Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.usa)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:31:35 -0500

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Klaus Heitman <Klaus@Heitman.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To a non-USian it is interesting to note just how much the average
>>>> American view comes out of a party political perspective. Clinton
>>>> lied about Lewinsky, Bush lied about WMD. Both are therefore liars.
>>>> I pray every night for the day when the childish and self indulgent
>>>> political party wrangling of Americans does not affect the lives of
>>>> people outside the borders of that unhappy country. Let the USA
>>>> self destruct but don't let it take the rest of the world down
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> To a USian it is interesting to note just how distorted a picture
>>> the average non-American view comes from. Clinton lied about
>>> Lewinsky (he knowingly told an untruth).
>>
>> Depends on your legal definitions. He was not convicted of anything,
>> by the way.
>
> Plea bargain, by the way.

No. He admitted to testifying falsely, not to telling an untruth. The legal
point is that you can make a mistake in testimony ( about what the
definition of 'sexual relations' is in precise language, while not
committing perjury. About as credible as Bushes claims of WMDs.

>
>> And certainly, a moral indiscretion is not quite the same thing as
>> being the 'Butcher of Bagdad' killing tens of thousands of innocents
>> in an illegal war for political ends.
>
> Nope, Bill Clinton is no Saddam Hussein.

Get a clue. The Butcher of Bagdad is G.W.B who used the 'U.S. military' to
terrorise Iraqis ( see "shock and awe' ) and ended up killing tens of
thousands of them, mostly in the Baghdat ( sunni ) areas. Nobody has shown
that Saddam has killed anyone.

>
>>> Bush did NOT lie about WMD (pretty much
>>> every intelligence agency on the planet, including France, was
>>> fairly sure that Saddam was hiding WMDs) since his statements were
>>> the truth as it was known at the time.
>>
>> Apparently, you only object when OTHER people lie.
>
> No, I just recognize the difference between 'lie' and 'error'. You
> obviously do not.

So your claim is that Bush is just REALLY fucking dumb? Not so fast buster.
As 80-90% of the public found the evidence 'unconvincing' that means you
have to be stupider than 8-% of the people. That works out to an IQ that is
below even his most ardent critics evaluation..

>
>> Fact is that most
>> govenrments accepted the U.N. reports. Only Bush tried to sell
>> selective and distorted 'intelligence' from unsavory and known liars
>> and turn it into a feeble excuse. Their only 'salvation' would have
>> been if they could have found at least *some* WMDs so that they
>> could bury the issue of quantity under big headlines, but they
>> failed because they underestimated the degree to which the WMDs had
>> been cleaned out by the U.N. inspection teams. Claimss of stupidity
>> and ignroance aside, Bush had no legal basis for war ( factual and
>> incontrovertible evidence ) but only a 'legal fiction' that he
>> generated as cover.
>
> Whatever drugs you're doing, change them. You were either living in a
> convent or are delusional.

Nope. Problem is that I have very good critical thinking skills and thus I
am far in front of the drooling idiots like you that can't get a clue.

>
> Or, to use your definitions I could simply say you're a liar.

Only in the eyes of those who live in a fantasy world where what the
president says must be true. Facst seems to pass you by, don't they. However
a critical examination of your posts shows one thing. Your claims are NEVER
based on facts or the need for proofs.

>
>>> I pray every night for a day when the
>>> childish and self-deluded sniping of non-Americans does not affect
>>> the lives of people outside the borders of this happy country. Let
>>> Europe self destruct even if the rest of the world wouldn't be able
>>> to tell the difference.
>>
>> I keep hopoing that idiots like you will wake up and start using
>> their brains. I am always disappointed.
>
> In other words, you are in Stage 2 of Democratic Denial - "We lost
> because the voters are stupid".

Wrong. I think I stated elsewhere that Bush won mainly because politics is
about 'identification with a social group', in this case the Bible Belt
rednecks. Kerry was too intellectual to appeal to the masses. That is not
'democratic denial' as I am neither a republican or a democrat. The
Libertarians consider me a 'centrist'. See the 'political compass' test.

>
>> Note: the main reason that Bush was
>> re-elected over Kerry seems to be that political office is more about
> :'identification' of the candidate with a social group ( the right
> wing bible
>> belters ) rather than reasoned arguments. Kerry had the fault of
>> being too intellectual and reasoned. Guess that says something.
>
> No, Kerry had the fault of not having any positions or beliefs of his
> own other than that he should be President because of 5 months in
> Vietnam.

Actually, the fact that Bush had no exposure to real military training was a
minor issue and mostly raised by the Rebublicans to try to divert attention.
Kerry, at least, served with honor and knows what war is about. Bush still
considers it a game that he can play to keep attention from his disasterous
economic and social policies. Equally obviously, you never took the time to
listen to both answers and compare them, did you?

>
> Until the Democrats wake up and realize they need their own agenda and
> that vilifying the other side is simply not enough, they are going to
> continue to lose national elections. They might continue to lose
> anyway, but at least they'd be losing while proposing something more
> substantive than "we're not them".

I will agree that the U.S. democratic party is a bit at loose ends in the
current rise of right wing fascism. Have you considered how the other German
political parties fared as Nazism rose in Germany? Probably about as well.

Quantcast