Re: Iraq update

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:16:59 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@xxxxxxx>
scribed into the ether:

>
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:tmomo1hh1ah2q4os2oqqvopdagd4p8nu3r@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>>>So? Haven't you ever taken econ 101? Price adjustments are almost
>>>>>never
>>>>>in
>>>>>proportion to the change in output.
>>>>
>>>> The historical inequities of people with power screwing over those
>>>> without
>>>> do not justify the continued practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really, econ 101 isn't that hard, why don't you take it?
>>
>> I will when you do.
>
>
>I did. Did real well too.

Nobody will ever believe that. Your really quite staggering ignorance of
even basic ideas in the field is quite embarrasing for someone who claims
to be an expert. Of course, it's just a claim: you've never even come close
to substantiating it, despite dozens of requests to do so.


>>>> Your arguement is that the place is ugly based on seeing some pictures.
>>>> I
>>>> counter this with firsthand testimony, and suddenly it is "not an
>>>> arguement".
>>>
>>>
>>>All you presented is your subjective opinion, which doesn't mean jack ***
>>>to my subjective opinion.
>>
>> And yet you feel that we should drill the whole place out in part because
>> it is ugly and nobody would really care.
>
>
>If people care, why do so few visit? Everyone uses oil.

Half the year, it simply isn't a very pleasant place to go. Then there are
the sanitized masses who won't go anywhere that a billion people hadn't
already been so that they can walk the well-traveled trails and buy crappy
souveniers. People like you, mostly.

> When did your subjective opinion
>> become the basis of an action, but mine is invalid to stopping that
>> action?
>
>
>Because more people use oil than will ever visit that arctic swamp.

So what?

>>>> Everyone breathes too, but to hear the conservatives tell it, no tree
>>>> should ever be left standing.
>>>
>>>
>>>What conservative ever said that? Be specific.
>>
>> It's hyperbole, Shawn.
>
>
>Ah, you were lying.

I notice how you clipped the remainder of that sentence...you really should
have gone through the effort of looking up what that word means. But I'm
not surprised you didn't.

>>>I've never heard a conservative say anything like that. I say you're
>>>lying.
>>
>> Would that be anything like you claiming nobody ever goes there?
>
>I was using hyperbole.

The hypocrisy is a nice touch. Moron.

>>>>>Shold it serve the needs of the many, or the few?
>>>>
>>>> Wrecking an ecosystem with oil "exploration" (see: euphamism for
>>>> drilling
>>>> lots of holes in the ground, setting off tons of explosives, and just
>>>> wrecking the place in general) hurts the many.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong on two counts.
>>>
>>>First, exploration and drilling don't hurt the ecosystem.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...oh...oh my.
>>
>> Even without the explosives and the drilling, simply bringing up the
>> necesary supplies and equipment for a number of humans adequate to doing
>> the explosives and the drilling to live in the area (even if all they do
>> is
>> sit around not actually doing their jobs) will cause grave harm to the
>> ecosystem.
>
>
>Uh, no.

I accept your concession speech, short as it was.

>>>Second, using land to beneft dozens instead of millions hurts the many.
>>
>> In many cases, the wants (not needs) of the many can go *** themselves.
>
>There are more of us. We win, you lose.

And yet, there is no drilling in ANWAR, is there?

So either:
A) There are not more of you
or
B) The majority is going and fucking itself as it should.

Either way, you're wrong.

>> All you need to do is look at the television ratings and see how the worst
>> kinds of brainless pablum gets the highest ratings to know that the
>> majority of people are imbeciles who can barely be trusted with the task
>> of
>> tying their own shoelaces, nevermind making major policy decisions.
>
>
>Ah, the "everyone but me is a moron" argument...

Strange, I said nothing of the kind. Although, given your lack of
fundamental comprehension of everything else in the world, your inability
to distinguish between "majority" and "everyone" is not much of a
surprise...after all, you fall squarely into the lower echelon of the
aforementioned majority.

> Cheap tobacco, cheap cotton, cheap>
>> lots-of-other-stuff. There was a minority who didn't benefit from it, but
>> why care about them, it's only the majority that matters, right Shawn?
>
>
>Slavery in fact wasn't better for the majority, that's why it's so rare in
>the world. It just isn't economically productive. You would know this if
>you ever took an economics course.

Would this be the same economics course that taught you about how turn of
the century workers were not systematically oppressed by their bosses?

Let's see...supplying a worker with substistance-level food and shelter and
no pay vs paying that worker a living wage...which one costs more and thus
inflates the cost of the end-product?

Nobody else wonders why nobody has ever agreed with you about
anything...why do you?

>>>> Plus, it's not as though it's an economical place to get oil. Just ask
>>>> the
>>>> Soviets/Russians how successful their efforts have been to get oil out
>>>> of
>>>> Siberia.
>>>
>>>
>>>Last time I checked, Alaska is not in Siberia...
>>
>> They have nearly identical weather (and geology), you imbecile.
>
>
>So do Alaska and Hawaii, for sufficient value of 'nearly'...

If your version of sufficiency is "there are rocks there".

Lots of oil in Hawaii, is there? Gold? Silver? Strange, I've not heard
about the Hawaiian gold rush like there was in Alaska. Maybe it's mentioned
in the same history books that you get your bizarre stupidity about
McCarthy from.


>>> Here's the current weather conditions in Fairbanks, which is
>>>> admittedly about a hundred miles south of the juicy parts, whose weather
>>>> will be considerably worse:
>>>>
>>>> -1 F (That'd be 33 below freezing). Dawn tommorow will be at 9:54 AM.
>>>> Sunset will be at 3:19 PM (that's a whole whopping 5 hours and 25
>>>> minutes
>>>> of daylight, most of which will be no brighter than what we consider
>>>> dusk.)
>>>> And winter hasn't even really set in up there yet. The days will get
>>>> shorter and much, much colder. That's half of the year, by the way.
>>>
>>>
>>>Some park...
>>
>> It is, actually. Way to skip the issue, however.
>
>
>The issue is the quality of the park. You have managed to shoot your own
>argument in the foot by descibing how awful the weather is there.

For half the year. Your idea of a good park is that it is open all the
time? Well, we should plow under Yosemite then too, because it gets closed
down sometimes. I'm sure that there's a half ounce of molybdenum if you
were to melt down all of Half Dome; that'd be worth the loss.

>>>> I'm sure it will do "the many" a lot of good to wreck a perfectly nice
>>>> area
>>>
>>>
>>>What perfectly nice area? I heard somewhere that the place is dozens of
>>>degrees below freezing and only gets a few hours of light a day. Sounds
>>>pretty hellish to me.
>>
>> Which is why people tend to only go there when it isn't winter
>
>
>So it's only attractive to some people some of the time...
>
>Oil is ALWAYS useful.

So? There's also lots of oil to be had in areas that have already been
ruined.

>>> If anything can actually manage to live there it must
>>>be so incredibly tough that it wouldn't even notice a little oil drilling.
>>
>> Maybe instead of failing Econ 101 for the rest of your life, you should
>> take Eco 101. Specialized organisms in borderline survival enviornments
>> are
>> MORE susceptible to new problems, not less. There are bacteria who survive
>> quite well in water only a few degrees below boiling. That's a pretty
>> harsh
>> environment. But they die almost instantly if you put them into the "cold"
>> of a mere 150 degrees. The creatures who best survive radical change are
>> the generalists who only need to adapt their behavior, not their
>> physiology. But generalists don't survive in extreme environments, so
>> those
>> environments don't contain those generalists.
>
>
>And once again you have shot your argument in it's (other) foot. Gee, if
>minor changes threaten these creatures, then either said park is not much
>different in the summer, or..

They are adapted to those changes, and even the summers up there are hardly
a sauna. There are migrations, hibernation, etc, etc. Your ignorance is
really quite astonishing.

>> Plus, even if one species can survive introduced changes, it won't be able
>> to make up for the dozen other species that it relies on suddenly dying
>> out
>> because they were not as hardy. End result is that even the strong
>> organism
>> dies...BECAUSE WE FUCKED UP THE ECOSYSTEM. Plants and animals are
>> completely dependant on one another. It's only arrogant and stupid humans
>> who believe that we are somehow above this basic truth.
>
>
>Yeah, tears well...
>
>Now you need to prove that drilling would have such an impact.

Just need to look anywhere else there is drilling. Hell, anywhere where
there is a gas station. All of the cleanup required when one of those
things get torn down...you can *** up soil and water quality just with
human excrement. Oil? Incredibly toxic, and it gets everywhere.

>>>>>Not having your property rights taken aweay is a strong reason.
>>>>
>>>> What property rights are those? The right to kill animals you find
>>>> inconvenient?
>>>
>>>The right to actually use your property and build on it.
>>
>> There are a thousand reasons that you could be prevented from building
>> something on "your" property. The odds of it being an endangered animal is
>> remote...there aren't very many of them. Kind of part&parcel of the whole
>> "endangered" bit.
>
>
>Sure it's remote, until it becomes the one reason preventing you from using
>your property.

Tough noogies for you and your property. You don't get to rule over it like
it was your own little kingdom just because your name is signed to a piece
of paper.

> Gee, I was going to build a house here, but look! An
>endangered frog! Do i tell someone about this endangered frog and lose all
>ability to use this land I paid so much for, (and incidently the ability to
>sell it because no one will buy land that can't be used) or do I kill it and
>pretend it never existed? What a conundrum...

Should have done a better job in investigating the land before you paid
money for it. The former owners are laughing their way to the bank because
you were stupid.

Stupidity need not be rewarded by the simple expediant of being callous and
committing a felony.

>>>So, basically you have no evidence whatsoever, but slander the man anyway.
>>
>> Still can't prove a negative since I said it in the above paragraph.
>> Where's the proof he WAS there? His word?
>
>
>He doesn't need to prove anything. You claim he shirked his duty. You need
>to prove that.

If he didn't show up, he shirked his duty. The question has been raised,
and it remains a question until it is answered.

>>>> Barrows Dunham, chair of the philosophy department at Temple University,
>>>> was subpoenaed by HUAC in February, 1953.
>>>
>>>HUAC again...
>>>
>>>Let me remind you, the person under discussion is McCarthy...
>>
>> ...And the culture of fear that he and his anti-red rantings engendered.
>
>You seem to forget that there really WAS a massive communist conspiracy to
>infiltrate the US government. Didn't Venona alone identify 300+?

And there was an equally large democratic conspiracy to infiltrate the
soviet government. Big deal. They had (and still have) spies, so did (and
do) we. Throwing the populace into a panic is going to serve no purpose but
to have people pointing fingers at one another to such a degree that when a
valid accusation is made it is lost in a sea of bull***.

>Why shouldn't people be afraid of that?

If communism was such a flawed idea, then its ability to actually do
anything truely harmful is basically nonexistant.

However, I do appreciate that you are agreeing with me about McCarthy's
histrionics having an influence on HUAC.

>>>And you can't tell Congress to go *** itself under any circumstances.
>>
>> The HUAC hearings were unconstitutional. There should never have been any
>> need for the 5th amendment.
>
>
>What was unconstitutional about them? What COURT said they were
>unconstitutional?

Not enough "activist" judges around, and of course, the hearings were
disbanded once people came to their senses. No need to shut down something
that is already done.

>>>> Since the people in question refused to answer, you have no basis to say
>>>> they WERE communists. Prove that they were.
>>>
>>>
>>>Funny, I ask you to provide evidence of your claims about McCarthy, but
>>>you
>>>don't do so. Now you demand evidence that these people were actually
>>>communists.
>>
>> You are the one who said that nobody that McCarthy ever accused of being a
>> communist wasn't.
>
>
>You still haven't named anyone. I mean, damn, you're so fucked up you
>repeatedly cite HUAC.

You are the only one who draws that rather bizarre distinction between the
two.

>>>Exactly. McCarthy wasn't even in the House, let alone a member of HUAC.
>>
>> Congratulations, Shawn, you've successfully learned the difference between
>> a senator and a representative. Now if you can maybe get comfortable with
>> the idea that senators and representatives might, oh I don't know...talk
>> to
>> one another, and be influenced by each other's actions, words, and
>> politics...
>
>
>Ah, so you're claiming that McCarthy had a supernatural ability to bend
>others to his will...

Because in order to convince people to do something, you need supernatural
ability?

Well, YOU might need it, since nobody has ever agreed with you on any
subject in the history of the human race...but other more reasonable people
(please note, I'm lumping McCarthy in with people more reasonable than
you...that's a very bad sign) are not so handicapped by their own gross
ineptitude.

>>>> Lynching and racism are unamerican.
>>>
>>>
>>>In a different sense of the word than is meant in the name of HUAC. Lying
>>>and racism aren't foreign, facsism and communism were.
>>
>> Democracy was foreign too. Probably should get rid of that as well; go
>> back
>> to tribal councils.
>
>
>Which were democratic...

All of them? Such intriguing fiction you delve into.



.