, and Ford focusing more on foreign brands, you get major slippages in the auto industry, and the manufacturing sector that supported it as a whole. Also figure that there was the fall out from Reganomics, Bushonomics 1, and you had that recession that lasted for 5 years until about 1997/8, when 5 years of fiscal prudence pulled the US into good economic favor.
Quote:
London and Madrid... wow one year ago, great find, hahah. A lot happens in one year to and organization like al quida. Osama doesnt have nearly as much power as he did 5 years ago. And there is no way for you do even begin disputing that. Are there still some powerful groups out there that can carry out attacks like that, sure. They are just much fewer now.
Prove this to me.
Where I work, there is a list of ~400 organisations that have ties to terrorism. They are all under financial and operational surveillance. When I started, the list was 138. You tell me how it is that Al-queda doesn't have as much power as they did before. Are you totally forgetting that they are recruiting and training in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and former soviet republics as well as in UAE, Sudan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia?
Do you honestly think that Al-qaeda is just Bin Laden? I seriously want to know this because it will go a long way to explaining why you're not getting why terrorism is such a hard nut to crack. Think of it as a large criminal group where people work with others on a casual basis, no hard heirarchy is formed, and plans are executed on more or less an ad-hoc basis after approval.
Look, you want to believe they're on the run and all will be well, great, whatever gets you through the night. I would rather see them denied financial, human and material resources in order to destroy their ideological base. You want to make things safer in the mid-east, and the west? Make life better for the average Iraqi, Afghani and all those in the other countries I listed above. Its still no picnic in Saudi Arabia, the average person lives in non-air conditioned apartments that are akin to batchelor apartments while the Saudi Elite live on multi-million dollar stipends. It really fuels the fire when they can barely find good paying work, much less provide for their families.
Quote:
So basically Its almost pointless to type anything to you because you say that you are one of the few that will admit when they are wrong, but your lying when you say that. Point in hand, the editorial that you say is so false because its an editorial, was also on TV episodes on the most factual and un-sugar coated channels available.
SHOW ME THE PROOF. If you can dig it up, and produce it, I'll have no problem. Until then, it's just your word. Name of production or series, and copyright date.
Here's a bit of information: If you want to say something is the way it is, you generally don't pull from ONE person. You need multiple sources for proof if you're talking about editorial because its one person's take on things. If, however, you have objective journalistic reporting (there is a difference between editorialising and reporting), you are the one that gets to decide what it is that you think.
Here, I'll make it REALLY REALLY simple:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=editorial
ed‧i‧to‧ri‧al /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/ Pronunciation[ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-]
- Noun
1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.
2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.
3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/journalism
jour·nal·ism (jūrn-lzm) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "journalism" [P]
n.
1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.
Editorial - opinion
Journalism - facts, no opinion.
Quote:
So really, sorry GAM I got you on that one. I have proved to you that Saddam was a direct leftover of the Nazi party ideology and your still going to try to refute that. Either follow your word or dont tell me I am wrong when I give you the truth.
I reiterate my remarks on anti-semitism. Hezbollah is anti-semitic, they're not Nazis by simple fact that they're not Aryans. (There is a speech, which one I'm not exactly sure, but the running joke Hitler trots out is that the Jews deserve Israel as much as the Arabs deserve Palestine)
Ideology of the Nazis is that the Aryan/Caucasians are the supreme race and that all should serve them.
Ideology of Saddam Hussein is that he was the supreme ruler of Iraq, and that all should serve him.
Similar but not the same, again, Hussein was a Sunni Persian, not a Catholic Aryan.
You also patently did NOT read the links on the Ba'ath party. You'll realise upon reading them, that the Ba'ath party not only started about 10 years after Nazis pulled out of North Africa, but, that the Nazis really had no great presence in the Mid-east with the exception of Egypt, and this was of little consequence because there was no Suez Canal. Further, the Ba'ath party had little ideologically to do with the Nazis, except for a vague socialism.
One thing that you also fail to realise, Saddam's uncle might have been through all this, but he was not a major player in the Ba'ath party in Syria, nor Iraq nor Jordan. The other thing: the Ba'ath party had no political toe-hold in Iraq until about 1963. All through the late 40's and 50's Iraq was one of the most westernized countries in the middle east. Hardly an extremist nation.
Here's a tip. Before you insult me again. Do me a favor and actually READ what I wrote, think about it, then read what I have referenced. I did NOT reference opinion, I referenced fact. You have yet to reference anything that is not one person's opinion. Until you're ready to actually do that, don't bother wasting my time or Dave's server space.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
RaiLS wrote:You guys can be real pricks, you know that? Take it for just face value, as a tribute to all those people. Would you talk @!#$ about a tribute for Pearl Harbor? Jesus Christ, America makes me sick sometimes.
You know, it took the third time looking at it to pull out any bit of political bull@!#$. I was too intranced at the images of the atrocities that took place that day.
Say what you want about all the crap with the war out here and what not. Hell, I am over in Iraq right now and, well I'll reserve my feeling about us being over here. I will say that I am not re enlisting, but to say that we shouldn't have take any action in response to 9/11 is ludacris at best.
I can't wait to read the back pedaling after this too.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I hadn't heard of a connection, and from what I've read here and in related articles, I don't see any causative link between Arab anti-semitism (which predates Nazism if you read Yasser Arafat's Biography) and Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khairallah_Talfah
I will admit that's the first I've seen of it, but the Ba'ath party's rise in Syria, Iraq and Jordan are all independent of the Nazi Regime. Even if Talfah was that influential a leader over Hussein, it doesn't explain the sociopathic (ie the murder of individuals, even direct family) rise that Hussein had. The other thing that I find curious is that I have not found anything relating to Talfah politically, other than his monumental corruption as the Mayor of Baghdad. I haven't done much research, I admit, but if he was more than just a Nazi-sympathiser and anti-semitist (like the writer and influence of Ba'athist doctrine) I have yet to see it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's not readily apparent.
As for keeping the 3rd riech alive, there are enough brain-washed twats to do that in neo-nazi, skinhead, and Christian Identity movements. I don't think they'd stoop to passing on their legacy to a bunch of Persians and Bedouin. Talfah wrote a pamphlet at the time that went "Three things that should never have been created, Jews, Persians and flies." Considering that about 1/3 of Iraqis are Persian, that might have been a bad title. If the Ba'aths are the inheiritors of the reich, I seriously question the stability of whichever Nazi party official thought of that. It's an interesting idea, but I don't personally think it's anything more than a co-incidence, both stood for absolute power, and both wanted to eliminate all those not of their blood line (which happens to exclude Jews in both cases, but in the case of Ba'ath includes Turkmen, Kurds, Chrisitians, and Persians). Again, similar ideals, but I don't see the causative link other than similar ideology. You could say that the Chinese have a similar link due their purging of Buddhism after the annexation of Tibet as well...
Something that I think may also shed a bit of light on Ba'ath party ideology: http://www.baath-party.org/eng/constitution.htm
If you pardon some of the Grammatical errata and spelling errors, its interesting if nothing else. It doesn't openly state anything anti-semitic, there is some ideology that could be interpreted as such (Article 7 & 11 just as a for instance).
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I still stand by what I said before, if there is an ideological link, I think it's coincidental and based around anti-semitism, and not specifically true Idealist congruency.
Upper-echelon Nazis basically had contempt for all non-aryans with few exceptions (I refer back to Hitler's Palestine jab, I'll look for a link to it when I get home, can't search @ work) so I can't really see a merging of ideals, rather an acceptance of that particular group's power over the region and when the job is accomplished, wholesale slaughter of their former ally.
Remember, Nazism was based around the ideal of Aryan supremacy, not about anti-semitic/anti-Zionist cabals.
I see what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree with it.